Christians Love A Whiner - er - Winner

Several days ago I posted the following on Facebook and Twitter: "President Trump is the winningest President ever! He is the ONLY President to be impeached ... TWICE! Now THAT'S winning! Let the door hit you in the a** on the way out!"

I admit, my Facebook and Twitter feeds aren't my blog; however, the "My Humble But Accurate Opinion" theme does tend to carry over to other parts of my online life. 

I really don't get that much social interaction from my posts on Twitter. On Facebook I get loads. Especially when they have even a hint of a derogatory emphasis on President Trump. And mostly from my friends of Christian faith. Which got me to thinking: why are so many Christians so enamored with President Trump?

Before I go any further, I want to state that I am a Christian. If you have read some of my older blog posts, you will also realize that I am not a "religious" Christian. I do recommend you check out some of those posts if you need more of an explanation. Go ahead. I can wait.

Finished? Okay, I'll continue.

From what I can tell, Christians (I'm going to use them as a group - even though I know many Christians do not consider President Trump to be all that awesome. If you are a Christian and don't think Trump to be the Second Coming, don't worry - I'm not referring to you.) think that Trump is the most Christian President we have ever had as a nation. He stands for family. He's pro-life. And he stands against evil (the mainstream media, Democrats, China, etc.) Any comment that would detract from that message is considered anathema. 

Well, if you ARE a Christian who believes Trump walks on water, you may want to stop reading.

(As you might have noticed, I dropped the "President" and refer to him just as "Trump". No disrespect is meant by this. It is simply to tighten my verbose writing.)

I believe that if you ARE a Christian, Trump should be the LAST person you should adore. And here's why:

Let's start with the "stands for family" bit. Trump has the honor of being the President with the MOST divorces - more than any other President in history. To quote the Elite Daily, "In 1990, Trump's first wife Ivana divorced him after his affair with model Marla Maples was revealed. Trump later married Maples in 1993, three months after she gave birth to their daughter Tiffany Trump. The couple was married for four years until they separated in 1997. That brings us to first lady Melania Trump, previously Melania Knauss, who met Trump at a party in 1998. The couple dated for six years before tying the knot in 2005. Melania gave birth to their son, Barron, nearly a year later." Tiffany was conceived and born out of wedlock. A very Christian ideal indeed.

Okay, let's look at his being "pro-life". This may come as a shock, but Trump was pro-choice (for Christians "PRO-ABORTION") up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Why the big change? Did he suddenly decide that every sperm is sacred? Doubtful. More likely he decided that he had a better chance of winning as a Republican than as a Democrat, and running as a pro-choice Republican would not even get him out of the Primaries.

How about that he stands against evil? Surely, that's a good reason to faun over him. Actually, no. The very Democrats that he calls evil were his brothers and sisters up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Again, see the above paragraph.

The only thing Trump values is Trump. His name is the sweetest sound in the world. That's why he puts it on his steaks and the top of towers. As President, he even refused to use the official @POTUS Twitter account, preferring his @realDonaldTrump account BECAUSE it had his name in it.

I also find it difficult to "worship" the guy who said it was okay to "grab them by the p*ssy", and use chemical agents against protesters to make a path for him to go to a church he never attended for a photo op of him holding up a Bible UPSIDE DOWN.

I think it's not too far from golden toilets to being a "golden calf". (I know, he didn't actually have a gold toilet, but it makes this funny!)

Was he an idiot? No. Actually, he was quite smart. One of the main ways to unite people is to give them a common enemy. Trump provided them in truck loads, and his "followers" gobbled them up. One of my Facebook friends made it a point to tell me that they were at the pre-Capitol riot speech and that he did NOT incite the crowd to insurrection. I'm sure the members of Jeremiah Wright's church didn't hear any "god damn America" language either. I got through about half of the transcript of Trump's speech. I gotta say, there was a quite a lot of "enemy" language spouted. Of course, about a quarter of the way through I kept getting mental images of Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura:

The Bible says that a person is "…not to think of himself more highly than he ought…" (Romans 12:3). Yet, Trump thought so highly of himself that BEFORE the 2020 election even happened he was stating that he won the election, and the only way he could lose was by voter fraud. Maybe he was a prophet too.

Speaking of the 2020 election, I'm not at all surprised that it has become the clusterf*ck that it is. Trump repeatedly told his followers that they should vote in person and not by mail. Since the coronavirus was of no concern to Republicans, all the Democrats would be too scared to go out and vote. And since Democrats would then vote by mail, all of their votes should be considered invalid. 

No surprise then, when after the polls closed many states then started counting the mail-in ballots and most went for Biden. Which is why Trump's "lead" started to disappear. That's not fraud. That's the system working as designed.

By the way, in the typical "do as I say, not as I do" Trump mentality, he voted BY MAIL.

When it comes to election fraud, I'm going to quote NPR: "The largest case of election fraud in recent U.S. history took place during the 2018 midterm elections and involved third-party ballot collection. A GOP operative illegally collected and potentially tampered with ballots in a U.S. House race in North Carolina, eventually leading state authorities to overturn the election results." As you can probably guess, Trump voted by third-party ballot collection for the 2020 election.

Of course, this also means Trump got all his election fraud tips from a reliable source: the GOP! (Or, did the GOP get the tips from Trump? Chicken? Egg?)

As far as the voter fraud allegations are concerned, Trump and his legal team have failed to provide ANY credible proof of fraud. Oh, they had a lot of theories, but no proof. During that pre-Capitol riot speech he mentioned the list of inmates who voted. To quote Monty Python in "Life of Brian" when Brian said to the crowd, "A man had two sons," and a member of the crowd yelled out, "What were their names?", I ask concerning those inmates, what were their names?

The list of individuals Trump has fired (or have "requested" letters of resignation from - same thing, by the way) since losing the 2020 election is quite extensive. If you weren't completely loyal to him, you were on the short list. 

As an example of Trump's inability to accept defeat, Chris Krebs, formerly the most senior cybersecurity official, was fired by Trump (via Twitter, no less) when he declared the election secure. Why? Because Trump wanted him to find proof of election tampering and he didn't. Because it's all about Trump, and Trump cannot stand to lose.

But firing people should come as no surprise. I think Trump may still believe he is in his reality show. 

Dominion Voting Systems has been so disparaged by Trump and his team, that they are suing. And unlike Trump's legal team, this isn't a frivolous lawsuit. We're talking defamation and slander.

Trump says that there is no way "Sleepy Joe" got more votes than him. And I have to agree. There is nothing about Biden that makes one think, "Now THERE'S a leader!" But that's the thing: people didn't vote FOR Biden; they voted AGAINST Trump. In 2016 we had to choose between two terrible candidates. Not so in 2020. 

(Full discloser: I didn't vote for Biden and I didn't vote for Trump. I believe that voting Democrat or Republican only reinforces bad behavior.)

Think about it. In order for the Democrats to overthrow the election in the way Trump says they did, it had to be a coordinated effort that knew WHICH counties would need to be impacted to turn the election, WHICH courts the legal team would file charges against so they could be thrown out, and how to get even the Trump-loving FOX News to admit that Biden won. Seriously, if the Democrats are THAT coordinated, maybe they SHOULD be in charge! 

Back during the 2016 election, Pastor Max Lucado posted the following to his blog:

"I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made a mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as “mommy,” and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people “stupid,” and “dummy.” One writer catalogued sixty-four occasions that he called someone “loser.” These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.

Such insensitivities wouldn’t be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith?" Read the rest here.

