Why is the God of the Old Testament so Different from the New Testament?

At the very heart of this question lies a fundamental misunderstanding of what both the Old and New Testaments reveal about the nature of God. Another way of expressing this same basic thought is when people say: “The God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath while the God of the New Testament is a God of love.” The fact that the Bible is God’s progressive revelation of Himself to us through historical events and through His relationship with people throughout history might contribute to people’s misconceptions about what God is like in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. However, when one reads both the Old and the New Testaments it quickly becomes evident that God is not different from one Testament to another and that God’s wrath and His love are revealed in both Testaments.

Some individuals would claim that the Old Testament is foremost about God demonstrating his justice, terror and wrath. When one reads the Old Testament, there are instances of terrible punishments, plague, sword, war and famine. His own covenant people are carried off into exile and scattered across the Middle East in wrath and judgment. However, one reads the New Testament and there is gentle Jesus, meek and mild, He says turn the other cheek and love your enemies. Thus, it seems apparent to some that in the Old Testament God discloses himself as a pretty tough character, but now in the New Testament God comes across as loving, gentle, and gracious. So much so that He even sends His Son to die for us. How could this be?

With all due respect that simply will not work. For starters, throughout the Old Testament, God is declared to be “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13). Though one can finds certain passages that seem cruel and uncalled for, one could also be pointed to numerous passages that talk about God’s love. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that the God of the Old Testament was not loving, kind, and slow to anger.

In the New Testament, yes it says turn the other cheek and love ones enemies, however, reread Matthew 23 and notice how Jesus condemns some of the religious leaders of his day… “you snakes in the grass… you hypocrites!” I know what you are thinking to yourself, There is no way that calling someone a “snake in the grass” or “hypocrites” even compares to killing entire nations. Let’s continue…

Remember that the most colorful images of Hell itself are introduced by the Lord Jesus, He mentions Hell more times than He does Heaven. However, its not just Jesus, these sorts of images are discussed throughout the New Testament. For example…

The end of Revelation 14:17-20 says,

“Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, "Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe." So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia.”

Do you notice what is going on here? In the ancient world in a large vineyard, you would have these large stone vats, which you threw the grapes into, and down at the bottom of the stone vats were little holes with stone channels taking away the juice. The servant girls would kick off their sandals, pick up their skirts and start trampling down the grapes. The juice would go out and get caught in these vats that were often underground. From that, one would make his or her wine or whatever else he or she desired.

And now using that imagery, the writer of Revelation describes people on the last day crushed under the wrath of God until their blood rises to the height of a horses bridal for a distance of about 200 miles. Now can you really conclude that the God of the New Testament is a gentler, kinder sort of God? I know it is imagery but its terrifying imagery and it is meant to be terrifying.

The God in the Old Testmament was not simply ill tempered and now He is soft and has gotten over His issues. The God of the Old Testament is full of mercy and full of wrath. The God of the New Testament is full of mercy and full of wrath. As you move from the Old Testament to the New Testament, just as the picture of God’s love is ratcheted up so the picture of God’s wrath is also ratcheted up. It is impossible for God to be different. God is unchangeable. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalms 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

The reason why we do not immediately and intrinsically see this is because we don’t fear Hell. Most of the judgments in the Old Testament are temporal, that is they are bound up with war and famine, poverty, and disease. That is what we fear because we are so focused on this world. The New Testament and the Lord Jesus focuses much more attention on the eternal sanctions, Hell itself. However, to humanity that seems remote and distant. We can say it in our creeds and believe it more or less but because it does not shape our very existence here and now, the judgments of the Old Testament somehow seem harsher than the judgments of the New Testament. However, I would argue that the judgments and wrath discussed in the New Testament leading to Hell is a lot more terrifying than what took place in the Old Testament.

This is a very simplified argument for the position I hold, however, I think it deserves consideration and much thought. When thinking about God people often use human standards of fair and just to measure God’s actions by. To be frank, we have no right to ever question how God chooses to act. I would suggest that we stop focusing on the wrath of God revealed in the Old Testament because it seems cruel and horrible (yet temporal), and start thinking about the wrath of God concerning Hell (in the New Testament) because that is eternal.

