The Wilderness Crier

2008-02-03T16:49:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama for President (?)

Let me preface this post with this: Ron Paul is still my guy by a mile. Secondly, I'm not suddenly sympathetic to modern liberal philosophy. But unfortunately Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination and the choice is going to be between Clinton and Obama or Romney and McCain. In 2004, I just voted for the Constitution Party candidate rather than vote for Bush (as I reluctantly did in 2000) or Kerry. And certainly, I have little in common with Obama's positions. On economics, it's more of the same left-wing ideas of higher taxes, nudges towards class warfare and other expensive policy proposals along with typical panderings to this or that victim group.

Right now the smart money is on McCain for the Republican ticket. I agree with McCain on more issues than I do Obama. And McCain is hardly as liberal as his conservative critics make him out to be, though on several key issues he is to the left of the base. But McCain is certainly not a libertarian nor is he a staunch conservative in the traditional sense. All of today's "mainstream conservatives" are in lockstep with inflationary policies and fiscal irresponsibility. McCain, at least, talks about cutting spending as a prerequisite to the right kind of tax cuts. And he's right, tax cuts without spending cuts just lead to larger deficits.But McCain and the rest of the GOP have no problem racking up huge spending overseas and around the world with out of control spending for the Warfare State. And this is McCain's major claim to fame right now. He says he has no problem having an American presence in Iraq for "100 years." He shows no desire to bring troops home from bases around the world where they've been for decades. He is generally belligerent towards any nation not on the USA's preferred list of nations. He makes a huge fuss about supporting the "surge" even though Republicans in general supported the surge. McCain, like the rest of the party, has sided with the President rather than the majority of the country on the desired direction to take with Iraq. If it was possible, and it looks to be like it is, McCain could be even much worse than President Bush in terms of foreign policy.

Clinton would be little better. She will prove that she's "tough" by dealing harshly with other nations. I have little doubt she'd keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, despite her friendly gesture to the liberal base about scaling down troop masses. Romney basically holds to McCain's positions without the military veteran credentials behind it.Obama at least shows a desire to engage with other nations. Whereas Clinton mocks him for wanting to talk to America's "enemies," this seems to be more about pride than productivity. Obama is sincere when he says he's always opposed the war. Clinton's vote in 2002 was the popular thing to do at the time when most the country was behind the concept of an invasion. Her position changed when it no longer became politically popular. The Clinton's have always been opportunists and the way they've campaigned, and how former Presisent Bill Clinton-- "America's First Black President"-- has tried to racially polarize the electorate has been shameful.

In terms of likeability, Obama wins by a longshot. I think he's sincere about wanting to bring both sides together. George Bush campaigned in 2000 as a "uniter, not a divider" and has been one of the most divisive Presidents in recent history. But Clinton II is just as, if more, divisive than her husband and the current President. After 16 years of this, and as America grows more divided, Obama has the best shot at reversing the mutual disdain of Red and Blue states, though I don't have many illusions that we will all be singing Kumbaye together anytime shortly.To be sure, Clinton and McCain are both more "qualified" than Obama. Clinton has slightly more experience as a legislator and McCain has been in elected office for many years. But what kind of experience are they bringing to the table? For the above mentioned reasons, not the right kind in my opinion. Also, and perhaps one of the most important reasons to vote for Obama is it would be a slap in the face to the Old Guard establishment on both sides. Polls show the same thing generally: Clinton wins the older vote, Obama wins the younger vote. McCain's rallies are full of elderly men in VFW caps. Even if it is mostly rhetoric, Obama at least inspires people and taps into youthful energy in the electorate.It's for these reasons, and several others, I'll be very reluctantly cheering on Obama for the rest of the 2008 election.

Prediction: Prediction: If Obama is the nominee, you won't see the Christian Right march in lockstep with the Republican Party for once in decades. For one thing, even though McCain really is a social conservative, and much more socially conservative politically than Obama, the Christian Right still by and large treats him as a pariah. If McCain makes Huckabee his running mate, that would stem the tide a bit, but then you irritate an equal or larger segment of Republicans who don't think either of them are real economic conservatives. If Hillary is the nominee, all the conservative complainers will vote for McCain despite their assertions now that they will stay home. But if it's Obama vs. McCain, all bets are off. The Old Guard Christian Right will endorse McCain. But many younger Evangelicals, who already have shown some independence philosophically in recent years, will break rank. Obama is, after all, much more vocal about his faith than McCain. And he seems much more "relevant."