I find Max Lucado a much better example of Christianity than Donald Trump. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

I know of quite a few Christians who have left churches over less anti-Christian behavior, yet still suck from the "Trump teat" on a regular basis. (You know who you are...)

I’m not a perfect example of Christianity. I like the philosophy of "not perfect, but forgiven". The Bible says we are to be "…living epistles, read of all men" (J.P. paraphrase of 2 Cor. 3:2). I don't have a fish symbol on the back of my car because I know how I drive. And I don't have a Trump bumper sticker either!

Why do Christians insist that Trump is the best thing since unleavened bread? Maybe it's because they are tired and angry and want a change from the usual. The rhetoric, no matter how divisive, is captivating to them.

I don't know. But I can say for certain that the only thing Trump and Jesus have in common is the number of letters in their name.

©Emittravel 2021

Check Your Theology At The Door

Have you ever wondered whether or not you should take the whole Bible literally? There are many schools of thought. I can't tell you which is correct (though I'm sure some of you think you could), but I can give you something to think about. 

Long after Charlton Heston told Yul Brynner to "let my people go", God gave the people (through Moses) what has been titled "The Ten Commandments" (NOW do you get the joke?). Another name for The Ten Commandments is "The Great Shalt Nots":

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image . . . Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . . Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy . . . Honour thy father and thy mother . . . Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness . . . Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's (stuff) . . ." (Exodus 20:3-17 [KJV])

Now, Jesus came along and gave us a more positive spin on the list: "'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?' Jesus said to him, '"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.'" (Matthew 22:36-40 [NKJV])

Being that the religious are never satisfied, He was asked, "'. . . And who is my neighbor?' Then Jesus answered and said: 'A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, "Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you." So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among thieves?' And he said, 'He who showed mercy on him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:29b-37 [NKJV])

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? The Samaritan (a person who was despised by the Jews) showed compassion on what appears to be a Jew (being the person was travelling FROM Jerusalem at the time), where other Jews, even a priest and a Levite (one of the 12 tribes of Israel - who happen to be the line of the priesthood) didn't want to become "unclean" by becoming involved.

What does Jesus say? "Go and do likewise." Be the neighbor. Realize, this follows the whole, "What is the greatest commandment?" conversation. Or, more accurately, it ties directly into the "What is the greatest commandment?" conversation.

Now I ask you: what if the man who fell among thieves was a known homosexual?

"But, J.P., he wasn't."

Wasn't he? There is no information about the man outside of where he was travelling from and travelling to. Was he an outstanding member of his church? Did he tithe? Was he homosexual? We don't know. Why? Because, apparently to Jesus, it didn't matter. 

Now, I know many who will say that homosexuality is an abomination, and they will quote the Bible to prove it. Here is where the theological rubber meets the road: How do those verses line up with what Jesus HIMSELF told us were the two greatest commandments?

Okay, I lied. I CAN tell you whether or not you can take the whole Bible literally. Ready? 

Whenever you read something that lines up with the two greatest commandments, that is big "B" Bible. If it doesn't, it is small "b" bible. 

"What about what Paul wrote in the epistles regarding homosexuality being an abomination?"

Small "b" bible. 

Nowhere in the two greatest commandments or the "Ten Shalt Nots" do you read anything about homosexuality. For God, it is simply not an issue. For (religious, hyper-controlling) people? You get the idea.

©Emittravel 2020

Memorial

Today is Easter. Also known as "Resurrection Day" to Christians. It is today that we especially remember that Jesus the Christ has not only died for the sins of you and I (Google "Good Friday"), but has beaten death and provided eternal life by rising from the dead Himself.

More than a celebration, today is also a reminder that we are to live lives that give glory to Him, and be examples to all of the message of the cross and empty tomb. For most will never pick up a Bible on their own and seek out the message of the gospel ("good news" - see the above paragraph for a definition). For them it is we who must be the living example of the gospel. In a sense, we are to be a Memorial.

-j.p.

© Emittravel 2016

Make me a memorial to You.
A standard.
A stone.
A cross.
A witness to You.
To others.
Living letters.
Read by all.

You've given the power.
The anointing.
Freely given.
Freely received.
The life of Christ.
Continued through me.
Let me walk His walk.
My feet stumble.
Trip.
Fall.
Yours doesn't.

Be the light of my path.
Make it shine straight before me.
Open my eyes to see it.
Others see me.
Their eyes are open.
Watching.
Waiting for me to stray.
To slip off Your path.
To laugh.
To mock.

Direct my ways.

Make me a memorial.
A light on a hill.
To draw others to You.
Not me.
Jesus.
A standard.
A cross.
Forever standing.
Forever tall.
Forever a memorial.

J.P. Wiegand

© Emittravel 1996

Giving God a Bad Name

Is it just me, or has news of crazies doing things in the name of "God" been increasing? Recently, a police officer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was shot at point-blank range by a person citing he did it in the name of Allah. Last year a "pro-life" individual attacked an abortion clinic (which means that the lives of the doctors and patients aren't of value) in Colorado Springs, Colorado (I cite this because the majority of Christians confess to be prolife).

It doesn't seem to matter if it's standing outside of a Planned Parenthood with signs of aborted fetuses on display for children of all ages to view, or if it's someone strapping a bomb to himself and walking into a crowded market. I’m sure God (by whichever name) is really proud of His followers.

In case you missed it, that last sentence was swimming in sarcasm.

For those who have been reading this blog for a while, you are probably aware that me and religion have had a bit of a falling out. Not me and God, mind you, me and religion. Two different things. Completely. (And you don't need to write to me about the bad grammar - it was on purpose.) And the more I hear about wackos doing such heinous things to their fellow human beings, the less interest I have in religion.

Attention: harming people in the name of your religion is NOT an effective recruiting tool. You can't convince me that the God of all things has chosen nut jobs like that as a means to bring more people into His "fold". I don't care if it was Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, or Peter, Paul, and Mary. ANYONE that claims your needing to harm another life is God's way, is a FALSE voice of God.

Since my knowledge of Islam is limited, I'm not going to devote too much time here to it. You can watch the pundits on FOX News for all of that. What I am going to do is focus on Judaism and Christianity.

No one can read the Bible (I'm capitalizing "Bible" after a thoughtful exchange with a friend. "That's for you, Mike!") and not walk away without a mixed understanding of who God is. We see a vengeful God in the Old Testament, and loving, sacrificial God in the New.

There are parts of the Old that make me doubt the validity of it being "of God". Those parts are those specifically where God seems to use individuals to do his "bidding". You know, when He uses the Israelites to wipe out cities (including women and children), or when He uses other nations to "punish" the Israelites. Why do I have trouble believing those are of God? Because elsewhere you find God doing things without other individuals. You know, like the flood that took place in Genesis where He wipes out almost all living creatures (outside of Noah, and his family, and some animals, and the fish in the sea), or raining fire and brimstone down upon Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the New, God sends Jesus to take upon Himself the sins of the world and pay the price that mankind cannot pay. To make a point, you can read where it is emphasized that man cannot do it on his own, that he NEEDS a savior. And if God makes it a point of bringing salvation upon all mankind by His own hand, why did He need The Spanish Inquisition?

If you find yourself following anyone who claims to be the voice of God, RUN!! The God who created all of the universe, things seen and unseen, does NOT need the likes of anyone else to get anything accomplished. Especially if the accomplishment requires harming or taking the life of another.

Quit giving God a bad name. Especially IN His name.

© Emittravel 2016

No, No; Thank YOU!!

After writing my last post, "Yeah, But What's In It For Me?", I got to thinking about the hazards of that mentality. If you didn't read that one, you may want to take a moment. I'll wait.