Apologetic Pigsty

This post is directly addressed to Christians who (like me) spent years and years defending my Christian beliefs because I took a leap of (irrational and illogical) faith… Claiming that to explain away complicated issues regarding faith in Christ one should simply “believe.”

My first semester in Graduate school solidified one truth in my mind.  My plan for engaging people with the truth of Christianity was an utter “Apologetic Pigsty.”  Until that point I had not taken the time to work through my worldview and how I could strategically interact with others for the sake of the Kingdom.  I simply was armed with my Christian clichés that have permeated my mind since 3rd grade Sunday school. Unfortunately, that is no armor at all. I realized that I was scared to engage individuals about my beliefs because I had not rationally thought through my convictions. Don’t allow yourself to be caught with an “Apologetic Pigsy.” The following is a strategy I wrote about concerning Christian apologetics, something every believer should be involved in or preparing for…

Before delving into a basic approach to an apologetic method, it is crucial to define Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics by its very nature is a means of convincing unbelievers and believers of the truth, rationality, wisdom and pertinence of the Christian worldview. Moreover, Christian apologetics commends Christianity in the face of unbelief or doubt. A chief responsibility of Christian apologists is to, in humility, present truth-claims which one must embrace to become a Christian. This is a basic explanation of Christian apologetics. However, it is imperative that one takes a deeper look at the apologetic method he or she will employ, which begins with his or her worldview.

To practice apologetics, a worldview is elemental. James Sire defines the worldview succinctly when he pens,

“A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”

The individual’s worldview or how he or she perceives the world is crucial to apologetics. Understanding what constitutes a worldview is central, however, one must formulate his or her apologetic method.

When Francis Schaeffer was asked if he was an apologist he responded, “I am not an apologete if that means building a safe house to live in, so that we Christians can sit inside with safety and quiescence. Christians should be out in the midst of the world as both witnesses and salt, not sitting in a fortress surrounded by a moat.” Before one can articulate a strategy for apologetics, he or she needs to have the mindset of Schaeffer, understanding that Christian apologetics is about taking these truth-claims to the world, fully embracing the great commission (Matt. 28:18-20).

The most important preliminary step in formulating an apologetic method is hypothesis testing. One must put his or her worldview on trial. He or she must check for internal coherence, and whether or not his or her arguments fit external facts and or internal facts. This is the starting point for creating a strategy for apologetics.

The next step in this basic approach to Christian apologetics is defining and finding “points of contact.” Doug Groothuis clarifies:

“Points of contact refers to what is shared cognitively and existentially between Christians and non-Christians concerning matters of logic, morality, intuition, longing, and imagination. It is sought by the Christian apologist in order to build a bridge between what the unbeliever now believes and what he or she ought to believe and follow in order to embrace Christian theism and confess Jesus Christ as Lord.”

Once one has found “points of contact,” he or she is ready to find the point of tension in the conversation. This is where one pushes the other person’s worldview toward its logical conclusion, therefore, pushing it further away from the reality of God’s world and Word. Once he or she begins to identify what is happening one must push him or her to adjust his or her worldview in terms of the reality of God’s world. From the point of tension, a transition to the Gospel message is in order. At this point, it is time to call the individual to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This is a straightforward outline to intellectually interact with non-Christians. However, one major point needs to be addressed.

Christian apologists are called to humbly defend the Christian truth-claims. Groothuis lays this out clearly when he discusses the importance and Biblical call for humility.

“Christian apologists must understand that we are humbled by creation (Gen. 1:1) and we are utterly dependent on the Lord. Humility should also come through redemption, knowing we are not our own; we were bought with a price (I Cor. 13:12). Therefore, one should deny him or herself, and take up his or her cross, and follow Jesus (Luke 9:23-26). Christian apologists need to hold the truth firmly and humbly (I Peter 3:15), and be courageous, but meek; being sure not to unnecessarily offend others (Matt. 5:5, II Cor. 4:7).”