2007-11-28T08:19:00.000-08:00

Jesus and Islam

As we enter into the Christmas season (what, already?!) it is obviously a good time to pause and reflect upon the birth of Jesus Christ, the son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and our great Savior. However, as we well know, not everybody will be celebrating Jesus this Christmas. One group of religious observers, Muslims, certainly will not be celebrating Christmas. What exactly do Muslims believe about Jesus and why is there such a barrier talking to them about Christ?

There exists a great deal of ignorance in the Christian community about what Muslims actually do and don’t believe. Many Christians see Islam as nothing more than a global menace that needs to be eradicated; a worldwide terrorist movement that hates all that is sacred to Christians. While I would certainly agree that Islam is a false religion, it is interesting to note areas of shared heritage. For instance, Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is an Abrahamic faith. By that I mean they consider Abraham a father of the faith. A major difference, however, is that they believe Ishmael was actually the child of promise, not Isaac.

Likewise, there are many Biblical characters that Islam revered. In fact, the Qur’an repeats (and distorts) many of the stories found in our Bible, especially the Old Testament. Many of the major Biblical characters are found in the Qur’an and are revered by Islam. Muslims would say that they basically believe in the Old Testament and much of the New—but that our Bibles have been corrupted. Most Muslims would say that “most” of the Old Testament was uncorrupted and agrees with the Qur’an, but that the New Testament is more heavily corrupted. The biggest corruption Muslims would say would be the New Testament’s assertion that Jesus is God the Son in the flesh, was mankind’s Messiah, and was put to death on the cross and later rose.
It is not at all the Muslims do not believe in Jesus or think negatively in Him. In fact, they assert that Jesus was miraculously born of the Virgin Mary. They believed Jesus was a miracle worker and will return to earth in the end of time with other significant Islamic figures. However, they do not believe Jesus was God’s son or was eternal with the Father. Islam considers such thinking to be blasphemous because they allege God the Father is so powerful and great that He does not need a Son and has no equal. Muslims also have a very difficult time with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, considering it to be illogical, polytheistic (belief in more than one God), and heretical. This is a result of not truly understanding what Christians and the Bible teach about the Trinity and trying to understand God on a logical level (no, the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. It's just a theological term and there are plenty of theological terms used that are not found directly in the Bible. The concept, however, is there in a number of Scriptures).

The Qur’an also teaches that Jesus did not rally die on the Cross. Islam explicitly teaches that before Christ was to be put to death; God miraculously delivered Him and confused His enemies. In some quarters of Islam and that someone else was killed in His place. They also consider it offensive to assert that Jesus was killed on the Cross. Jesus ranks amongst the highest and most revered prophets in Islam, but they do not believe He was divine and consider Muhammad the greatest and final prophet.

Muslims believe that with the arrival of Muhammad and the composure of the Qur’an (written in the beginning of the 600’s and put into its canonical form around 650 A.D.) and that Allah (Allah simply means “God” in Arabic. Even Arab-speaking Christians call God “Allah” just as a Spanish speaking Christian would call God “Dios") stopped sending prophets after that. There is no further revelation after the Qur’an needed, the many Muslim groups have some lesser sacred writings that they claim to come from the hand of Muhammad. It’s appropriate to point out that while all Muslims are basically united in the above information, there are some significant differences between Islamic groups that I don’t have time to go into.

But what do we make about the above claims, especially the claims about Jesus (whom Muslims also call the Messiah, though they believe He came for the righteous in the House of Israel, not for all humanity in all times who will accept Him as Savior through faith)? There is quite a bit to be said, but it is interesting how Islam selectively quotes from the Old and New Testaments when such passages line up with their beliefs but disregard other passages that do not and claim that they were “corrupted.”