If someone is always looking at what they can get FROM God, the very nature of their faith needs to be examined. They need to assess what kind, if any, of a relationship they have with God.

One of the main differences touted between Christianity and other faiths is of relationship. In Christianity, relationship with God is not based on you DOING anything to get approval from God. It is based on the acceptance of what God has done. You don't have to go anywhere, recite certain prayers at certain times of the day, or get your karma in line for God to love you. He simply does. "For God so loved the world, that He gave . . . "

That there is enough to love Him in return.

But, if your relationship with God is based on what you can get FROM Him, then you are in for a lot of heartache and struggle.

As I said, I became a Charismatic in the early 1990s. And during that time since, I've seen many movements roll through the Charismatic church. Prosperity and Healing seem to be two of the majors.

The problem is, if Prosperity is your focus, what happens to your relationship with God if things aren't so prosperous? If your job disappears, or your business collapses, or your retirement investments take a hit?

Or if Healing is your thing, what happens when you find yourself battling a three-week long cold, or cancer, or the death of a loved one - too young / too soon?

I'll tell you what happens. You will either beat yourself up over your lack of faith, or, if things are bad enough, you will question the validity of faith in God itself. Many a "born-again atheist" started as a church goer who found faith in God to be wanting. "I prayed and He didn't answer my prayer."

How would you feel if the only reason your spouse loved you was for what you provided? From the weddings I've been to, it's been "for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health". I have never heard, "for the paycheck you bring home", or, "the mind-bending orgasms you give me".

Sometimes it feels like the Christianity we sell is a bill of goods. I've heard it so many times that a person had found themselves at such a low point in their life, that the only direction to look was up. It was then that they "found Jesus". Then all of a sudden, they found they no longer needed the cigarettes, or the drugs, or the alcohol, or the whatever. God delivered them from the crap in their life and now they are walking in joy, health, and (being a tither) prosperity. This is called having a good testimony. But what if life just happens? What if you still struggle with your addictions after becoming a Christian? What if your employment (or lack thereof) situation doesn't improve? Guilt. Or you simply find yourself doubting your conversion experience.

What should one do? Focus on loving God for the who, not the what. That way, in spite of the "richer or poorer" or "sickness or health", you will enjoy a lifetime of "marital bliss".

© Emittravel 2015

Doing Time

What follows may be a little odd, coming from a person who is on a sabbatical from "intellectual Christianity", but I think it will stimulate your thinking. This follows closely in hand with a talk I gave to a group of men at a breakfast a few years ago. Since the subject matter was up to me, what I presented was a passion of mine: time and time travel. I know, a weird topic for a group of Christian men. I posted my talk (as a transcript) to my blog: "I Grasp It, But It Keeps Slippin' Outta My Hands!". Please take a moment to read that before continuing, or what follows may seem even more outrageous than it does on the surface. May I suggest skimming down until you reach the paragraph that starts with "Anyone who has gotten to know me knows that I am hooked on the concept of time and time travel", as the beginning is more of an introduction for the guys at the breakfast.

Okay. Ready to go on?

When I first embraced Christianity's Protestant flavor, one of the notable differences between it and the Catholic upbringing I had, was their view of the cross. If you have never seen one, a crucifix is a cross with Jesus on it. The Protestants embrace a cross with Jesus notably absent. The reason for the difference is that Catholics want to keep the crucifixion in front of their attention, whereas Protestants believe that, since Jesus is no longer on the cross, and has risen from the dead, the cross should be empty.

Which is right? In a sense, both.

As a quick overview, Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for their sins. The bible says that the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). This "payment" is commonly known as the grace of God: you didn't earn it - you just accepted it - God did all the work. The alternative is paying the penalty yourself.

Here's the question: What does the bible mean by "death"?

If the answer is physical death, than once you physically die, you've made the payment and "bam!" you're in heaven with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time - you can do that payment on your own!

If the answer is spiritual death, than once you sin, you've died spiritually (become separate from God), made the payment, and again, "bam!" you're with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time as well. Since we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

As a quick aside, the reason spiritual death is separation from God is that God is absolute holiness. It is not that God cannot be in the presence of sin, but sin cannot be in the presence of pure holiness. God's purity would "annihilate" the sinner. So, it is the love of God that keeps a sinner separate from Him. (Make sense?)

In the account of Adam and Eve, they were told in the day that they eat of the fruit (of the knowledge of good and evil) they would die. They ate, and didn't physically die. Actually, in pre-Jewish tradition, God slew an animal (shed the blood of an animal - killing it) and made tunics for them (Genesis 3:21). That "payment" was a temporary patch, if you will. In the Old Testament Laws, animals were sacrificed to pay for the sins of the people almost continuously. This was to cover the spiritual sin of the people temporarily, until he could send Jesus to make the payment once and for all on the cross.

So, if it is neither physical nor spiritual, what kind of death are we talking about?

Here is where I may seem a little cray-cray, and why I suggested you read "I Grasp It … "

The only kind of death that fits the penalty is "eternal separation from God". That's it. No other kind of death would fit the bill. Because of a person's sin, that person would be eternally separated from God - because like I said above, sin cannot be in the presence of a holy God.

So how did Jesus' hanging on the cross for a few hours, and dying there, pay the penalty of eternal separation? Let's look at three statements made by Jesus while on the cross:

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." (Luke 23:34)
"… My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46)
" … Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit …" (Luke 23:46)

Did you see what happened there? Jesus went from calling Him "Father", to "God", to "Father" again. The only time Jesus did not refer to God as "Father" was while on the cross. It was at that point that God "turned His head" and did not look upon Jesus, who had taken the sin of the world upon Himself (you can lookup the doctrine of the "scapegoat" on your own).

How long a time went between those statements is not known, but no matter how long, it does not add up to "eternal separation", since Jesus DID go back to calling God "Father" while still on the cross. So how DID He pay that price?

Remember at the beginning of this particular blog article, when I said that both the Catholics and the Protestants were correct in their view of the cross? They both ARE!

As I said in "I Grasp It … ", eternity is not defined as "time without end", but as "NO time". God lives outside of time. That is why He is without beginning or end (if He had beginning and end, he could not be God - as that would mean He is caused, and not cause-LESS).

In God's eyes, Jesus is "still" on the cross - separated from Him, and ALSO sitting on His right hand (Luke 22:69)

But J.P., the bible says that without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). I'm sorry, you are so right. As a matter of fact, I cut myself shaving this morning - therefore I shed blood and paid for my sins. Of course not! The shedding of blood is another way of saying DEATH.

So, the Catholic crucifix is right, because for God, Jesus is eternally separated from Him on the cross (in eternity - get it?), and the Protestant "empty" cross is right, because Jesus is no longer there.

I guess this makes me either a Catholestant, or a Protatholic. And now, back to my sabbatical.

("Doing Time" is the title of a song by Bad Religion, from the album "How Could Hell Be Any Worse?" - catch the irony?)

© Emittravel 2015

Hey, Babe: Take a Walk on the Quiet Side

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog called "Oh to be Ignorant", where I shared my desire to step back from the painting, stop staring at the brush strokes, and take in the whole "picture" of God. I wanted to share what has happened since, to let you know where that blog has taken me, and the uncertainty of where I'm going.

(If you haven't read "Oh to be Ignorant", please take a moment to read it before going on - it will help you understand what follows.)