As Christian apologists, when defending the faith it should be with humility and love. This truth should be the overarching theme of one’s strategic approach to good Christian apologetics.

Before concluding this post I want to put to rest a misconception. Before I really began to study apologetics I thought it was a tactic used to be intellectually arrogant and braggadocios regarding Christianity. This is so far from the truth. I realized that Christian apologetics is simply preparing one’s self to be able to follow 1 Peter 3:15b, which states, “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (ESV). Studying apologetics is not simply for your ego, it is to better prepare you to humbly give logical and rational explanations for the existence of God and Christ’s love and grace. If you are a Christian… do the hard work of self-examination and take inventory of why you believe what you claim to believe. If you can’t give a firm answer that would stand up in the face of criticism… studying Christian apologetics should be in your immediate future.

Do Muslims & Christians Worship The Same God?

We live in a religiously pluralistic culture.  The postmodern approach to truth is... everything is relative.  Basically, believe what you want just don't try to impart those beliefs as absolute truth.  Birthed from this worldview are questions like, “Christians and Muslims worship the same God, so why should they try to convert each other?”  With tolerance as King, this question will be posed more and more in the coming years.  Below is an section from a paper I wrote BRIEFLY dealing with three main reasons why Muslims and Christians do NOT worship the same God...

Muslims and Christians make up the two largest monotheistic religions in the entire world. This might be a primary reason why one would believe that they worship the same God. Although many in today’s culture hold to an assumption that all religions are one, it is clear that Islam and Christianity are different at the core of their worldviews. Three doctrinal areas in which these differences are prevalent are the nature of God, the human condition, and teachings on worship. Muslims and Christians have come to major contradictions concerning these fundamental theological issues.

Although both religions are monotheistic, that is where the similarities end. When one studies Islam and Christianity, he or she will soon discover that their view of God is dissimilar. Abdul Saleeb explains the Muslim view of God when he writes,

"The first and by far the most important belief (of Islam) is in the absolute oneness of God […] The absolute oneness and sovereignty of Allah is the unifying theme of Islam. In fact throughout their history, Muslims have viewed their confession of faith that ‘there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s messenger’ as an adequate summary of Islam and what it stands for."

It is apparent through Saleeb’s statement that Muslims are convinced that God is indeed one. However, Islam denies that God is a Trinity, that one God eternally exists as three co-eternal and equal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Islam also rejects that God became man in Jesus Christ (John 1:1-8). These doctrines are foundational to both religions core beliefs. Moreover, God cannot be both a Trinity and not a Trinity, this is a matter of simple logic.  

Within Christian theology, it is evident that they believe humans are corrupted by an inherited sinful nature that cannot be overcome (Ephesians 2:1-10). However, Muslims claim that because humans are ignorant and weak they sin, not because humanity’s nature is sinful. Also, according to John 3:16, Christians teach that salvation is secured only through faith in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Whereas, Islam teaches that if one obeys the laws of the Qur’an, and are worthy they will be given paradise. These are obviously two contradicting views; therefore, they both cannot be true.

The last major doctrinal issue one needs to consider when comparing Islam with Christianity is how each religion teaches worship. Christians believe that one must worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Doug Groothuis discusses this further, “Worship requires assent to the truth of God (the Trinity), belief in the gospel, trust in Jesus Christ, and submission to God’s will.” On the contrary, Muslims deem worship of the Trinity to be polytheistic. They would also not agree with worshiping Jesus because they view Him as merely human. Again, these are stark differences between Islam and Christianity.

Grasping these fundamental dissimilarities is essential for Christian apologetics in two ways. First, today’s culture instructs Christians to be “tolerant” and to refrain from “proselytizing” anyone. Due to this tolerance, and the religious pluralism that dominates our society many people say that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. Christian apologists must be ready to speak out against this common misconception. As the culture turns increasingly to religious pluralism, apologists must stand firm not being tolerant of deceptions, and speak truth through a Christian worldview.