In fact, the Qur’an was in part to set the record straight about God’s teachings and revelations. With so many major claims in Islam—that Ishmael was the son of promise, that Jesus did not die on the Cross, etc—there is absolutely no textual evidence for this anywhere before the Qur’an. By that I mean we have found absolutely zero instances of ancient manuscript witnesses that even come close to affirming Islamic claims. You think they would be out there somewhere and that something would have been found by now. However, it’s not until the mid-600’s that these new teachings surfaced, and at that point we are talking about 2600 years to over 600 years after the original events took place. It would be like creating new facts or changing the story of Columbus discovering the West Indies today in 2007 and saying that all previous accounts of Columbus were lacking or corrupted, while only basing this on an alleged “revelation” from God.

To this day, there have not been adequate responses to these quite basic problems with Islamic story and teaching from Islamic scholars. In fact, the Qur’an is not exposed anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny that the Bible faces. When Christians deal with Muslims, however, they should not approach them with resentment, condemnation, or even fear. They should strike up conversation about our similarities but also lovingly raise the above problems with Qur’anic assertions. We need to remember this Christmas season that God loves Muslims too, wants them to discover a true faith in Christ, and that Christ was born and died for them as well as us.

2007-11-20T22:30:00.000-08:00

Dear handful of faithful readers of this infrequently updated blog:

I'm curious to hear some topics you are interested to have me cover in future articles and opinion pieces for LRC or other outlets. And while you're at it, feel free to fire over any questions you may regarding anything.

Best,
Bill

2007-10-28T18:13:00.000-07:00

Ballroom Dancing is of the Devil!!!

Just for fun, after my young adult Bible study ended tonight, I forced everyone over my house to watch an episode of "Jack Van Impe Presents." Jack Van Impe is one of the older and still more famous self-proclaimed prophecy experts on the airwaves (who of course has been consistently wrong about every major prophetic prediction and warning, yet still is on the air and maintains many enthusiastic followers). Today wasn't so much about prophecy but about "apostate churches" and "worldly churches." Apparently one of the horrible sins infecting churches these days is the acceptance of ballroom dancing as a legitimate form of entertainment. In fact, some churches even offer ballroom dancing inside their doors!!!

Van Impe was clearly disgusted by this and repeated his displeasure several times. Ballroom dancing was mentioned along with substance addiction as one of the problems facing the culture today. Now, I certainly agree that there's all sorts of bad doctrines floating around various churches and denominations today. And I also agree that many Christians have let unwholesome habits or entertainment into their lives. But come on, ballroom dancing? What is wrong with fundamentalists and the extreme holiness types? Where do the derive their definition of "worldly"? Does "worldly" equal anything remotely "fun" not connected to private spiritual disciplines and fundamentalist worship services?

No music. No playing cards--even if its just for sport and not for money. After all, it has the appearance of worldliness! Today it's playing Uno with your buddies. Tomorrow it's standing around a poker table in a drunken stupor gambling away all your family's money. No movies. Unless they are Left Behind movies or "The Passion of the Christ." Absolutely no drinking, not even one drop! (Pot-luck galores and constant obesity is OK though, of course). No music not found on Christian radio stations. Well, actually, most fundamentalists hate contemporary Christian music thinking it also to be "worldly." All good Bible-believing Christians should only sing and listen to songs from the 18th and 19th centuries (acceptable worship music ceased being written after 1955). No name brand clothes, even if they are modest, because only "worldly" people wear those. No nice homes or cars either (unless you are a prosperity charismatic, though they'd happily accept most the rest of the above). Basically, if it feels good DON'T do it. Anything that brings human pleasure is wrong and bad.

This is the essence of true holiness apparently.

"Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of the world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules. 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!' These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." --Col. 2:20-23

Legalism and fundamentalism does not create Biblical holiness, only a false and extra-Biblical illusion.

2007-09-25T06:46:00.000-07:00

You're Not Going to Heaven Unless You Are a Pretribulationalist

Some more fun John Hagee stuff...