My wife described what I've been feeling as "burn out". I think she's right. I'm not burned out on God, though. I’m burned out on the brush strokes - the driveway. To misquote Festus to Paul, "Much learning is driving you mad!" (Acts 26:24b NKJV) This is not something new. One of the symptoms of my burn out has been the complete emptiness I've been experiencing sitting through sermons over the last several months. Yes, I said "several". This is not new to me. Again, the sermons have been of high caliber - perhaps too high.

Last week everything came to a head. When we woke up Sunday morning, I told my wife that I just wanted to skip church. She said we should go - since it was a guest minister. I told her I "knew" what he was going to preach on (it was announced the previous Sunday), and I didn't want to go. We went anyway. After the service she said to me, "Halfway through I realized you were right." As a husband, I find those words don't come very often!!

The topic was "Healing Generational Issues". He pulled passages from Lamentations, Exodus, and Jeremiah (all Old Testament) to show where generational curses (sins of the fathers being passed down to the sons) is both acknowledged and contradicted. He then went on to show how the paradox (his word - used incorrectly I might add) can be reconciled. At one point I pulled up John 9:1-3 (New Testament) on my tablet and showed it to my wife. The passage is a discussion between Jesus and His disciples right after He heals a blind man. They ask him "who sinned? He or his parents?" Jesus replies "Neither!" Which, to me, totally wipes out this guy's total sermon. Also, not only does the passage contradict his entire sermon, there is no instance - that I've seen - where Jesus breaks a generational "curse".

He also brought up the "value" of praying in "The name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth Who came in the flesh". In other words, praying in the name of Jesus was not sufficient for this type of prayer. I concluded that this guy was a moron. So much for the value of a minister who has the title "Dr." in front of his name. Besides, I heard this kind of "preaching" back in the 1990s. We were right back to the Name-it-Claim-it-You-can-have-what-you-say-Positive-Speaking baloney that was so prevalent back then.

I spent the rest of the sermon catching up my journal - trying to ignore the blather.

During breakfast (a common thing for my wife and I to do after church) we had the discussion that culminated in a decision. A decision that some of my church friends may not agree with. I decided that I needed to take a break from church. Not God. Church. We call it taking a "sabbatical". I'm not church hopping. At this point I have no expectation of permanently leaving the church I attend. I just have no intention of attending ANY church. I will miss worshipping God in church - since I have NO qualms concerning the praising of God. I just can't go from worship-to-the-offering-to-the-car in good conscience.

I needed to tell someone at the church my decision. I didn't want to be one of those people that you suddenly realized disappeared - you know the ones, where you really can't remember the last time you saw them. And since I've been a member of the worship team for a long time, it was prudent that I told someone in leadership. I contacted the person who has led the worship team, the person I've been able to share concerns with over the years, and met him for dinner. He said that he understood my decision, said we needed to keep in communication (a.k.a. "accountability"), and that he would let the rest of the church staff know.

After dinner we went to the church - he went to make sure it was unlocked. I wanted to remove all of my equipment. There are too many idle hands that mess with things that aren't theirs. I packed up my Jeep, turned off the lights in the sanctuary (with a quick prayer) and went home.

And it's done. How long will this sabbatical last? I have no idea. I know that I'm going to do my best to step back and get as far away from the brush strokes as I can.

If anyone asks, tell them I'm taking a walk on the quiet side.

© Emittravel 2014

Oh to be Ignorant

There is probably nothing more irritating to an old Christian, than a new Christian. They are so excited. It's Jesus this, and Jesus that. Every prayer seems to be answered without delay. And they are simply oozing with sticky, sweet, joy. You know what I mean, don't you? Better yet, you remember BEING that, don't you? Now you are in the group that tells them to calm down. Not to be so obnoxiously evangelical. You're already a Christian - you don't need to hear them singing every new Christian song, and don't want to see them wearing all of those obnoxious t-shirts covered with clichés and slogans. You've matured. You've grown. You've become stale.

How do I know this? Because I'm stale.

What happened? How did I get this way? My story from when I first became a Christian to now is rather long and detailed, so I won't go into it too much here. Let's just say that the saying is true: the more you learn, the less you know. Let me explain.

Have you ever tried Google Earth? You start off looking at the Earth, and start zooming in. Click, by click, by click you get closer and closer to the Earth's surface, and see more and more details. Pretty soon you went from a big ball of blue to your driveway. That's so cool. Tell that to the crew of the Apollo 8 mission. As they orbited the moon, they watched the Earth "rise" and quoted the first ten verses of Genesis: "In the beginning, God … " The beauty and majesty of the Earth from space has had similar impacts upon those fortunate enough to "… have danced the streets of heaven, and touched the face of God." (Cuthbert Hicks) It's not the minute details of the streets, it's the overall beauty of the Earth seen from 100 miles above it.

(I have used the phrase "Five thousand foot level" several times in previous posts in reference to viewing the Bible. It sounded good, but in retrospect I should have used something more akin to 528,000 feet. But to be consistent, I'm going to continue using five thousand.)

Christianity, at least in the varieties I'm familiar with, starts off looking at God from such that low Earth orbit (100 miles). As you read the Bible, expose yourself to sermons, books, and other sources of knowledge, you get "closer and closer" to God. Soon you find you've broken through the clouds and gotten right down to your driveway. Some would say that is a good thing. At one point in my life I would have agreed. Today? Oh to be ignorant.

Let's look at it with another example. Have you ever looked at a painting? Not a print of a painting. Not a picture of a painting on the internet. A real, honest-to-goodness painting? Gotten so close to it you could see the individual brush strokes? That is where I am in my Christianity. I've heard so many sermons, read so many books (including the Bible, over and over), that I've gotten right up close to the brush strokes of God. The problem? I've forgotten what the overall picture looked like. I forgot the beauty and awe of God that I first saw when I first saw Him. I've spent so much time getting to know about Him, that I've forgotten Him. And what's worse, without my reading glasses, I can't even enjoy the individual brush strokes!

I want to be ignorant again. I want to wipe out all of those years of study and go back to that simple joy of meeting Him. If you had asked me what made going to church such an impactful part of my life, I would have told you it was the sermons - the powerful preaching. Not today. Today I would soon as much leave before the sermon starts. Go from worship to the offering to the car. I don't even mind the offering - to me it's an extension of the worship.

I'm a little biased: I happen to be on the worship team of our church. I sing, and play blues harmonica and a little percussion. For me, I find it "easier" to worship God from the platform than from the congregation. I find I worship God through the instruments. There was a Sunday a few weeks ago that the worship leader (who happened to be sitting at the piano) had tears running down his cheeks while he played. He was worshipping God through his playing. If the church asked me to step down from the worship team, I'd find I'd have very little reason to keep coming.

To be honest (if that above wasn't honest enough), if it wasn't for the fact that I'd end up leaving my instruments still on the platform, I'd leave right after the offering anyway. Its not that the sermons are no longer good - they are still phenomenal. I just find that I'm so empty sitting there. I am no longer interested in one more "nugget". One more Greek translation of some amazing truth of the Bible.

Jesus said to "Come unto me like little children." (Matthew 18:3). Some believe that that means that you come to Jesus as a little child and grow up from there. What is the most "popular" prayer in the Bible? It's called the Lord's Prayer. It starts off with "Our Father, Who art in Heaven. Blessed by Thy name." Do you know what that really says? "My Daddy, Who lives in Heaven. Blessed is Your name." Daddy, not Father. It's a word of endearment. Those who have translated it "Father" have done a great disservice. We are to come to Jesus, and continually come to Him, as a little child.

