Biblical Reasons Why Christians Should Vote

Over the course of the last 3 days or so, I have heard from at least 3 different sources - Christian/Church sources - the opinion that Christians shouldn't vote or be involved in the political process in any form.

In this article I want to flesh out their Biblical arguments and also answer them Biblically to demonstrate why, as Christians, it is important not just to vote but to be very involved in our American political system.

First of all, let me state that one of the sources  is close to me and I am in no way intentionally showing any disrespect for this source or the other things that come from it. I am simply expressing my opinion which happens to be in opposition to this source on this topic. We as Christians do not have to agree on everything except one thing:" ...God gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life..."

So let's dive in. The sources will remain anonymous out of respect and I will address their arguments as a whole, but their talking points were all pretty much the same and can be found on the web by searching for "Why Christians Shouldn't Vote", the sites you will find present my sources in pretty much the same way.

The crux of this opinion is two-fold. First, Christians are not of this "earthly kingdom" and we should not put our trust in earthly leaders. The second, that God has ordained all earthly authority and therefore voting or not voting makes no difference because God places those who have authority in those positions.

We'll unpack the first: Christians are not of this world, our citizenship is in heaven.

This argument comes from this verse (and others like it). Here, Jesus is talking about his followers:

They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. - John 17:16 

And also:

But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ - Philippians 3:20

And they are right. When we became Christians, we became part of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is our real home. We are no longer of this world.
Paul, in his letters such as the letter to the Philippians quoted above, tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. But when he needed to, he exercised his rights as a Roman citizen as well.
But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?”  - Acts 22:25

But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” - Acts 16:27
What does that tell us about what Paul believed? Some might argue that in those cases he was scared and lost faith for a moment and chickened out. Well, maybe. But considering he used the opportunities to preach the Gospel, I don't think so. I think he understood, as we do, that while our citizenship is in Heaven, we have to live on this earth and should use every opportunity to do good.

A tangent to this argument comes from Ephesians 6:12

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

And also 2 Timothy 2:3-4

Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.

In other words, since our citizenship is not of this world, we are to fight the fight of the Kingdom of God and not worry about earthly battles, such as politics. We should speak only of Christ, sharing the gospel with everyone and not waste any energy on earthly pursuits.

And yes, as Christians we are to always fight the good fight and always aim to make disciples of all people. But does that mean we spend every waking moment doing just that?
The reality is we live in a world where we have to work to provide for ourselves and our families. If we as Christians were to just walk away from our earthly responsibilities, the results would be disastrous. Furthermore, should we give up TV and radio and movies and books and art and do nothing but preach Christ? I don't think so.
Paul understood that people had to work to meet their earthly needs.
[Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, ³ and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. - Acts 18:2-3
Paul also talks about living in a secular world and dealing with unbelieving neighbors:
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. - I Corinthians 10:31
In this context I am reminded of the words often attributed to Francis of Assisi (though the exact source is not known):
"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
My opinion is that THIS is how you preach the Gospel always and fight the good fight. Not always with your words, but with your example. In our day to day life of working and shopping and Internetting and so on we are always to be the highest example of Christ even when we cannot use words. 

---

How does this apply to voting and the political process? Well, first of all, I do feel that during the political season, that Christians should be above the ugliness of the process. Talk about it, express your opinion in polite company, certainly, but avoid malice and slander. Stick to facts. 

And then vote according to what you feel is the best example of Christ. The Bible tells us that we are salt and light in this world, we are a city on a hill. Our vote, as with every other aspect of our life should preach the gospel.

---

Part 2 of the 'Christians should be apolitical' argument come from Romans 13:1-2:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there  is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 

And 1 Peter 2:13-14:

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

And again, yes, this is true. And good. And right. But while the stations of authority are given by God, does that mean the men in those stations are chosen by God? Are we to obey no matter what?
I don't think so. Peter in Acts 5:28-29 gives us an example:

“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he [the high priest] said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!"
Also, the early believers prayed in Acts 4:26:
‘Why did the Gentiles rage,    and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves,    and the rulers were gathered together,    against the Lord and against his Anointed
If they believed that the kings were God's authority, why would they be worried about them setting themselves against God?
The examples of Paul exercising his Roman citizenship given above apply here as well. If he were subject to the authority over him, why would he appeal to a higher authority?

The question of the early church presents itself here. There was much persecution. How did the church survive if the believers did not resist authority? If they had simply given in to the men that were seeking to kill them, they would have been wiped out. If those men were appointed by God, why would they want to wipe out the church?
Also if authority is from God to the man and not the station, why do we have examples of men choosing men to fill the stations ordained by God?
Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.  But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”  And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. - Acts 6:3-5
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. - Acts 14:23
Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’ - Deuteronomy 1:13
Another point: The book of Revelation. There are too many references to cite here, but over and over again we are told the nations and the kings of the world will be destroyed. If God ordained those nations and kings, why do they have to be destroyed? The only explanation is that the men in the stations are not following God.

A tangent to this argument is that "Paul, an educated man, would have knows about democracy, yet he never mentioned it" and "Jesus never taught about democracy so why should we participate in one?"

And yes, democracy had existed prior to the time of Christ. And Paul, being highly educated, may have known of this form of government. The Roman Republic had only just dissolved recently, probably within the lifetime of Paul's parents or grandparents. However, at the time of his writings and ministry, no one he reached lived in a democracy. Rome, at the time, was run by the emperor. If anyone he had written to had be lived in a democratic society, he probably would have written about it.
It's also important to note that democracy as it existed prior to Paul's time and even during Paul's time in other parts of the world, was very different from our American republic. In most cases, only citizens could vote. To be a citizen you had to be a land owner. As a land owner you were also a farmer, a business man. So, in essence, only businesses could vote. Even within them there was a hierarchy of a ruling class and a subordinate classes, with the hierarchy having a larger vote than the lower classes.