The second reason why this is so important for Christian apologetics is a result of September 11, 2001. From that day forward many individuals have become curious as to what Muslims believe. Unfortunately, the majority of Christians are ignorant in this area. They have memorized their cliché Christian sayings but have not prepared themselves to engage individuals with questions. Not only are Americans interested in Islam, Muslims are around every corner. If one does not know the core beliefs of Islam how will they ever reach them for Christ? Christians must be dedicated to understanding Islam so that they can fulfill the great commission and reach others with the news of the Gospel. These are only two ways in which this subject is vital to Christian apologetics, one could go on.

Doug Groothuis has written an article concerning this topic in which most of my information comes from.  Unfortunately, the website that published this article is no longer up and running.  If you would like I can email this article to  you for further reading... just leave a comment with your email address and I will get it to you at my earliest convenience.  Please remember that this is simply scratching the surface regarding this subject... much more has been written... please investigate further.  

The Gospels... ?

I have often heard of or come across individuals who simply do not believe anything the Bible teaches.  Before one can really delve into who Jesus was and what He came to do... he or she must believe that the Gospels (4 records of Jesus' life and ministry from different perspectives) are historically credible and able to be trusted.  Then and only then can one take the contents of these Biblical books as truth.  I recently wrote about the historical credibility of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).  The following is a BRIEF defense of the Gospels reliability.  For more information see either, On Jesus (Doug Groothuis), or The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Craig Blomberg) for more in-depth explanations. 

Jesus was a savior figure that was written about in ancient documents, however, there is historical evidence for the credibility of these writings and the claims He made.  Historically understanding the details of Jesus' life is vital for accurately assessing His message and identity.  The primary historical documents concerning Jesus are the four Gospels within the New Testament.  These texts portray Jesus through narratives that often involve discourses.  It is in these encounters, sermons, debates, prayers, and actions that we discover the message Jesus proclaimed.  However, Jesus' teachings mean nothing to someone who does not believe the Gospels are credible historically.  Therefore, two main problems that arise when ancient, historical documents are being scrutinized need to be addressed.

The first critique against the Gospels is that it is prejudiced.  Winfried Corduan explains this issue when he pens, "The authors were obviously believers in Jesus, so they wrote these accounts with the single purpose of promoting their point of view."  Individuals choose not to believe the Gospels content because of the author's seemingly biased perspectives, however, there is no such thing as a non-biased historical text.  Moreover, pointing out that the Gospel writers had a definite bias says nothing about their reliability as historical reporters.  Unlike other ancient historical writings that are credible, biblical storytelling is remarkably objective.  The Gospels are full of phrases that would turn off the reader to Jesus, which seems like the opposite of propaganda.  Therefore, it is unlikely that the author's prejudices got in the way of their historical accounts.

Another objection to the Gospels historical reliability is that the original manuscripts have been lost, therefore, leaving these texts unusable to assess Jesus historically.  Although historians do not have the original texts, they do have copies that have been through relentless criteria and procedures to decide their credibility.  Corduan gives a good argument concerning this issue,

"Take, for example, the status of the manuscripts of Gallic Wars, written by Julius Caesar in about 50 B.C.  Today there are ten known manuscripts of this book, none of which comes from before A.D. 900.  Thus we have ten manuscripts, all of which are about a thousand years removed from the original time of writing [...]  By comparison the New Testament was written in the first century A.D.  The very first undisputed manuscript, the John Rylands Fragment, stems from the first part of the second century.  Most of the other manuscripts are dated within just a few hundred years of the original writings."

Altogether, there are about five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament known today.   No other ancient document equals the New Testament when it comes to preservation of manuscripts.  Thus, if one throws out the New Testament because it is ancient and does not have the originals, one must discard all ancient literature as well.  Not only is the New Testament credible as a historical document, there are also extra-biblical sources that attest to Jesus and His claims.

Though the New Testament documents are the most detailed accounts of Jesus, historical references to Him are not limited to these texts.  Doug Groothuis points this out when he writes, "The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his Antiquities (A.D. 90-95), once in reference to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,' and once in a longer and disputed passage."  It can be argued that Josephus writes that Jesus existed, was known as virtuous, was crucified, attracted many followers, worked wonders, and believed to be risen from the dead.  Decades after Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus, Thallus, Pliney the Younger, and Suetonius also note the existence of Jesus, facts about His life, and the beliefs of His followers.  Therefore, it is evident that Jesus did exist and many of His claims recorded by men who were not biased towards Christianity.