When I was a child I would reach up my arms to my daddy. He would pick me up and place me on his lap, and hold me. Today? We go out to breakfast and talk man-to-man. The thought of him picking me up and holding me on his lap is absurd.

I want to go back to climbing into God's lap. I want to be a child again. Oh to be ignorant.

© Emittravel 2014

Where is the Compassion?

In a previous post I describe the process I go through when writing poetry. Not a lot of head - mostly heart. This post, though not poetry, is affecting me in a similar way. There is a cry in my heart: Where's the compassion?

I have a friend. A guy who has opened up his heart to me. Allowed me in to share in his pain. Funny thing is, I'm not the "first" of his friends during this season of his life. He has had others who were there to be with him farther back in his story than I have been. But the difference between them and I, is that I'm still here to share in the joys as well. They are noticeably absent - and missing out.

I don't want to share here too much of his life. That's up to him. What I can do is take you back several years and share something similar in my own.

Some of you may be aware that Lisa is not my first wife. I call her my "final" wife - because, no matter what happens, I'm NOT doing this again! I was married previously for nine and a half years. This was shortly after I got out of the Navy. How to describe the relationship? To put it simply: the first three years were hell. I thought I had done something terribly wrong and lived in a continuous state of guilt/pain/anger. After that first three, I realized that I did NOT do anything to bring this on. Being a Christian, and coming from a family where "divorce" was not an option, I stuck through it for another six and a half - best described as riding a roller coaster: but where a roller coaster is hills and valleys, this was plateaus and toilets (toleration and misery). I finally had enough and the marriage ended in divorce.

I'm not kidding about the above. When I told my parents that I was getting divorced, instead of trying to talk me out of it, they said, "We were wondering when you would come to that point." They knew it all along.

I had a friend that allowed me to open up my heart to him. He shared in my pain and confusion. We had many long talks over the bible and what the "right" thing to do as a Christian was. Part of it, to be honest, was for him to come to grips with my divorce as a Christian as well. I loved him for being there for me. And I loved his wife for letting her husband spend so much time with me.

After being divorced for awhile, I met a wonderful young lady named Amy. She was sweet, funny, intelligent, and a gorgeous redhead! The only thing she wasn't, was a Christian. She and I became an item. She even moved in with me. And my friend - my confidant and support - abandoned me. I was living in sin, and therefore he was justified in walking away.

Amy and I were together for quite awhile, though eventually we moved in different directions and she moved out. (I'm thrilled to say that one day she called me to let me know she had become a Christian. We never got back together, but that was great news. I'm still thrilled for her - even after all these years.)

Keeping this brief, I met Lisa at our 20th class reunion and we eventually started hanging out, then dating, then engaged. During this time I would mention my friend. I reached out at different times, in different ways (Christmas cards, text messages, and the like), and sometimes at the prompting of Lisa. She saw the longing in my heart to get back with him, and wanted to see that happen. Over time, he and I did eventually bridge the communications gap and even started to mend the tear in our friendship. Happy to say that he and his family were present at our wedding, and we've maintained a friendship ever since. Part of me knows it is not on the level it used to be, and who knows if it will ever get back to that again. Maybe it shouldn't. It's probably more reciprocal now. And I'm just happy that he is there.

Again, the cry in my heart is "Where is the compassion?" Going back to the friend at the beginning of this article, I'm thrilled to be sharing in the joys of his life. And I ache with him over the absence of those others who have abandoned him.

Is it justifiable for a Christian to abandon someone who is "in sin"? I know there are plenty of verses in the bible that talk about not even eating with someone who is a sinner. Many of those verses are pulled from the epistles (those falling between Romans and Jude). That is also the area of the best buffet-style Christianity. You know, pick a little of this, and ignore what you don't find convenient. If we took everything contained in the epistles literally, we'd have a very different Christianity today. And to be honest, believing that much of what is written there has heavy cultural influences, I'm glad we don't. Regardless, it is in there where the justification comes from.

(Unlike some of my other blog articles, I'm not going to quote long passages of the bible. I'm going to give you the references and trust that, if you are interested, you'll look them up yourself.)

Looking at the life of Jesus sometimes gives us very different perspectives than the epistles. Some things are because Jesus was living "under the law" - the time prior to his crucifixion and resurrection. When the "rich young ruler" asks Him what he must do to gain eternal life, Jesus doesn't give him a tract with the quick way to salvation printed on it. He doesn't tell him to simply believe on Him. He tells him to obey the law. In the book of John, Jesus also gives us something that my friend's "abandoned ones" missed: compassion.

Look at John chapter four. This is the passage where Jesus' disciples leave him sitting by a well while they go to buy some food. While there, a woman of Samaria (a people known as "dogs" to the Jews of the day) shows up to draw water. Jesus asks her for a drink, which spawns a conversation of real/spiritual and the "right" places for worship. At one point Jesus tells her to go and get her husband. She responds that she doesn't have one. Jesus acknowledges her honesty and points out that she has had five husbands, and is currently living with someone who is not her husband.

My New King James Version has a heading over John, chapter four: "A Samaritan Woman Meets Her Messiah". Before I started writing this I realized I had never noticed that before. The passage implies that she has met the Messiah, but never outright states it. The best part, and the reason I bring it up, NOWHERE do you see Jesus shun, condemn, or abandon the woman because of her being a Samaritan who is living with someone not her husband. What you do see is Jesus showing what is most important to her: compassion. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of times where Jesus tells the person to go and "sin no more". Not here.

Why do I consider this compassion? I'm reminded of a friend that was at our 30th class reunion. She introduced us to her "cabana boy". She said that she has had two failed marriages and has come to the conclusion that marriage and her just don't get along. She has been with her "cabana boy" for nine years. Sounds like what they have is working for her.

I've heard many times over the years that the reason she was at the well at that time of the day was because she was living in shame. Possibly a prostitute. Once again, I've read this many times and I don't see that. Makes for good preaching, but maybe - just maybe - it was just what was working for her.

Jesus looked past the "sin" and showed a compassion that brought salvation to not only this woman, but a large part of the city.

There's a lesson there for each of us.

© Emittravel 2014

The Bible Paul Uses

Many years ago I held a part-time job at a Christian bookstore. Back then I would wear t-shirts with phrases best left to bible tracts people would hand out on busy streets. I had one that had a picture of Jesus on the cross with the words "If I'm okay, and you're okay, explain this" on the front. On the back it said "The righteousness that He requires is the righteousness His righteousness requires Him to require". Yeah. I know. But that was me back then.

Back to the bookstore. A common item looked for in this type of store, besides Precious Moments figurines, is the bible. One day a lady came in shopping for a bible and I took her over to where they were located. There was practically an entire wall of them, with many, many translations you could choose from. So I asked her what translation she was looking for and she replied, "The original. The King James Version (KJV), of course." So I reached over and grabbed the only copy of the 1611 KJV we had in the store, opened it randomly, and handed it to her:

"For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." (John 3:16)

She took one look at that and said, "Maybe not THAT original." I said, "Oh, you want and updated translation," and handed her a modern KJV bible.

(And as a side note, the KJV has received updates periodically over the years. Unless it is the 1611 version, it is NOT the original KJV.)

I tell that story to make a point (outside of the fact that I like to "poke things" with a stick): Unless you can read, and comprehend, the original TEXT of the bible, EVERY bible you pick up will be an interpretation of the text. And, since all translations are the work of people, bias is included. That is why I keep switching the translation I'm reading.

My pastor makes the joke that he reads the KJV because that's the bible Paul used (the apostle Paul - who is credited with writing the majority of the New Testament epistles). A lot of people say the KJV is the only authorized translation and should be the only one used. Maybe because it says it's "the authorized translation" as part of the title page. But authorized by whom? It was authorized by King James. I don't think there was a burning bush moment here.