And the question "What would Jesus do?" Some might say "Jesus wouldn't vote, why should we?"

Well, honestly, it's hard to know what Jesus would do since the gospels don't record any situation similar to casting a vote to hire a leader. This is a red-herring argument.

   
There are other arguments against voting and participating in politics that you may here:

There are other things God chooses, your parents, the country you live in, whether or not you are saved, whether there is gravity... so be thankful that He chooses your leaders too.

Well, OK, but then why doesn't God choose other things good for me, like only giving me a taste for vegetables, clean water from my city, immunity to all disease? How does God pick and choose some thing and not others? And how does he determine which He chooses and which I choose?

Another is "has government ever changed the world for the better? Why would you want to participate in that?"

This one is funny in light of the previous argument that God gives all authority. If all authority, government, is from God, and government hasn't changed the world for the better, then we're blaming God for the government?
And besides, there is the Emancipation Proclimation, Women's right to vote, freedom of speech and religion, traffic laws that keep people from dying... I would say there is much that the government has done that has made the world better. More than has harmed the world.

The final argument I will discuss: "people's lives aren't changed by law, only by the gospel".

And this is very true. People's lives are not changed by law. However, they are maintained and protected by the law. Yes, only the gospel can save a man's soul, but earthly law, when followed and exercised (as Paul did exercising his Roman citizenship) can protect a man's earthly life allowing him to continue doing much good.

---

So should Christians participate in politics or not? I believe my points above demonstrate that, if your heart so convicts you in your Christian walk, YES, PLEASE VOTE! It is one way to act as the salt and light in this world, in one small way it is preaching as you practice.

---

Further points to consider:

1. Voting publicly recognizes that we submit to the authority of the political system in our nation as established by God. Romans 13:1-7. (This expands on our argument from earlier. If God has established a democracy, then he means us to participate in it.)

2. Voting recognizes the equality of all people and their right to speak and be heard. James 2:1.

3. Voting is one way that we can obey God’s command to seek the good of those around us and our nation as a whole. Philippians 2:3.

4. Voting shows that we care deeply about who our leaders are as we are urged to offer prayer and intercession on their behalf. 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 . (Again, if God placed the people in the stations of authority, why do we need to pray for them?)

5. Voting is a simple yet significant way we can do something about politics in our nation. ‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, Edmund Burke. Psalms 34:14.

6. Voting makes a difference in the same way a grain of salt makes a difference, and that is how we are to influence our society for good. Matthew 5:13. (Another way of stating my salt and light argument...)

7. Voting is a privilege not to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a democracy should play a part in upholding democracy.

8. Not voting is a form of voting, as it will influence the outcome. We need to take responsibility for our actions, as well as our lack of actions. I Peter 1:13.

9. Voting is part of our stewardship to use all the resources we have been given in ways that honor God; to waste a vote is to squander a gift.

10. Voting is Biblical. Jesus commands us to fulfill our responsibility to the civil authority. Matthew 22:21. (Render unto Ceasar... our government asks us to vote, so shouldn't we render unto them our vote?)

All verses are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise specified.

Halloween - Bad for Christians?

I have written on this topic before, here. That was 3 years ago. As I re-read that post, I find that I am rather abrupt and even downright snarky. I won't say I'm older and wiser now, but I do like to think that maybe, just maybe, a am a little kinder and gentler. So let's see if I can present this topic in a less snarky manner...

----------

Is Halloween a pagan holiday and therefore should be avoided by Christians?

Yes and no.

There are many sources that discuss the origin of Halloween as a holiday. I'm not going to rehash it here but if you are interested, a good link is this one from The History Channel. Bottom line is yes, there is a "pagan" element to Halloween, but like anything in our modern society it has become a multifaceted event with many different ways of celebrating.

Most of you reading this post are probably concerned about your children. Even if you don't celebrate Halloween in any form, your kids are going to be exposed to it. Whether it's through public school or on the playground or maybe even in Sunday School. Other kids are going to be excited about it and might get your kids wound up about it.

First of all, let me assure you that simply being exposed to something "bad" (apart from a communicable disease) will not harm your child. What important is your reaction.

It's important to talk to your kids. It's always important to talk to your kids, but when it comes to something that is a matter of belief, it is vitally important. As a Christian you eventually want your children to share your beliefs. In my opinion, one of the best ways to make sure that DOESN'T happen is to not explain things to them. If your word on Halloween is "it's bad, that's why", then you've invited your child to figure it out on his own. This rule also applies to drugs, R-rated movies, and honestly everything. Simply saying "no" is seldom enough for any child. This applies to explaining why you do or do not celebrate a holiday in the same way as their friends do.

So what about Halloween? Is it to be celebrated or avoided?

In my opinion, Halloween as it is currently celebrated by children in the United States, bears only passing resemblances to any historic celebrations and no real relation to them. The costumes, the trick-or-treating, the parties with bobbing for apples, the spookiness, the 'haunted houses'...I don't think any of these present any real danger. The worst that will come out of it is a tummy-ache from eating all the candy. In fact I believe Halloween is one of the last things, in our society with our tech that is increasingly isolating us, that encourages a spirit of community participation.