Not only is there external evidence for Jesus and the Gospels by historians, there is also internal evidence within the Scriptures.  Addressing one of these arguments Groothius references a historian named Will Durant, a man who was not a friend of religion, to prove what is known as, the principle of embarrassment.  Will Durant, observes that "mere inventors would not have concealed," such as the apostles' prideful competition for high places in the kingdom of God, Peter's denial of Jesus, and His despairing cry on the cross.  If the authors of the gospels were fabricating their writings they would not have included such embarrassing information.  This would include the Gospels use of woman eye-witnesses to the resurrection.  Females were not able to testify in a court of law, therefore, why would the writers include this in the Gospels if they were making it up?

Jesus made a radical claim, that He was God incarnate (John 1:1-2).  Jesus claimed explicitly or implicitly to be divine.  However, most people refer to Jesus not as God, but a good moral teacher.  This false notion is logically addressed by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, 

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him (Jesus): 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.'  That is the one thing we must not say.  A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.  He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell.  You must make your choice.  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."

The claims made by Jesus must lead any rational skeptic to either qualify HIm as a lunatic, a liar, or the very Son of God.  These are the options one has based on the historical reliability of the Gospels. 

 Hopefully, this gives the reader at least a taste of the research done to prove the historical reliability of the Gospels.  This post only scratches the surface of a huge subject, please do not think this is exhaustive in the slightest.  The Gospels contain the greatest news of humanity.  Jesus came to sacrifice Himself, to atone for His people.  I would encourage anyone that has read this to immediately go through the Gospels and read the account of Jesus... God incarnate!  

If anyone needs more books that discuss this subject... leave a comment and I will do my best to get you more material. 

Elf Yourself!

Sorry Nate... I completely stole your idea.... but it was too funny to pass up!

Enjoy

Send your own ElfYourself eCards

Simple Spirituality

I finally finished a book now that the semester has concluded... This one is small... but has been a work in progress for sometime now.

I think we can all agree that not much is simple these days.  Complicating simplicity is the fact that we live in an information saturated society with the ability to access incredible amounts of knowledge in rapid fire succession.  At times, this excessive knowledge spills over into spiritual lives, leaving us with piles of books, concordances, and commentaries with which to understand our spirituality.  Sometimes these tools are very helpful, and sometimes, the weight of it all can be slightly overwhelming.

I was first introduced to Simple Spirituality by my buddy Dan Byrd.  Chris Heuertz (the author) was a friend of his during their college careers at Asbury.  Heuertz is the director of Word Made Flesh, an organization which serves among the poorest of the poor.  Simple Spirituality stays true to its title by exploring five simple yet profound commitments:

• Humility 
• Community
• Simplicity 
• Submission
• Brokenness

Heuertz uses stories of his relationships with the poor around the world to illustrate the depth of spirituality he has learned from them, people who are constantly overlooked by the majority of the world.  He examines what the wealthy western church misses from its lack of connection to the poor.  Heuertz writes, "I believe that God is using the cries of our friends who suffer in poverty today to call the church out of its sound-proof sanctuaries... God is challenging the church to respond to a world in need.  Too often, however, the church has isolated itself and failed to listen. and thus contributed to the suffering.  God is calling us to establish communities that offer the prophetic presence of Christ in today's world."

Heuertz also addresses the temptation to use personal geography to justify disengaging from the difficulties of the rest of the world.  He concludes that "those who go without the basic necessities of life, regardless of their geographical location or proximity, are nevertheless counted as our family:  fellow believers in the Sudan or Sri Lanka or Peru are as much an intrinsic part of the body of Christ as are the Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists or Catholics down the street."  He asserts that it is simplicity that helps us to remember such family obligations.

With deep gentleness, Heuertz uses the brokenness of the world as a springboard for spiritual vitality.  Using what he calls the "Five Stones of Brokenness" - humility, community, simplicity, submission, and brokenness - he challenges those of us who live in plenty to seek a fuller faith by reconsidering how we might "live more simply so others may simply live" (Ghandi).