Here's Hagee on the importance of the Rapture, saying explicitly that unless you believe in his version of events of pretribulationalism, that you will be "left behind." Forget "Faith in Christ = salvation." It's now "Faith in Christ + pretribulational eschatology = salvation"! See his remarks on this starting at :52

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtNyEJDUU6U&mode=related&search=

And here's Hagee's in the same sermon talking about the 10 Signs that we must be the "terminal generation." Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUMWZuvocbA&mode=related&search=

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeL1_p_esg0&mode=related&search=

I'm guessing this sermon is a few years old given the catastrophic reference to SARS, which hasn't yet eliminated the human race interestingly enough and has mostly dropped off the radar screen in the media. I especially love his description of people's future confusion after the rapture as if they are all morons. I'm sure that after all the Christians disappear--and cars start colliding into each other, planes crash, and fundamentalist churches everywhere are empty--that everyone is going to blame it on space aliens or explain it away with psychology (or understand what really happened and yet choose to follow the "antichrist" anyway). When you really sit and think through this on both a Scriptural and logical level, you really have to wonder how so many people could believe this ridiculous nonsense. As the false predictions continue to pile up from several generations of "prophecy experts," it's only a matter of time before this doctrine is completely discredited and ceases misleading people.

2007-09-07T18:37:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul and "Isolationism"

The term "isolationism" is ridiculously thrown around and misapplied to anybody who does not favor perpetual warfare. Here's a post I left on the LRC blog on the issue as it pertains to Ron Paul's campaign with a link to a piece from a year ago on the wider issue:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015169.html

2007-08-23T13:12:00.000-07:00

God Is Not As Interesting As My I-Phone or Harry Potter
By Bill Barnwell
Brown City Youth Camp 2007

Sarah (energetic but in trancelike state): Wow, I am soooo tired but so happy right now.

Brandon: Whoa, you don’t look very good, what’s wrong?

Sarah: I have been up for the last 6 straight days reading the new Harry Potter book, “Deathly Hallows”, and all the other Harry Potter books before that. I haven’t slept or eaten all week. The week before that, I stood in line for 84 hours to get the new book right when it came out. Since then all I’ve done…is read Harry Potter.

Jim: Whoa you brought the new Harry Potter book? Do you have it with you? Hey everyone, Sarah has the new Harry Potter book! (extreme pandemonium with group)

Kelly: Did you read the ending? Does Harry live?

Chris: Whatever happens to the Elder Wand? Does Harry lose the power of the wand?

Jenny: What about the Resurrection Stone? Does anybody find it in the Forbidden Forest?

Jim: Hey, wait a minute, don’t give away the ending…(mesmerized and tranquil) I want to experience the greatness of Harry Potter myself.

Kelly: I’ve memorized the entire first 55 pages of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. If I keep working at it, I can memorize every word of the first book by the end of the year.

Chris: Yes, I memorize passages from Harry Potter too. Quoting Harry Potter helps get me through the difficult times in life. It gives me hope to press on and keep going.

Jim: (to Sarah): Can I please just touch the Harry Potter book? Please? I want to feel its power!

Jenny: Hey, didn’t our youth pastor say something about reading and memorizing some other book too? (crowd confused and hushed, discuss amongst themselves “Another book? Huh? What other book?”)

Brandon: But what other book could be as powerful, interesting, and inspiring as Harry Potter?

Sarah: How does he expect us to read another book? Who has time for other books between Harry Potter and playing around on the Internet? (crowd agrees).

Christina: I think it was some other book called, “The Bibel” or something like that.

Jim: Yes, I believe I’ve heard of this…Bibel. It’s about a God-man named Jesus who does magic, and then he uh, finds the Resurrection Stone and tells his Father to raise him from the dead after he dies. And if we believe in Jesus, we will get to wear the Cloak of Invincibility for eternity. Or something like that. (everyone collectively banters saying things like “oh yeah that’s right” “I remember now kinda”)

Pastor Tim (enters from outside): What are you guys talking about? It’s called the Bible, and Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh who died on the cross for our sins so we could have eternal life. He’s also the reason all of you are at youth group. Remember now? (crowd pauses and then lets out a collective “ooohhhh.”)

Cindy: But Pastor Tim, is the Bible really as good as Harry Potter though?

Pastor Tim: The Bible is awesome guys. It’s got adventure, love, romance, betrayal, and tons and tons of wisdom and instruction. Don’t you remember some of the great verses I’ve taught you? Come on let’s recite some of them. Let’s start with Ephesians 2:8-9!….(everyone just looks blank and quiet). OK, how about…John 14:6! (same response). OK, uh, John 3:16…Genesis 1:1??? (still nothing).