However, that is just my opinion. As with anything as a parent, you need to decide what is best for your children and your family. But the worst thing you can do is ignore it. Even if you home school, never watch TV, and pretty much isolate your children, they will still know about it. And to a kid, dressing up in a fun costume and getting free candy sounds like just about the most fun they could have.

That being said, let me share a little bit about my own experiences with my children and Halloween.

I grew up in a small midwestern town. Halloween was never discussed as being anything "bad". In Cub Scouts, we went trick or treating for UNICEF, collecting money. When we formed a youth group at our tiny Methodist church, we had Halloween parties. Costumes, candy, hot chocolate at the end of the night... I have fun memories.

When I was older I still dressed up in costume and answered the door on Halloween. I was kind of a dork, but still it was fun to me. In our small town it was easy for kids to hit every single house in the whole town, and everyone knew everyone. On those nights I probably answered the door close to 100 times.

I don't remember what I did after high school and before I had kids. But when my first child was born, my wife and I went Halloween crazy. We dressed her up and went trick or treating even though she was too small to understand what was going on and we didn't really know the people in our neighborhood.

The next 14 years were like that.

In 1999, my daughter and I were baptized. Shortly after that we moved to Denver and joined a new church.

In our attempt to fit in with our new church family and also to live our new Christian life, my wife and I came to the conclusion that Halloween was best to be avoided. I can't remember now how exactly we came to that conclusion or what we told the children, but Halloween was completely avoided. Our church's youth group did a "Neewollah" party - no costumes or jack-o-lanterns or anything like that.

We stayed with that church for the next 4 years. Meanwhile, we had had more kids and they were at the age when Halloween sounded pretty awesome. We thought we were doing the right thing for our kids.

Then we moved again. New state, new town, new church. Our new church, even though it was the same 'denomination', had the opposite view of Halloween. They put up a big carnival, with candy and games and costumes and pretty much going all out.

How could this be? we wondered. Same church, just different place and a completely different view of Halloween. Why the difference?

It was then that I realized our mistake.

I was a computer guy. To me everything was logical. I kind of prided myself as being the kind of guy that never took anyone's word for anything and always researched and hunted and figured things out, always getting to the facts of anything. In my own decision to become a Christian I researched history and philosophy and other religions.

We hadn't done that with Halloween. We had just followed.

So we talked. And read. And decided that Halloween was pretty much harmless. While we would stay away from some of the more pagan-ish costumes and decorations, we would go crazy with everything else.

And that brings me to my final point. Educate yourself. You're off to a good start by ending up here. I know this may not be exactly what you're looking for but I hope my story is helpful to you. And above all, do what is best for your family. You know your kids better than anyone and only you can make the best choices for them.

Why I Have Atheist Friends (And I'm Not Trying To Convert Them!)

I love the Internet. I don't know at which point it became my main source of communication, but I type way more words than I speak on a given day.

I especially love social networking: Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr.... awesome. I have had some amazing conversations and met some really great people. (Something that my less-than-mobile body doesn't allow much of in the 'real world').

Recently someone (who shall remain nameless) sent me a rather snooty email educating me on the dangers of associating with the "wrong sort of people" because people will think "poorly" of me and everything I am associated with "especially the church". This person had visited my Facebook profile and had looked at my friends' profiles. The "wrong sort" they were referring to were those who listed their religious beliefs as "atheist", "agnostic", "free thinking", "new age", and "none". (I guess the guy who listed his beliefs as "The Holy Church of Bill The Cat" was OK.)

The email didn't really bother me. This particular person is, unfortunately, someone I can't completely remove from my life, like "unfriending" on facebook, so I have learned to pretty much ignore everything they say. But this particular email did get me thinking.

I have 59 friends on facebook. Out of those, only about half ever post anything, so I don't really consider them "friends" (though some are "real world" friends who just don't really use Facebook.) If we cut those out, that's 28 people. Half of those, when asked, will say they are atheist, agnostic, apathetic, or some other term to express their non-"religiousness".

So yes, I guess from that individual's point of view, I do associate with people that, in their opinion, might be called the "wrong sort".

But guess what? I love these people. To a man (or woman) they are all very intelligent, very well read, and great debaters/conversationalists.That's true about all my friends (I don't keep people around - unless I have to - that don't enrich my life in some way) and these "non-spiritual" people fit in with the others because they are all awesome, because of (or in spite of) what they believe/don't believe.

So what is a Christian guy like me doing hanging out with atheists/new agers/"other"? And worse yet, why am I not trying to turn them in to Christians????!!!???

What follows is just me rambling. I'm not really an expert on anything and would never pretend to be. Feel free to talk, debate, argue. But what's here is just my opinions. I'll be the first to admit if I'm proven wrong.

-------

Atheists are just people

(I am using the term 'atheist' - which technically means they think "there is no God or gods" - loosely to refer to anyone who is  'non-religious', though strictly speaking there are those are agnostic - "there's no way to know" -  and apathetic - "don't really care" -in there as well.)

"We have the truth, those who reject it are evil and are going to hell". 

Some churches will tell you that every Sunday. Without Christ people are evil and because they are evil they need to be saved. Atheists, therefore, have rejected Christ and are evil and you shouldn't associate with evil. "There is no good in the world without Christ. Without Christ they can't be good or do good. So stay away from bad people."

Hogwash.

Atheists are just people. They don't belong to groups that sacrifice virgins and drink blood. They're just people who go about their day to day life doing the same thing the rest of us do - eating, driving, working, parenting, pooping, etc. etc etc.