In no way am I bashing the church.  I think in today's Christian subculture it has become trendy to rip the church.  However, what most forget is that the Church is Christ's Bride.  Personally, if you EVER said anything about my Bride... let's just say... I will not be very happy.  Therefore, I can't see Jesus being exceptionally thrilled to have people (claiming to follow Him) talk negatively about His Bride.  I know that the church has failed in many ways... one of which is brought to light throughout this book.  However, simply pointing these inconsistencies out does not help anything but one's ego.  Instead, I would encourage everyone to engage the church with love and constructive criticism.  If you have a heart for the poor and oppressed (which everyone should) then engage the church, pushing them to get involved in these specific issues in the community.  I just didn't want anyone to read this post (if anyone does... haha) and think I have just joined the bandwagon of ripping the church.  I have not... I love the church and plan to give my life to serve Christ through it.

This book was a great read... flows wonderfully and will give anyone who has not been to a third-world country a glimpse into true poverty.  I would recommend it for sure.

 

Porn-Again Christian

Mark Driscoll has written a booklet titled, Porn-Again Christians, which I thought was a clever title.  However, this book is FREE in PDF form online... just click here.  You can download this and share it with others.  Pornography is a very serious issue as you will find out shortly...

Anyone reading this right now is a part of a culture that spends more money each year on pornography than pro baseball, football, and basketball combined.  A little shocked huh?  Let's dig deeper.  More money is spent on pornography than country music, rock music, jazz music, classical music, Broadway plays, and ballet combined.  Still think that is ok or normal.  This culture spends more money a year on porn than the United States gives in foreign aid.  Does this seem ridiculous to you at all?  It should.  Last year America gave $10 Billion to foreign aid.  On the other hand, Americans gave $12 Billion to pornography.  These statistics are not only shocking but alarming.  In Paul's day he accused some people of worshiping their stomachs as their god, and in our day it appears that our god has simply moved a short distance south.  

I believe that sex has officially become a religion.  Just like Christianity is a religion with three main branches: Catholic, Protestant, & Orthodox... Sex, as well, has three main branches: Straight, Gay, and Bi.  No matter what your convictions are about pornography, you have to admit that it is taking this nation by storm.  Addictions are starting every second around the world as adolescents and even adults experience the massive world of pornography for the first time  with one simple click of a mouse.  The secret sins of pornography and masturbation paralyze many men with shame, guilt, and embarrassment.  Even if you are one that feels like pornography and the sexual culture we are saturated in are fine, you must agree that something of this magnitude deserves some thought and consideration.

Pornography is an epidemic that is radically desensitizing our nation.  Mark Driscoll discusses this in detail in his FREE e-book mentioned above.  The church has swept this issue under the rug enough.  It is time that we shed some light on this devastating problem before it claims more marriages, families, and individuals.  This e-book is an amazing resource especially for people involved in ministering to hurting and broken individuals.  Men... and woman for that matter... need to read this and heed the warning Driscoll gives.  Please pass this booklet on to anyone and everyone you know.  Christians need to stop hiding from SEX and start addressing it from a Biblically theological perspective.

Please... not for one minute... think that all Christians are claiming to be perfect and never struggle with lust and or pornography specifically.  Through the grace of Christ anyone can be freed from this addiction, even believers who think it is too late.  Driscoll addresses this as well.   

While you are downloading Porn-Again Christian make sure you check out Mark Driscoll's website the Resurgence.  There are tons of resources and information that will be extremely helpful to one's spiritual journey.

We Feel Fine ... Or Do We?

A few months ago I came across a website that I thought was interesting.  I initially learned about this experiment from a video on TED.com.  Basically, two guys named Jonathan Harris & Sepandar Kamvar had an idea to harvest feelings from people all over the world.  So they created http://wefeelfine.org.  This site is an exploration of human emotion on a global scale.