One thing I've noticed, after all the years of listening to sermons, is that the KJV is not the best translation to use. Here is an example:

"Suffer the little children to come unto me." vs. "Permit the little children to come to me." Every time I hear a minister read that verse he follows it with the "Permit" version. If the KJV was so perfect, why do we need the minister to re-interpret it into modern-day language? Once the minister starts to dissect a verse, he/she IS giving you a "new" translation. A translation based on his/her interpretation of the scripture - just by putting it into a language the listener would understand.

I use the above example because it is so blatantly obvious. When we hear the word "suffer" we don't think "allow or permit". So to have the word updated to use a term that is more in line with our language should be welcomed. Do we have the same issue with a bible translated into Spanish, or German, or Swahili? Of course not.

So, not only do Christians argue about what the bible says, and how it applies to the world around us, they argue about what version of bible they should use to beat one over the head with.

Me? I prefer to use a soft-bound edition - less damaging than a hard-bound.

© Emittravel 2014

Ashamed to Be a Christian

I've come to the point in my life where I have to declare that I'm ashamed to be a Christian.

I was listening to a podcast where a well-known astrophysicist was talking about Copernicus, and how he had moved the sun into the center of the universe, and how this was heresy, because the Bible declares that the earth is the center of the universe. Now, he wasn't considering Copernicus' viewpoint as heresy, the Church was. Since this astrophysicist is well known, a lot of people who listen to him will go away with the same viewpoint: the Bible is an archaic book that is scientifically flawed, and Christians who claim the Bible to be without error are flawed as well.

I've read the Bible through a number of times. I've read the King James Version (more times than I can remember), The Living Bible, The New King James Version, Youngs Literal Translation, the Douay-Rheims Version, the Modern King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Weymouth New Testament, the Voice in the Wilderness Bible, the Amplified Bible, and am currently reading the Darby translation. I've been a devout Catholic, been in the Charismatic movement, the Word and Faith movement, and the Prosperity movement. All that and I've come to the realization that I'm ashamed to be a Christian. Am I ashamed of Jesus the Christ? No! I'm ashamed of Christians.

Christians have done more to push the world away from Jesus than anything the world can come up with on its own. Christians have taken the Bible to be this inerrant book that has ALL of the answers to life within its pages, and have trumpeted it to the world. Really? All you need to do is watch the recent "debate" between Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and Ken Ham (young-earth Creationist), and to read about current "trends" in Christianity (like "Grave Sucking"), to find yourself trying to remove the fish from the back of your car.

I will go into a lot more detail in an upcoming post called "Science is the Answer. What's Your Question?", but to touch on at least one point:

The Bible is best viewed from the 5,000 foot level. When looked at from this vantage point, you see what the overarching topic of the Bible is: God's relationship to Man, and Man's relationship to God. The problems come when we find ourselves dissecting every verse and creating doctrines out of them.

Let's take the "creation" account in Genesis. Again, I will go into much greater detail in "Science is the Answer … ". Do you really think God was trying to get across a detailed description of how everything started so we would understand the intricacies of the universe? Go up to the 5,000 foot level. From that vantage point you see that the "creation" account is to give Man a starting point to the relationship - a rough synopsis, if you will.

Look at this example: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.' - Genesis 1:14-17 (NKJV) Let me ask you: what was the greater and lesser lights? Think about it. Take your time. I'll wait. I've been taught that the greater light was the sun (to light the day) and that the lesser light was the moon (to light the night) - and the stars are referenced separately.  Think about this: The sun is the greater light for the day. The sun actually PRODUCES light. The moon is the lesser light for the night. The moon DOES NOT PRODUCE light - it only REFLECTS that from the sun. And besides that, when the moon is in the New Moon phase, there is NO light reflected - there is NO light for the night. So, either God was wrong, or the Bible was not trying to lay down scientific explanations.

The passage above does reference time and seasons, but no details are given. Why? "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,  But the glory of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2 (NKJV) God WANTS us to explore and understand. He gave us the very intellects, and hunger to know, to search out His creation. The Bible says that all creation shows forth the glory of God. That is ALL creation: from the micro to the macro. God does not give details concerning the speed of light, neutrinos, the atom, or the cell in the Bible. He DID give us the tools (brains) to seek those things out. Like a parent watching their child open a gift at Christmas, the joy for the parent is not the gift, but it is in the discovery FOR their child.

The Bible is NOT a scientific treatise with detailed information on the universe. It is a relational book first and foremost. If you parse it too much, guarantee you will find yourself in grave-sucking error!

I've heard it said that you should always look at scripture in the context in which it was written. Again, look at the scripture from the 5,000 foot view and see if it lines up with the overarching story. If it doesn't, you may not be lined up with what God is trying to tell us.

So, please, if you are a Christian, STOP giving the world excuses. I, for one, do not want to be the reason someone does not get to know Him.

© Emittravel 2014

Stuff My Brain Says #69

Went to Mass with my wife and her family. According to the Church calendar, it was the "Feast of the Holy Family".

The priest made a comment during his homily (Cliff Note Sermon), when he was talking about the differences between our families and the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), that actually made me chuckle out loud. I tried to keep it down, but Lisa noticed. He mentioned the mystery of Jesus being conceived miraculously in Mary's womb, and Mary being conceived miraculously in her mother's womb. Okay, Jesus' conception was miraculous. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the (at the time) Virgin Mary. But to say something similar happened to Mary was hysterical to me.

(NOTE: Please understand that this is based on one comment during a 15-minute or so sermon. The rest of it was beautiful, honest, heart-warming, and challenging to us the listeners. It was a terrific sermon by a man who obviously loves God and His people.}

See, the Catholic Church has deemed that Mary is "ever virgin". She was the mother of God, and therefore HAD to be sinless in order to carry Jesus. The problem with that is that in order for Mary to be born sinless, HER mother had to be born sinless, and HER mother before her, all the way to Eve. She never consummated her marriage to Joseph (which means they lived in sin, doesn't it?!?) so she was "ever virgin". Something that powerful should be pretty clear in scripture. It's not. No where do you find a passage that tells of an angel coming to Mary's mother and telling her, "Behold, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the child that will be conceived will be the mother of God, who will have the Holy Spirit come upon HER, so that the child SHE conceives will be Christ the Lord." If the account of John the Baptist's conception/birth would take so much ink, you'd think something as important as Mary's conception would ALSO warrant a few lines of scripture.

Mary was a young girl, never having known a man, when the Holy Spirit came upon her. Because of this conception, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. If Mary was conceived similarly, SHE would be 100% God and 100% man as well. That is not true. She herself said that she was in need of a savior. Jesus, on the other hand, did not. She was also not "ever virgin". She gave birth to her "first-born" child. To say "first-born" denotes at least a "second-born". Secondly, later in the gospels it is told of Jesus' brothers and sisters (the word used does NOT translate as "cousin"). And finally, it's difficult to believe that God would want Mary and Joseph to never consummate their relationship.

I understand why the Catholic Church came up with this: it was in response to the concept that if Jesus was born of sinful flesh, He Himself would be born with sin. But the solution given doesn't hold water (referring to Mary's whole lineage needing to be sinless).

I'm surprised that nobody even presented this argument at the time.

Or, maybe someone did. People died over "heresy" often back in the day. ;-)

© Emittravel 2013

Martha, Martha

"Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, 'Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.'