My friends don't talk about atheist things (though there is an occasional comment or cartoon posted). Atheism doesn't define them or drive them because they are too busy just getting by like the rest of us.

Atheism isn't their "religion". They don't go to "atheist church" or to "atheist non-prayer" meetings (though some do have get-togethers). Atheism isn't a religion. Calling it a religion is like calling "going commando" a type of underwear. Everyone is born an atheist. Some will stay that way, some will become "religious", and some who became "religious" will return to being atheist.

But no matter what one chooses, or doesn't choose, to believe, on a day to day practical level we all have to deal with life, health, work, family, food, and each other. In spite the churches we go to or don't go to, we are all human. And that makes us equal.

It is possible to be good and do good without religion

"Without Christ, the world would de-evolve into hedonism and disorder! There is no good without God! Even if it seems like 'they' are being good, it's only because they learned it from us!"

- Church type thing that might be said somewhere.

I was part of a church men's group years ago. One evening our discussion turned to the topic of pornography. One of my friends there worked in the cable tv business in the pay-per-view sales support. He told us that every year, this particular hotel in the city hosted a convention for youth pastors. While the youth pastors were in that hotel, sales for pay per view porn videos were through the roof. Significantly higher than when even the porn convention was in town.

I tell you this to point out that even WITH Christ, it's possible to be bad. Being a Christian does not automatically make one good in the eyes of one's fellow man.

Likewise, not being a Christian doesn't automatically make one bad. It is possible to be good and to do good without any religion in your life. Many would argue that some atheists have done more good than any  religious group.

Back to my friends, I can only speak about the atheists I know, and I've never seen any activity or discussion from any of them that I would classify as evil. Not even anything I would consider disrespectful. If fact, for the most part, they are the most respectful and loving people I know.

And caring. And not just about their own little sphere of influence, but the world. World causes like hunger, poverty, and injustice. They don't just talk, they ACT. They give. And these aren't 'atheist' causes, these are things that HELP people. Without the pretense of doing it just so they can also give those you are helping a pamphlet about atheism.

Unfortunately I know many "church" groups that only help with the pretense of evangelizing those they help. As a Christian of course I believe that we should share the "good news", but that needs to be it's own "thing" and not part of some scheme where "we will give you food and shelter if you'll sit through this sermon, if not, go find someplace else to sleep". (Not EVERY Christian group that offers aid does this, but there are some.)

Why I don't evangelize them

Here's where I get off on a huge rant. My church friends won't agree with some of this. Heck, my non-church friends might not agree with some of it, but since this is my blog, I get to say what I want *smirk*!

I talk about church, Jesus, the Bible, all that 'religious stuff" with my friends. I don't hide it, it's part of who I am.So they know where I stand. I also know where they stand on that subject. We respect each other in that area. Agreeing to disagree. We have had some great friendly debates and conversations on religious and atheistic topics.

We don't try to "convert" each other. I don't push. And they don't push back.

One misunderstanding of atheists is that they haven't heard the gospel, or haven't hear it the "right way", and therefore will accept it if it's shared properly. Or they've had some trauma in their life that has turned them from the faith and if someone will just explain to them how it wasn't God's fault then all will be ok and they will come back to "the faith".

So amazingly not true. Many who are atheists have come to that belief (non-belief) in the same way that I came to faith. Searching, studying, reading, learning. They have already been evangelized. They know the gospel as well as I do. They've looked at apologetics, they've read "The Case For Christ". They know this stuff as well as I do. They know the Bible, have looked at the faith systems of the world and have come to a different conclusion than me. Do I think they reached the wrong conclusion? Well, yes. And they think I have too.

We know that about each other. And we respect that about each other. I don't tell them they "need Jesus" and they don't tell me "Jesus was a Zombie" (unless it's a great joke!) We don't try to turn each other. If either of us did, it wouldn't work.

Here's the point I'm trying to get to:

Evangelism, as it has traditionally been done, doesn't work

Did it ever? Well, without getting into the discussion about the methods of 'Mormons' and Jehovah's witness and their door to door... thing... yes, it has worked in the past, in a sense. But whether it is evolution in human thinking, the influence of media, or whatever, telling people about your religion doesn't any longer make them want to join it. The days of Billy Graham filling stadiums and having long lines of people responding to an alter call are gone (though others still try).

And, new ways of "doing" evangelism are sometimes really bad, using guilt and shame as tactics. Oh, you've lied before? That makes you a liar. You took a pen home from work? That makes you a thief. You've seen someone who isn't your spouse naked? That makes you a cheater. You're a lying, cheating, thief. You're obviously going to burn in Hell for all eternity." I'm not sure this quite conveys the "they will know us by our love" image Christians should convey.

Here's how some outside the church see what Christians call "the good news":

So there was God. He once talked to a guy and gave him a bunch of rules to live by. Breaking those rules is called sin. You should feel very very bad about your sin. God hates it when you break his rules and you will be punished by burning in eternal hell. But the good news is, God sent his son to die for those sins so you don't have to burn in eternal pain. Hooray! So now you pray this little prayer and then you don't have to burn forever. In other words, God insists that you follow his rules. He's a control freak that wants to control every part of your life, even the way you think, and if you don't let him he punishes by burning you forever. And if you do you get to sit on clouds and play harps all day.

You can see why they reject it.

In fact, the "traditional" way of presenting the gospel has become a joke, a meme, in our Internet connected world. A brief look at 4chan or any number of Tumblr accounts will show you what I mean. How can Christians compete with that?