This is how it works... Every few minutes, the system searches the world's newly posted blog entries for occurrences of the phrases "I feel" and "I am feeling."  When it finds such a phrase. it records the full sentence (e.g. sad, happy, depressed, etc.).  Because blogs are structured in largely standard ways, the age, gender, and geographical location of the author can often be extracted and saved along with the sentence, as can the local weather conditions at the time the sentence was written.  All of this information is saved.  

Resulting in a database of several million human feelings, increasing by 15,000 - 20,000 new feelings per day.  Using a series of playful interfaces, the feelings can be searched and sorted across a number of demographic slices, offering responses to specific questions like: do Europeans feel sad more often than Americans?  Do women feel fat more often than men?  Does rainy weather affect how we feel?  What are the most representative feelings of female New Yorkers in their 20's?  Which is the happiest cities in the world?  The saddest?  And so on.

"At its core, We Feel Fine is an artwork authored by everyone.  It will grow and change as we grow and change, reflecting what's on our blogs, what's in our hearts, what's in our minds.  WE hope it makes the world seem a little smaller, and we hope it helps people see beauty in the everyday ups and downs of life" (Josh and Kamvar).

I would encourage everyone to go on this site and simply observe the myriad of emotions documented by people all over the world.  It is truly fascinating to think about what people are going through on a daily basis.  On the other hand, it is so sad to read about how many people are hurting and crying out for someone to just listen.  There are some serious and disturbing entires that I have come across when viewing the site in the past.  For example... at this very moment...

93,390 people feel  - bad

254 - disgusting 

3,182 - dead

4,276 - fat

3,383 - stressed

31,591 - guilty 

17,988 - alone

7,273 - depressed

14,602 - lost

2,897 - ashamed 

This is just a few selections from the numerous emotions being described all over the world via blogs.  You might be wondering why I am so concerned about this... or why I even brought it up.  Well...

Often I get caught up in the Christian subculture that I am constantly surrounded by.  It is so easy to just interact with tother Christians and have friends that share the same belief system... while never reaching out to those who are hurting.  Wefeelfine.org has shown me that there are so many people out there who are hurting and dying inside everyday.  How often do I really listen... really try to interact with people, striving to understand what really is going on it their lives?

I Peter 3:15 says, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect."  People are hungry for truth, for something real to believe in... for a Savior.  Christ died to set every one of these individuals free... free from guilt... free from anger... free from feeling lost and disgusting.  He shed Hist blood for humanity... so that in Him we can find true hope that surpasses tough days and emotional loneliness.

This has opened my eyes to be on the lookout for people who need someone to listen... someone to empathize with them.  Then... I can share the love of Christ with these hurting people. 

  

I said "I would NEVER"

Maggie and me @ the Denver Zoo.

Well... I guess it's true that one should never say, "NEVER." When I first started reading blogs I can remember clearly telling myself, "Self... You will never have a blog." This had nothing to do with me thinking blogging was evil or stupid, I just had nothing to say... and I knew no one would care anyways, which is probably still the case.

As you can tell.... if you are quick.... I now have a blog even though I swore it would never happen. The reason I am starting this is simple... I want to engage. I want to engage my friends, community, and culture concerning my relationship with Christ and any other aspect of my life I deem appropriate. This past semester I took an apologetics course and was convicted about my lack of apologetic engagements. If I claim to love Christ and serve Him... I should be willing to employ any medium to share that with others. This would include the blogosphere.

Engaging in that course (taught by Dr. Groothuis), I learned that Christian apologetics by its very nature is a means of convincing unbelievers of the truth, rationality, wisdom and pertinence of the Christian worldview. Christianity is not something that one has to check their mind at the door and simply take a blind leap of faith to subscribe to.  It is rational, true, and a cohesive worldview to live by.  Well... I will stop the preaching before it starts and save it for another day.

This blog is intended to keep my friends and family updated on Maggie and I, as well as simply share what Christ is doing in and through our lives.  I hope you enjoy reading yet another guys opinion... haha.   

Wow... this blogging thing wasn't as bad as I thought. 

I also want to thank my buddy Nathan Hoag (you should check out his blog) for the encouragement to do this.