Christina: This is boring, when are we going to play a game? (everyone agrees).

Kelly: Can we at least like have some music or something? Music is cool.

Pastor Tim: Yeah, sure, we can do music. How about some Hillsong United? Or maybe some classic Third Day? (everyone lets out a disappointed groan).

Sarah: Those groups are stupid. Let’s play some Fall Out Boy! (everyone cheers).

Pastor Tim: Ok, fine, you guys don’t know the new stuff yet. How about a classic. Come on, everybody knows “Amazing Grace,” let’s sing that one! Ready?! (begins to sing by himself).

Jenny: I don’t know that song. But I do know the words to empowering and inspiring songs like this one, (begins to sing lyrics to ridiculous and vulgar song) “I'm not here for your entertainment/You don't really want to mess with me tonight/Just stop and take a second…”

Pastor Tim: (cuts her off) That’s OK, Jenny, we’ll pass on that one.

Jenny: But that song is sooooo cool, every girl loves it! The last part goes, “It’s just you and your…”

Pastor Tim: No thank you Jenny! That song is really inappropriate by the way. How come you guys are able to memorize all the lyrics to these raunchy songs, but you don’t even know the lyrics to any Christian music from church or the radio?

Chris: (aside to his friend) Man, Pastor Tim is real a jerk. He needs to stop making us think and stuff.

Pastor Tim: OK, OK, obviously you guys aren’t too motivated to talk about the Bible or sing any Christian songs. So, why don’t we do this, why don’t you guys go around and tell me some things you are excited about and some things you are thankful to God about. I’ll start. I’m thankful for salvation and that Jesus died for us. Isn’t that cool? (no response from the group) OK, your guys’ turn.

Christina: I’m thankful for my new I-Phone that my parents got me. You guys should totally see this thing. It can do everything (Crowd again worked up into a pandemonium).

Sarah: Wow, you got an I-Phone!? That’s so awesome!

Christina: Yeah, it’s great. My I-Phone can even bomb Canada. You can do anything with these things!

Brandon: I heard that the I-Phone is all-powerful and all-knowing!

Jim: Can I just once again…touch the I-Phone...and feel it’s power. (touches phone)

Kelly: Let us worship the I-Phone, the computer, the products, and celebrities that give our lives true meaning! Come on everybody, let’s sing! We wanna see I-Phones lifted high/a product that sells across this land/that consumers might buy and know/it is the way to heaven/We wanna see (clap, clap, clap). We wanna see (clap, clap, clap).

Pastor Tim: Guys, guys, what is wrong here?! The I-Phone and all these other things are not your Saviors!

Crowd: Hey, how come you never want us to have fun!

Cindy: Yeah, what do you have against the I-Phone and reading other books?

Pastor Tim: Nothing! Look, don’t get me wrong. I love to read fiction books and magazines. I like some songs on the radio as long as they aren’t dishonoring to God. I like my cell phone and I think the Internet is great. But these toys shouldn’t be taking up all our time and replacing our relationship with God! And forget these celebrities, we need Godly people with morals and integrity to be our role models.

Jenny (totally serious): You mean like….Lindsay Lohan?

Pastor Tim: No, not like Lindsay Lohan! Ugh, don’t any of you get it after all these years?

Chris: So you’re saying following Jesus is even more fulfilling than all these things, and that we can still have fun as Christians if we have the right priorities?

Pastor Tim: Yes, if you’d just give it a chance.

Jim: Sorry Pastor Tim, I don’t have time for all that, I have to go finish the Harry Potter series (he exits).

Brandon: And I have to go spend the next nine hours on Myspace leaving all my friends comments so they’ll leave me comments back on my site. That way I can feel cool and popular. (he exits along with half of the group, the other half stays).

Cindy: I think you’re right Pastor Tim. You’re right I have been putting everything else before God. I guess I really do have time for Him, I’m just always making excuses.

Kelly: Yeah, I want to stay too. I’ll actually listen this time instead of writing notes so I can learn something.

Pastor Tim: OK, I’ll tell you what, let’s open up in prayer and ask God to be with us today (they all bow in prayer and after a moment everyone exists offstage).