My opinion? We don't. We shouldn't. There isn't, and has never been, a magical formula, a way to say just the right things, to give just the right message, to bring people to Christ. Continuing to try to find it only makes it more of a joke, makes the image of Christians as ignorant and bigoted spread further.

So what do we do?

We....do nothing.

Ok, not 'nothing'. But we live. Our daily practical lives of eating, driving, working, parenting, and pooping. We just live. And in that living, we be Christ to those around us. Without condition, without preaching, without going around quoting the Bible (which more and more people declare "a book of fairy tales" and will outright reject). Just love people as Christ loves them. That's it and that's all.

The Lazarus Church

Note from the author: I've stated many times in this blog that I have issues with my church. That I feel I don't belong there, that I feel that because I kind of "stand out", that some there look down on me. While there are a few individuals that still make me feel that way, things have gotten much better. There are a greater number of people who make me feel welcome, wanted and loved. The comments in this blog are just me spewing my feelings and in no way am I claiming that these individuals are "bad" people or less loved by God. The views previously shared here were, and continue to be, my opinions and feelings.

The Lazarus Church - God still brings back the dead.

We joined our church in late 2003. We had moved to the area in pursuit of a better job opportunity and the company that hired me moved us from Denver to the Four Corners area. We wanted a church that believed as we did, and that led us to the church we currently call home.

Our first Sunday at the church looked something like this: There were 4 cars in the lot. The auditorium or sanctuary or whatever you want to call it was fairly large, but greatly disorganized. Chairs seemed to be scattered haphazardly about as if several small groups had met at the same time, then left without putting the chairs back in order. About 20 or so were lined up facing the left side of the stage, which, except for the piano and electronic organ, was unused. A music stand was placed on the floor in front of the stage facing the chairs.

The preacher was an unpaid volunteer, a member but not an elder or part of leadership structure of the church. Attendance that morning was 18. 8 of which was me and my family.

At the time, I didn't know the history of the church. Obviously, this wasn't a new church. The few in attendance were well into their 60s and older. The building was relatively new and belonged to the congregation that used it.

What I saw was the dying gasp of a church. A body that obviously was once alive and active had dwindled to a small handful of faithful (or stubborn) members that, due to age, were no longer able to perform the mission of the church.

With a lot of prayer and maybe a touch of sympathy, we decided to join. Our feeling at the time was that this church needed us. It needed someone new to keep it alive and running.

I won't go into the issues that our church was having. I still don't really understand it all. But generally speaking, selfish leadership, entrenched politics, and an attitude of "we've always done it this way" led to several bad choices. In the end, growth was stunted and slowly the body was dying off, in many cases, literally.

Fast forward 7 years. Politics and posturing have finally been given the boot. Instead of 5 cars in the lot, there are 30. The chairs are ordered and full. More chairs are placed in the back to handle the overflow. The music, instead of slow and somber, is bright, flowing, and joyful. The auditorium is bright and clean. The stage is clear, making room for the energetic preacher to wander and gesture and teach. The average age of members (if you don't factor in the growing number of children) is 30 something instead of 60 something.

What made the difference? I could point to several factors that, taken together, have made a difference, but in the end there's really only one explanation: God showed up. We are Lazarus. Once dead and called to come forth from our tomb.

God still does miracles.

Today's offering thought

The preacher asked me to do the offering prayer in church this morning at the last minute (literally as I came in the door). A Bible story immediately came to mind, I shared that and spoke from the heart. A lot of people seemed to really like what I said. I don't take any credit, it was totally a God thing, but I thought I'd jot it down.
------------
For our offering prayer I want to share a little story. You all know it, the Gospel writers all made a point of sharing it with us. This is from John chapter 6 starting at verse 5:

When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?”  He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
 Philip answered him, “It would take more than half a year’s wages to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!”
 Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, spoke up,  “Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?”
 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down (about five thousand men were there).  Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.
 When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.”  So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. (NIV)

Now the bible doesn't tell us what happened to that little boy, but I always think it's funny to imagine that after everyone had eaten their fill, they didn't know what to do with the leftovers so they gave them back to the boy. And here's the little boy struggling to carry home 12 big baskets full of food! I think that's a great reminder of how,  even when you are small and you have little to give, the Lord can do very much with it.

Some of you have been coming here for quite a long time, you remember a time when Sunrise church was very small. My wife and I were saying this morning that there was a time when we'd pull in the parking lot and we'd be happy to see 5 cars in the parking lot because that meant we had a lot of people that morning. Then we pulled in this morning and almost couldn't find a place to park! Through the faithfulness of those few that were here and the little they had to give it's brought forth this, all these people in our church this morning.
I look out here, seeing all of you and it reminds me that even when we are small and we only have a little to give, the Lord can take that and do great things with it.

It's through your giving, through your witness, and through your sharing that this church continues to grow and the Lord has continued to spread here in the Farmington area and the Four Corners.

I'm glad we serve a Lord that can do great things with very little.

For church today

I wrote this for church today, thought it came out pretty good. I know some of you might appreciate it, so I'm sharing. Here ya go:

Our dear friend who is visiting us this weekend introduced us to a new hobby: geocaching. If you haven't heard of it, it's basically sort of a treasure hunt, designed to get you out into nature. those who place the caches or treasure leave the GPS coordinates of where it was placed and a hint on a website. the seeker uses a GPS device to get close to the location, then the hint to find it. The cache is usually some sort of container filled with trinkets that other treasure seekers have left. you are encouraged to leave your name (or a nick name) on a little log book and to leave something of your own. You are also free to take something in exchange as a souvenir.