And Jesus answered and said to her, 'Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.'” Luke 10:38-42 (NKJV)

The above passage from the Gospel of Luke is well-known as a reminder to keep one's focus on Jesus and to not let oneself become overburdened with lesser things. Well, at least it's been taught as such.

My wife and I belong to a small group in our church for married folk. As a lot of these groups go, there is usually a book that is used as a tool to guide the group along a topic or special concern for the group. In the book we are using, the passage from Luke was used. The questions asked were, "What kinds of avoidable pressures was Jesus trying to get Martha to release? How did He help her get a more accurate perspective?" My answers? "The business of trying to be the hostess with the mostess (intentional misspelling). He pointed to the one she was complaining about and told Martha that Mary was actually right. And I'm sure Martha 'appreciated' THAT!"

Apparently, I'm not as spiritually intuitive as others, and failed to see the wisdom that so many previous teachers had come up with concerning it. One of the people in the group was honest enough to admit that he wasn't really sure either what the passage meant, so he took some time to do some research and stated what some commentators of the passage had said. Things like, in that time, a meal was multi-coursed and it was socially expected to produce such a meal when entertaining. That was why Martha was so busy - it was expected! Now, I'm sure such commentators are learned individuals with many initials following their names, but I think they are full of hooey!

If you take a moment to look at the passage, you will notice that it stands alone. There really aren't any previous details in the verses before it to give you context. The verses following it shoot off in a different direction as well. So, when looking at the passage, you only have what you have to work with. And it gives me trouble.

Here is a bit of what we know, and don't know, looking at the passage (and I will be using the New King James Version as quoted above - if you look at other translations, you really won't read too much different):

In verse 38 we have "they went", "He entered", and "welcomed Him". In verse 40 we have "she approached Him and said". The "they" refer to Jesus AND His twelve disciples. "They" were traveling together. Did that mean that Jesus entered the village alone, or was His disciples traveling with Him? It's kind of like saying that "we put in a new driveway", but really mean, "we paid someone to put in new driveway".  Since Jesus is the main person, it can either be assumed that He went alone because Martha "welcomed Him", or that the disciples where there as well because "she approached Him and said" - which communicates she stepped through a GROUP to specifically talk directly to Him.

"… Martha welcomed Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary …" (verses 38 and 39) Who's house? It says "Martha". Really? This is WAY before the ERA. I'm not saying it's possible or not. Just that we really don't know the makeup of the household. Was Martha married? Did Mary live in the house? We read in other passages that they have a brother named Lazarus. Did he live there as well? If Martha wasn't married, was this the family home? Were there parents? The reason for the questions is this: How many people was Martha serving? From the passage we can count three to be certain (Martha, Mary, and Jesus). But that number could be fifteen (Martha, Mary, Jesus, and His twelve disciples) - or greater with Lazarus, parents, and friends and neighbors. We don't know.

Now, we can make an assumption that Martha had servants (see "new driveway" comment above), but the pronouns and the comment from Martha pretty much convey that she was alone doing all of the preparation. If Mary, Martha's sister, lived there in the house (again, we don't know from the passage), Martha's annoyance with her would be more than reasonable.

What about the preparation? I really don't think Martha had ovens with timers, microwaves, or even gas grills to use as tools. Not having a lot of biblical references to meal preparation, we do know it took longer to cook something then than today. Regardless of the number of courses. I direct you to Genesis 18:1-8 where Abraham receives three visitors and they agree to a meal. I wonder how long it took to prepare a calf - without modern-day cooking equipment?

Now, let's add time to get ready for the meal to the mix. Do you think Jesus emailed Martha a couple of weeks in advance of His arrival? Probably not. In the passage concerning a tax collector named Zacchaeus, a man of minimal stature who climbs a tree to see Jesus' parade float, finds himself host when Jesus says to him, "Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house." (Luke 19:5b NKJV) Jesus seemed fond of inviting himself over for meals.

So now you know why I have trouble when Jesus basically scolds Martha and tells her that Mary was right to stay out of the kitchen (verses 41 and 42). I fail to see the "lesson".

What IS the lesson of this passage? In the small group my wife made a comment that I think really captures the essence (and being a "time" junkie, it really spoke to me): Live in the now. It is more important to focus on who you are with, than what you are doing. I think that's a lesson we all can take to heart.

© Emittravel 2013

O Come All Ye ???

One of the great things about old hymns is the theology that intertwines them. Many of them can be considered creeds set to music. But not all are "accurate". I want to talk about one such hymn; a beloved Christmas carol sung every year. It is a great song, overall, but I think it is a little misguided. The original lyric, credited to John Francis Wade (1711-1786) is as follows:

O Come All Ye Faithful
Joyful and triumphant,
O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem.
Come and behold Him,
Born the King of Angels;
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

O Come All Ye Faithful. Why the call to the faithful? Christ came to those who were sick and in need of a physician, not necessarily to those who were considered "righteous". He came for all of us, and all of us should come.

Joyful and triumphant. The first to hear of the news were shepherds in the field - and they were not joyful. They were scared out of their wits. He calls us all, in the joys and sorrows, to come to Him.

O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem. This line sets the state of our Lord - the child in the manger - this side of the cross.

Come and behold Him, Born the King of Angels. Angels have been on the outside, awestruck by the concept of grace - unmerited, unearned favor - upon mankind. Born the King of us all.

O come, let us adore Him, Christ the Lord. Nothing I can say there. Just adore Him.

O Come All Ye Faithful, hurting, in sorrow, doubting, seeking, etc.
Joyful, scared, longing, and triumphant, lost, broken,
He's come, ye, He's come, ye, to right where you are.
Come and behold Him, Born our King and Savior;
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.

Merry Christmas!

© Emittravel 2012

Wisdom from the Porcelain Pulpit #1

It's been awhile since I wrote the intro to this format of my blog, so you may want to check out Wisdom from the Porcelain Pulpit before reading on.

It's J.P., with more "Wisdom from the Porcelain Pulpit".

While working my way through the devotional, "My Meditations on Saint Paul" by Rev. James E. Sullivan, M.S. (Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 5300 Fort Hamilton Pkwy., Brooklyn, NY 11219) I found myself "talking" to the book - actually disagreeing with it. Let me set the stage:

This devotional is set up with a reference to a Bible passage, a paraphrased (in the author's own words) telling of that passage, the author's own reflections on the passage, and a prayer. It has been a real pleasure so far. I like the perspective of the author, and he makes me think. This particular devotion covered Acts 9:31-43, the telling of the miracle of Tabitha being raised from the dead. It talks about Peter's acting in response to Jesus' "sacred trust" to feed His sheep by teaching in various towns. In the city of Joppa some of the people come to him begging him to do what he can for a girl named Tabitha who had died. She was a seamstress who made tunics and cloaks, and greatly helped the poor. The passage tells of Peter's praying over her and her rising from the dead.

Here is where I'm stepping in. The author used phrases like, "Peter had just performed a tremendous miracle", "he actually brought a dead person back to life", "didn't notice Peter or his awesome power", "could never do what Peter did, could never cure a wound instantaneously or bring the dead back to life". We have to remember that Peter did not have the power to do ANY miracle. Nor does any minister today. Miracles are strictly of the realm of God only. God will work THROUGH individuals, but the source is strictly His. And with the source, all glory is His as well.

If we do not give the glory back to God for the work HE has done, we take the impact of the miracle away. Miracles have one major purpose: to point people to God. Sure, the immediate impact of the miracle upon a life is important, but without giving glory back to God you take it all for yourself.