THE END

*Pastor Tim represents how I feel on a fairly regular basis. The kids' attitudes are only a slightly exaggerated version of what I encounter with people week after week. It begins to catch up with you after awhile.

2007-07-02T14:11:00.000-07:00

Are All Sins the Same?

"All sin is sin - one sin is not greater than another and should not be condemned any more harshly than any other sin."

This is a popular concept in Evangelicalism today which I suppose we owe to the Baptistfication of theology, but I don't think it is wholly accurate. Certainly in both the OT and NT certain sins were singled out for more severe punishment or condemnation. While there was a whole lot of stonin' going on in the OT, the law did not require every sin to result in stoning. There were levels of punishment. In the NT, we have teaching about various sins and living righteously, but Christ indicates that some sins are worse than others and will even have graver eschatological consequences (Matthew 11:20-24).

Likewise, Paul denounces a whole host of sins, but not all sin was meant with expulsion from the assembly. Paul has a good amount to say about sexual sin, even taking place within the church, but a certain "kind" of sin Paul calls for expulsion (I Cor. 5:1). So, in the here and now, there is clearly a distinction of sin and punishment, and we even have hints of levels of suffering and reward in the hereafter (Matt. 11:20-24; I Cor. 3:10-13).Where all sin is alike is that it all leads to death. Theoretically if a guy's only sin in life is stealing a Snicker's bar and he doesn't have the forgiveness of Christ, then his sin condemns him just as sin condemns the hardened murderer who is also without Christ. But it's absurd to think that stealing a Snicker's bar is morally equal to child rape or armed robbery, even though all are sinful activities. I think I understand what people mean when they say all sin is equal in that all sin leads to death and all sinners need Jesus (i.e. all of us). But I'm not seeing anywhere in Scripture where "all sin is the same."

The statement above I am responding to took place in a Christian discussion forum I am a part of. The subject was homosexuality and the poster was trying to make a statement that while she accepted that homosexuality was sinful, it really isn't any different from any other sin. While I don't agree with that for reasons stated above, I'm not so sure homosexuality is all that much more terrible than many other forms of sexual sin. Most Christians who take a high view of Scripture can make many Biblical and practical cases against homosexuality. I find the gay-friendly theologies out there quite unconvincing, not because of inherent bigotry, but because they just don't convince.

But while conservative Christians speak out against sexual sin of all kind, none come under such hysteria as the homosexual issue. And the gay-lib theologians are correct in pointing out that the condemnations of straight sexual sins far outnumber those specifically directed at homosexuals. In fact, we don't exactly have mounds of direct references to homosexuality in the OT or NT-- but we do, however, have more than enough to build a case against the behavior, and I don't think it can just be limited to cultural considerations. But if we want to take the gay marriage issue, which for the record I do not support--can we honestly say with a straight face that gays are destroying the institution of marriage by their political activities aimed at obtaining basically secular "marriage" recognition? It seems to me that straight people did a fine job on their own of denigrating marriage, including more than a few married Christian couples.

2007-06-28T15:50:00.000-07:00

Cut Up All Your Credit Cards?

Early in my college years, I was constantly warned about the evils of credit cards. Horror stories were told of people who got in over their heads and eventually went bankrupt because of their high accumulation of debt. If a person had a credit card, they’d always be tempted to spend more than they could afford and be enslaved by minimum payments and accumulating interest. The solution given to me and many others who did not already have established credit was to never apply for a credit card. The advice to everybody else who had cards was to cut them up and never use them again or at least for the foreseeable future.

This advice, while having the appearance of wisdom, is not actually wise for everybody. It’s only good advice for impulsive people who cannot manage their own spending, or who have not mastered the art of using credit cards to their own advantage. For everybody else, especially those who have never established their own credit, it’s incredibly bad advice.

Doing some side work now in the mortgage business has been quite enlightening regarding people’s view and use of credit. Usually what happens is a potential borrower contacts me about securing a loan for a home purchase or a refinance. After taking down some basic information I inform them that I have to pull their credit. Within moments I am able to see the potential borrower’s credit score from the three major credit bureaus (a word of advice: always check your credit report each year because it’s very common to find errors. Also, always get your credit scores. Free reports usually don’t include the score for free, but it’s worth the cost to know your score. And don’t just get the score from only one bureau, get it from all three. Lenders almost always use the middle score, and if you only pull one score, it may not be the one on which you’re actually judged) and also their credit usage history.