As we were doing this, I discovered something about my youngest children. They are greedy little buggers. When we found these caches, filled with all these little plastic toys and trinkets, they just wanted to take them all and not leave any behind. Including the things our friend brought with her to leave there. It took some persuading and bargaining to get them to not take more than we were leaving.

We as adults can be like that sometimes. We work and strive for our own treasure, a paycheck, and think once we get it, it's all ours. But the bible tells us that God is the one that gives us the ability to work, that He is the one that put the treasure there for us to find. And it's our responsibility to put something back.

My Ideal Church Service

(Note from Allen: I found this online, but I could not determine the author. If you know who the author is, or you are the author, please let me know so I may give credit where credit is due.)

In my family we like to remind each other, “It’s not all about you.” That’s especially true in the area of worship preferences. Today five very different generations are trying to worship together as one church body, but even if we all enjoyed the same music at the same volume, it would not be about us—“praise and worship” on Sunday mornings and the lifestyle worship of every other moment are always about God.

Having said that, I still occasionally think how different the weekly gatherings would be if I were in charge…..

• The preacher would speak no more than 10-15 minutes at one time. He may deliver a 40-minute sermon (preferably 30) but it would be spread throughout the service. Depending on his topic, the intervals between the segments of his message might be opportunities to practice what he’s preaching—by praying alone or in groups, by meditating on Scripture, by confessing, by singing, by giving financially, etc. Video testimonies, movie clips, or other visual teaching tools might be used, too.

• The sermon segments would end while the congregation still wants more, not when they are praying the preacher will sit down.

• The sanctuary in the simple, chapel-like 19th-century building would include wooden floors, white painted walls, maybe a little stained glass, and comfortable chairs. Sometimes we would gather in darkness lit by candles, sometimes in a large airy room filled with light. The seats might be arranged in the usual theater seating, in one or more large circles, in small clusters around the room, or some other pattern. The decision to do any of these would be determined by what works for the message and the day’s theme, not what seems “edgy.”

• It would be okay to bring your coffee inside, but not your screaming baby.

• High-quality artwork would beautify the space, and would be used as appropriate throughout the service.

• Music would range from David Crowder to Martin Luther and everything in between. Regardless of style, it would be consistently well-done. Think of an instrument—yep, we’d use that one.

• The following exchange would NEVER happen:
Guy Up Front (GUF): “Good morning!”
People: “Morning.”
GUF: “Let’s try again—GOOD MORNING!”
People (louder and considerably more annoyed): “Good morning!”

• Sermons would be grounded in Scripture and would challenge the attendees to greater discipleship, wherever they may be in their individual spiritual journeys. Practical applications of Scripture are fine, but not so “practical” or topical that you leave the service feeling like an audience member at the Dr. Phil show.

• Opportunities for interacting with those worshiping near you would be more genuine than the obligatory “welcome the people around you before you sit down” thing—Catholics have the right idea by offering peace to each other.

• It would be okay to laugh.

• Worship leaders would draw from a variety of sources and traditions in weaving together each service—depending on the theme they might pull from The Book of Common Prayer, the writings of Bonhoeffer, or Chris Tomlin’s chord charts.

• Choices would be made intentionally. No one would ever say, “We need 10 minutes of music before the sermon and a special for the offering. Just pick some songs.”

• The order of the service would differ from week to week. (Does it seem to anyone else that two uptempo songs, announcements, two slower songs, and onward into communion is the new “traditional”?)

• The person cueing up the power point slides for congregational singing would be alert and on top of the task. (Another argument for allowing coffee inside.) Ditto the microphone guy—we’d never miss the first four words of every speaker. - (Note from Allen: Since I'm the Power Point and sound guy, I guess I should practice what I preach!)

• No one would EVER end a prayer with “And all God’s children said……”

Maundy Thursday thoughts

When I was a teenager my family belonged to the only church in town, the United Methodist church. The Methodist church, at least the one in our little town, was big on ceremonies. Holy week was big. We did the whole Palm Sunday thing, we had a Wednesday service, a Thursday service, we had a BIG Good Friday service, the church was open all day and night on Saturday for prayer and of course Easter we had to bring in extra chairs for everyone in town.

Part of what we did, I have never seen in any other church I have been a part of. That was a Maundy Thursday service. (Some might call it "Holy Thursday" or something similar.) The gist of it is that if Christ was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday, then Thursday night must have been The Last Supper. Also, later in the night was when he was betrayed with a kiss and arrested.

The idea is that you attend the Thursday, Friday and Sunday services you would get the full "experience" of the resurrection.

Our church was not big on Communion, or The Lord's Supper, as some call it. We did it like 3 times a year, if even, and even then it was an afterthought. Something "plugged in" to the service and not the center of it.

Not so with Holy Week. We had Communion three times that week.

On Thursday night we'd have a very celebratory service. We'd sing great joyous hymns, often with guest musicians on guitar or whatever. We'd do communion as a big family thing, everyone holding their bread and juice until everyone had some and we'd talk together and pray together ... it was great.

Then we'd have a Friday service. This was very solemn. Sad. The church would be dark, except for the lights on the "stage". We'd sing sad hymns about the crucifixion. The only one allowed to talk was the pastor. We'd have Communion again, however, this time instead of juice, we'd have red wine vinegar. In the dark. In the silence. We'd leave the building in absolute silence.