I work as an executive assistant, and I believe my job is to do the things my boss shouldn't do, so that he can do what no one else can. Now, if he is doing something and asks me to assist him with it, it would be wrong of me to take the accolades for it when it is completed. They belong to my boss - I was working for him. Same with miracles, or any other "work" we do for the Lord.

Jesus gives us a great example when He heals the ten lepers, and then tells them to go show themselves to the priests (fulfilling the requirements in the Old Testament). Only one stops and comes back to Jesus and gives Him the praise He so rightly deserves (being God). Jesus even asks him, "Where are the other nine?"

If you are willing to be a "tool" in the hands of God, He will use you - in large and small ways. But ALWAYS give Him the glory. He deserves it.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #33

I really would not have a problem with paying taxes if the government was a better manager of my money. And I'm not alone in this. Think about it: why do the "wealthy" spend so much time and money AVOIDING taxes? Because they KNOW what a lousy investment the government is! That is one of the main reasons I laugh at people like Warren Buffet who say that the wealthy don't pay enough - HE takes every tax loophole available! Because Warren Buffet didn't become Warren Buffet by throwing his money away with bad investments.


Get a clue Washington. You want more tax revenue? Jesus said it best: "Whoever is faithful with very little is also faithful with a lot, and whoever is dishonest with very little is also dishonest with a lot. So if you haven't been faithful with unrighteous wealth, who will trust you with true wealth?" Luke 16:10,11

© Emittravel 2012

Why Muslims Should be America's Biggest Supporters

I've been a Christian since the early 1990's and have read the Bible more times than I can count, read more books than I care to remember, and have listened to more sermons than most ministers have preached in a lifetime - usually more than once. The Bible says to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). It is with this background and understanding that I present this edition of My Humble But Accurate Opinion:

In all my years of study, I have never found the United States represented in scripture. Oh, there are the few vague inferences that some have presented. And if you close one eye, and squint the other really hard, you may actually see it. I haven't. Especially when it comes to scriptures that deal with what has been called "The End Times".

Now understand, the Bible can be broken up into several sections of history beyond just the "Old" and "New" testaments. I'm not going into a great amount of detail here, because, as the title of this article suggests, I've got a point to make. I will say that, in the New Testament, the historical records of the events that were occurring during that time, come to an end at the end of the Book of Acts. There are letters (or "epistles") that follow, but for the most part they fall historically during the times of the Book of Acts. Until you come to the book of Revelation.

Okay, I did it. I mentioned that book of books that makes people either get their hearts a'pumpin' with excitement, or makes their eyes glaze over. And to be honest, for the most part, I tend to fall into the latter group. There is an awful amount of imagery there. In some aspects those images lend themselves to the coming of the fall of Rome; in others they present a time that is historically down the road. But understand: the locations represented there are local to the areas around the Middle East. There is not even a remote reference to any nation to the west. No great "eagle" across the great pond. Nothing. The center of the world, in view of the Bible, is Israel - especially the city of Jerusalem.

There are two main books of the Bible that specifically deal in end times events: Daniel (Old Testament) and Revelation (New Testament). I'm not saying that those are the only references; just the main ones. And, read them yourself, you will not find the United States in either.

What's my point? Think about it. Nothing takes place in the world without the involvement of the United States. Our currency is the basis for the world's economy. We are the biggest ally of Israel. You can't find a peace process initiated in the Middle East without the hand of the United States all over it. Good or bad, the United States is intricately involved in everything that goes on in this world. So, how can you have an infallible book that has proven itself over and over to be accurate (historically, archaeologically, prophetically, etc.) completely miss the existence of the United States in the "current affairs" of the events taking place at the "end times"? Did God say, "Oops!"? I don't think so.

Something has to take place that removes the United States as a world power; eliminating any need for its involvement in the events of the end times.

Take a moment to absorb that. I'll wait.

Now don't get me wrong: I love this country and want nothing more than to see it prosper, grow, and be an ever-driving force for good. I believe that this nation was founded by men and women who loved God and sought His guidance in their affairs. More evangelism (a.k.a. "soul winning") has come forth from the United States than any other nation. But something has to happen in order for the end time events to take place. In other words, Jesus isn't coming back until the United States "goes away".

There are many possible causes for the removal of the United States as a world power/influencer, but I think they can all be whittled down to three possible scenarios: The Rapture takes place, economic collapse, or massive terrorist attacks beyond the scope of 9/11.

The Rapture takes place. The Bible says: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18)

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them…" That is a instantaneous mass exodus. When this takes place there is going to be an immediate and drastic drop in the population of the United States. At this point there will be chaos. The United States will implode trying to handle it. Just imagine what will happen when a large portion of our armed forces disappear - around the world! This country will pull every one back within its borders and "circle the wagons".

Economic collapse. Already the dollar has lost so much value due to the non-stop printing presses. Understand, we have a LOT of debt. Some say that we should tax the "rich" and that would solve everything. Honey, if you take the total net worth from everyone that is $250k or greater, you wouldn't even dent the amount of debt we have. And if they don't change the amount being spent, the amount recouped by taking it from the "rich" will be forgotten in a year - and then just who do they go after? The "new rich" - a.k.a. "the rest of us"! In order to pay the multiple trillions of debt due annually they crank out more dollars out of the printing presses. And the more they do, the less value those dollars have.

That's right boys and girls, you can blame the "evil oil companies" for the high gas prices, but understand that it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of oil. Ask your parents how much a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, or a gallon of gas cost them when they were kids . . .

Not only are we in such a deep hole financially, but the world is already looking at replacing the dollar as the world recognized currency. Heck! With the President's "apology tour", for one example, how can you blame them?

Massive terrorist attacks. This one is (hopefully) the least likely, but you can't rule it out. Look what happened immediately after 9/11. Yes, I know it got us fired up, but not until after we first went fetal. A terrorist attack now doesn't have to be a plane in a building. You can pretty much take out a couple of city blocks with a nuclear device in a suitcase. A dirty-bomb would take out even more - make Japan's nuclear reactor woes seem more than mild. Getting them into the country wouldn't be impossible either - we all know how secure our borders are (insert sarcasm HERE). Since 9/11 we have full-groping by the TSA at our airports. Can you imagine what this country would be like after multiple, simultaneous, attacks?

Of the three, the first two are most likely to take place. And keep in mind, the scripture referenced above does consider the Rapture "comfort". I think that the second, economic collapse, is most likely to take place first, though there aren't any prophetic scriptures that have to take place before the Rapture can.

Now let's tie this column's title into this.

Muslims believe Jesus is coming back. That's right. They believe in the end times of the Bible. I know they say they follow the Koran, but as the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." The picture below (and please follow the link after you finish this article to read the information that the submitter graciously provided with it) shows the East Wall of the holy city of Jerusalem. In particular one of the gates to the city known as the Golden Gate.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tianderson/3328112168/

Notice what is front of the gate? A cemetery. There is a cemetery, of Muslim graves, put there to prevent Elijah, who is to arrive before the Messiah, from going through the gate upon Jesus the Messiah's return. You see, they believe that a holy man would never step upon the ground of a dead person - they would become defiled and "unclean". Do you get it? They planted graves to prevent this event from happening. I hate to say this, but Muslims believe Jesus is coming back more than some Christians I've talked to over the years.

My point: It is in the best interest of Muslims that the United States remains a world power. They should stop trying to take it out. They should do everything in their power to keep the United States a world power, or the Messiah WILL be coming back and they KNOW it! And when He does, an offensive cartoon will be the least of their worries!

Stop the Jihad, I want to get off!

© Emittravel 2011