After pulling the reports I very often find that people have dug themselves into a hole with their credit cards: very high balances, late payments, etc. But I also find another interesting scenario: would-be borrowers who have no credit cards and show little if anything in their actual credit file. The problem with this is that to obtain favorable loans (or a loan at all), you have to have a proven record of responsible use of credit.

So here’s the problem: No or bad credit history = no or low credit score = no loan ineligibility or sky-high interest rates.

At least the guy with the diminished credit can still maybe be approved for a subprime loan. But the young guy with no credit file and little if any money for a downpayment, will not get a loan at all. Not only that, but when he finally wakes up and realizes that it’s very hard to be economically successful with no credit history, he finds that it’s incredibly hard to establish credit. When the bank or whoever finally approves the consumer for a card it usually has a very low credit limit and very high interest rate. That’s OK, there’s still hope. Just keep reading.

When I talk to people who have the thin or nonexistent credit files, I ask them if they’ve considered taking out a credit card or department store card. Their response is like mine used to be: “Well, I always thought credit cards were a bad thing so I just avoid them.” Some remark, “I have a debit card, does that count”? (The answer is no for credit building purposes).

The hysteria against credit cards is an overreaction to the larger cultural problem of debt irresponsibility. You can have a credit card, including those really high-interest ones, and be completely responsible and never even pay a dime of interest as long as you have it. The solution is very simple: pay your balance in full each month. Forget the “minimum payment.” The minimum payment is designed to keep you enslaved to debt and make the lenders more money. Instead, you can make more off them in terms of convenience, building your credit file, and earning gimmicky “rewards” from the issuers, just for using your card responsibly. As long as you don’t spend more than you can completely pay off each month, you’re fine, and you’re not sinning or being wasteful by using a credit card in the process.

Let’s say you’re a grown adult who has never taken out any revolving credit in your lifetime (or maybe no credit period) and you’ve struggled to finally get approved for a card. They wind up giving you a card with a low credit limit of $500 and a 22% interest rate. Here’s what you do: just put some gas and food on the card each month and pay it all off every month, ignoring the “minimum payment.” Don’t ever be late. Do that for six months and you’ll be on the map with a credit score.

Give it another six months or so and apply for another card advertising great rates and rewards. After a year of responsible, timely credit usage, you’ll easily get approved, have a much higher credit limit, and a much better interest rate. But you won’t need to worry about the interest rate anyway since you’re going to pay it all off on time anyway. If you do leave a balance on occasion (as some credit building strategists advice), keep it small. Another thing lenders look at is what your available credit limit is in proportion to the amount of credit still available. The more credit available, the more responsible borrower you appear to be and the higher your credit score. Also, don’t close out that old card. Keep it as an active trade line by charging a small purchase or two a month each and then pay it all off.

On a whole, credit cards can be very convenient. But don’t look at them as a tool to “buy” something today and pay it off next year. Your purchase will wind up costing you much more than the original price after interest piles on. Think of it as buying something today and paying for it in a couple weeks. Instead of carrying around large sums of cash, you can instead pay with your card, and then in a couple weeks pay off your card online with convenient online banking (Who still sends checks these days? If it’s you, get with the times!). And in the process your credit score grows and your purchasing power increases. Make your credit a tool for your own success instead of an instrument of irresponsible spending and piling debt.

Bankers have a name for people who use credit responsibly and as a tool for their own success: they call them “deadbeats.” That’s because when you use credit to your own benefit, you are enriching yourself, and not the banks.

Anti-debt hysteriacs are leading too many young adults astray with their fear mongering of credit cards. They have “thrown the baby out with the bathwater” to use an odd expression. They assume that everybody who uses credit cards is on the path towards bankruptcy, just as many teetotalers assume that every person who enjoys an occasional glass of wine with dinner is on the fast track to becoming an alcoholic.

They even go so far as to say that taking out a home loan is sinful or economically unwise in every circumstance. So unless you have 100K upfront to fork over for a small and modest house, you should rent your entire life rather than buying a home in your price range with payments you can realistically afford. Nevermind that some of these “debt-free” enthusiasts are multimillionaires. Their books sales and radio shows enable them to put all the money down for their homes and follow their own advice. Most likely, you don’t have that luxury. Nor will you ever have much purchasing power if you avoid credit completely.