Sunday was a bigger celebration. The biggest. Service would start at sunrise and often ran 3 hours or so. The front of the church was covered in lilies. Whoever built the church planned it so that mornings in the spring the sunlight would stream through the stained glass window on the east side, depicting the risen Christ near the empty tomb. The songs were glorious and loud. Everyone in the small town came to church on Easter. Every pew was filled, extra chairs were brought in, and often people stood around the edges.

That's how I remember it now, anyway. At the time I was probably bored. Going through the motions. I've been a part of a few churches since then, but somehow that set of Holy Week services at my hometown church still seems more meaningful to me than any other.

I wish the church I am part of now could somehow catch the "fever" for the season that that small town church had.

Did I hear that right?

Ok, I know the election is over and everyone is tired of talking about politics and just wants to get on with fixing what's wrong with America.

(Wasn't it President Clinton who said "There is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is RIGHT with America."? Love him or hate him, that's a good quote.)

But I heard a sermon yesterday that has me really confused and upset and I'm hoping my Christian friends (and non-Christian friends, if you have an opinion!) can help me figure this out.

Basically, the message of the sermon is that while Christians are free to vote, there's really no point because:

A) [Pilate said] “... Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him,“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above...." John 19:10-11 (ESV)

Which means all authority comes from God, He has chose who should be in power, so our vote means nothing.

B) (Earlier in the conversation) Jesus [said] “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” John 18:36 (ESV)

Which means if we are followers of Christ, He is our King, and our kingdom is not of this world, so there's no point in voting because we are not truly citizens here.


Now I wish I had taken notes during this sermon, because the preacher did make some excellent points that I have blogged about before, such as:

Christian ≠ Republican and vice versa

Churches that are out there handing out flyers and such to "get the vote out" and then disappear for another 4 years are doing it wrong.

Christians need to worry less about what is being taught in public schools and more about what we are teaching at home. (ie. Why fight for Intellegent Design to be taught in biology class if you never talk about it at home - and may not know enough about it to do so anyway.)

and, one of my mantras

You can't, and shouldn't try to legislate morality. To change the law, you must first change the hearts of people. (For example, to end abortion, you don't just outlaw it, you reach the heart of every woman until the option of abortion is no longer and option to them.)


So he made some good points, but I just can't get my head around this not voting thing. I know many Christian groups are like that, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, our founding fathers were very well versed in Scripture and many were believers. They knew what they were doing when they laid down the Constitution and made the United States a republic.

In a republic the authority belongs to the PEOPLE. In the Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln described democracy in his closing lines:

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”


So, my conclusion is, all authority is given by God, but in a democracy, that authority is given to the people. The President, Congress, and all authority in the US ultimately answers to the people. However, just because that authority is given does not mean that it is endorsed. Those in authority have the ability to really screw things up. In the case of the United States, we the people are free to really mess things up by not voting or voting the wrong way.

Am I making sense? Do you think I'm on the right track here? What do you think?

Revisiting separation of church and state.

I've written on this topic before and probably will again.

Like most people, as you go through life, your beliefs and opinions on things change. Maybe you'll completely change your mind about something. Maybe you'll look deeper into why you believe something and that belief will become deeper, sharper, more defined. Maybe you'll stop believing in something all together. I say all this to clarify - the things I post here are my personal brain dump. Nothing I post here should be taken as my manifesto on anything. I can, and probably will contradict myself on several issues. I just writes them as I sees them at that point in time.

So, here's what's going through my brain today.

After my last post regarding California's decision on same-sex unions and the evangelical community's reaction to it, I got to thinking....

My friend Adam corrected me on something that I had taken on the word of an elder at our church to be true: Churches aren't allowed to discuss political issues. As I said, that was a mistaken belief. On some level, EVERYTHING is political. But the fact is, churches are allowed to talk about issues that are questions of morality, even if they cross into what some deem the realm of politics. Same-sex marriage, abortion, pre-marital sex, just to name a few.

By the same token, in the political realm, it's impossible to avoid issues that some deem religious. The church that Barak Obama used to attend makes national news almost every day. During the campaigning, the beliefs of Mitt Romney were debated and discussed in the context of how good a president a member of the LDS church might make.

Someone once said that man is a political creature. Man (mankind) is also a creature of faith. That is to say that when it comes to God - or Allah or Buddha or Brahman or nature - everyone believes something, even if their belief is that they don't believe anything.

As such, this brings to bear the question, exactly how can we separate Church and State if mankind is both a political creature and a faithful creature?

This is where it's important to draw the line between the individual and the "organization". An individual's beliefs don't constitute "church". Likewise, one's political opinions don't constitute "state". The principle of "separation of church and state" cannot be applied to the individual. It's not like one can shut down the "religious" part of his brain when he goes to vote, nor can he shut down his political beliefs when he goes to church.

In my post cited above I rambled angily about how some are revising history books by moving any mention of anything that might be religious in the name of "separation of church and state". This doesn't change the facts that throughout the history of the world individuals have acted on their faith beliefs. This doesn't make it "church". The same applies to those who have acted on their political views, rightly or wrongly, doing so doesn't make them "the state". Teaching or writing history without paying attention to these facts is to present history that is not the truth. Likewise, those studying the Bible, writing books and commentaries need to keep the Bible as a whole and not pick and choose a verse here and a verse there to justify their positions.

So what is meant by "Church" and "State" and the separation thereof? First of all, nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase "separation of Church and State" used. The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist leaders, and is not in any legislation. However, it has become the rule of the land and has been defined by the courts. (See my post cited above for a brief description of Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 and the writings of James Madison.) The church is not an individual's faith beliefs, it is the organized church, the denominations and individual churches with their own leadership. Likewise, the state is not people, it is the governing body. Here in the United States, it would be the Federal government - the President, Congress, and Supreme Court - the states' governments - and the local governing bodies.

As I see it, government can't tell people how to practice religion and an organized church can't tell people how to practice politics. That doesn't mean that a person's beliefs, which are truly a part of him, whether political or religious won't dictate how he acts, thinks, speaks, prays, and votes. Government and the organized church cannot dictate what is in a persons mind. The rights of the individual remain sacred. Even if they weren't, the law of the land or the rule of the church cannot get inside someone's head.

I had a point when I started, but it seems to have slipped my mind. I guess, what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, et. al. The church cannot tell people how to vote or participate on a political level. Likewise, the government, or "the state" cannot tell people what to believe or what they can do on a religious level.

So, on the topic of same-sex marriage in the state of California: the state can decide whether to allow it or not, but it cannot tell people to accept it as a moral position if such a position is against their sincerely held religious beliefs. It cannot tell churches how they can use their own property and it cannot force them to perform a religious ceremony to add pomp and circumstance to a civil union. Likewise, the church cannot tell it's members to vote a certain way to overturn a decision made by the state. It can say all it wants about the morality of same-sex unions, but it cannot participate in the political process.

California cannot tell it's residents what to think or feel about same-sex unions. The passage of a law or the decision of a court may make it the law of the land, but that doesn't mean that it has to be accepted as a moral position by those who see it as immoral.

It all comes down to what's in a person's head. Church and State co-exist there and there's really nothing either one can do about it.

Too much rambling, so I'll get off my soapbox now.

Debate, don't divide.

An observation on things that divide the church but shouldn't.

I think most church leaders would agree with the statement "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity" (attributed Augustine circa 500 AD - I wasn't able to confirm that.) But the issue then is "what are the essentials?" Every denomination, every church, every group, has their own ideas as to what the essentials are and will tell you, basically, "I believe in unity, as long as everyone agrees with me."

Recently I got in to what I thought would be a friendly debate with an old friend regarding Bible translations (KJV-only v. 'modern' translations). While I thought this would be a scholarly discussion, and it started out that way, it soon became pretty heated and got so far as a question of faith and salvation.

With the utmost respect for my friend and the KJV, his position was that using only the KJV was an essential. I respectfully disagreed and believe that while the Bible shows us what the essentials are, and as such is essential in itself, there is no perfect English translation and a good student will use many different translations. I knew there was no way one of us would "convert" the other, but the friendly part of the debate broke down as passion for our respective positions took over.

My point here is that if we are ever going to achieve Christian unity, we need to find some common ground that we can all agree on. Then, once we have that, then we can debate the other issues.

The early church made such an attempt with the Nicene Creed. In 325 AD, this is what the leaders of the church came up with:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Seems pretty straight forward, right? But even though they may agree with what the creed says, there are many churches that throw it out - because it is a "creed". And even churches that would agree with what it says disagree on what some parts of the creed mean, like "baptism".

Why do we keep finding excuses to divide instead of looking for ways to unify? The "denominational tradition" I belong to (we're the denomination that doesn't like to be called a denomination) has probably set the worst example over the last 200 years or so. Large groups have divided into smaller groups, smaller groups have divided into polarized factions, and even individual churches have split over the dumbest things that really have no bearing on who God is or what He has done for us. If we can't get along on Earth, how are we going to live together forever in Heaven? (Well, some would say, only "we" are going to Heaven, because "they" don't agree with "us". *sigh*)

Can we at least agree on one thing? Just one? Jesus died for us to give us life, and he rose to give us hope. Let's start there and figure out the rest as we go along, OK?

Just had to share this

My friend Adam at Igneous Quill mentioned this article recently, I thought it was worth passing along. Those of you that are not church goers, feel free to skip it.

An Epidemic of Selfishness

Those of you in the church need to really look to see if your church has any of these symptoms.

Why do I keep going there?

Lately I've really been looking at my church. If the church is the Body of Christ, this particular church could best be described as an open oozing sore that for whatever reason won't heal.



So why do I keep going there? Why do I not take my family to another church that would be better for them, that would have groups and programs and stuff for them?



Honestly, I don't know. Part of it is just stubborn denominational-ism. Even though my church is technically "non-denominational", it's really "the denomination that doesn't call itself a denomination". It's simply known as the Christian Church. It's the church my wife belonged to since she was a girl, it was the church I was baptized in when I first became a true believer. Basically, even though each group in this "denomination" is independent and sets their own standards of membership and so on, the church I attend here is closest to my "home church".

For more about the independent Christian Churches, read this.



Another reason is that on some level, this church needs me, needs my family. It's very small, and most of the congregation is over 60. It's literally dying out. I feel like there's something I can or should be doing here to fix and heal this church. But what? I don't know.



And then I question everything. What, as a Christian, should I be doing to reach others? What is my part in missions? What is my purpose within the Body of Christ? I can honestly say that I haven't figured that out yet. If my church isn't helping me, should I seek guidance elsewhere?



It's all so confusing for me right now. My mind is basically mush, it's hard to concentrate on anything, and I truly have questions as to why this is happening to me. Is God testing me? Is He disciplining me? Why is this happening? Is there a reason at all?