So, cut up all your cards? Only if you’re impulsive and have no self-control. If that’s you, then yeah, you need to go cold-turkey and get the temptation out of your path. But for everybody else, you’re much better off to use debt and credit to your advantage. If you haven’t established any credit yet, now is the time to get started. And one of those little cards might just be the trick.

2007-06-24T18:39:00.000-07:00

Revivalism, R.I.P.?

"Revival" is of often thrown around term these days that rarely has anything to do with its meaning and certainly bears no resemblance to the First, Second, and Third Great Awakenings in America. We often hear in churches and Christian colleges that "we are praying for a revival." In the holiness and even some Baptist traditions, holding church "revivals" was and sometimes still is a regular event. Even back a few decades ago, churches would hold "revival," call in a big shot evangelist and pack the place out. The preacher would deliver a series of convicting sermons, invite people to "come forward" during the altar call, where people would pray the sinner's prayer, "asking Jesus into your heart" and so on.

Today revivals have mostly gone by the wayside. A lot of churches still try them, but they are a shadow of their former glory. This is what a revival means today for the average church that is still doing them: "We are bringing in a special speaker who is different from the guy you normally hear (sometimes still the formerly big deal, but now much older Evangelist) and we're going to have a week of evening services where a third to one half of the congregation will show up."I've preached revival services. I like the concept. I wish they were still a big deal. But in my experience in speaking at them, and even trying them at my own church, 98% of the people coming are the leaders and the people who already come to everything. Those riding the fence spiritually usually don't show and usually visitors aren't attending in any meaningful number. I say usually because there are exceptions of course. I know of some examples from different churches who made their first commitments during a revival service. But more often than not, it's just a week of extra evenings of church with sermons focusing on salvation and the Holy Spirit and attended by people who are already long-time Christians. The days appear to be gone, at least in the regions I've lived, where the whole neighborhood would come out for revival services. Now you're lucky to get half of your congregation to come out to these services.

Camp meetings have also been going out of style the last couple decades as well. Brown City Camp (my annual denominational family camp in Michigan) is an exception in that the camp is still booming with over 2,000 people at evening services, but even there, I'd say 90% of the people are the same attenders year after year. This figure is even higher in regards to people who actually stay on the camp grounds, since there is a multi-year long waiting list for new people to get camp lots. So your best hope is for people to find someone to stay with on the grounds, or commute to evening services, but generally it's mostly the same people coming to camp. Revivalist camps love the altar call, as do most churches out of the revivalist movement. I'm not opposed to them, I think they can be useful, but I think they are overrated. One thing I've always noticed about altar calls is that normally it's the same people who come forward, and more often than not, it's the people who are already serious about things. The minority of respondents are people who come forward time and time again about the same sin issue, or feel the need to get saved 20 times.

This raises another interesting question about the altar call. Preachers tend to get real excited when a lot of people come forward, but is it perhaps a bit troubling if the same people are coming forward for the same struggles year after year? (and/or always the leaders that most of us would already like to emulate coming forward, whom you could preach a sermon to about the need not to torture kittens, and they would still feel convicted for some reason and come forward).I hope these type of revivalist concepts stick around for awhile.

Honestly, I generally like evangelists, camp meeting, special services (however I'm becoming less and less fond of the "sinner's prayer" though I still employ it), altar calls, ect. But is the revivalist movement on life support, or at least approaching it's Medicaid years?

2007-06-07T12:39:00.000-07:00

Why Do You Believe Or Not Believe in God?

Recently I've read some high profile skeptic books such as Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" and Dawknins' "The God Delusion." Unfortunately for them, their works did not cause any crisis of faith and I'm quite content following Jesus, however I will acknowledge that their books were decent reads, though they did quite often vastly overstate their cases. But I enjoy reading such works, as well as theistic works by my favorite Christian authors and theologians. My question to anyone reading this is: Why do you believe in God, or why don't you? And if you care to follow it up, "Why do you believe in the specific tenets of your faith?" Let's hear your testimonies.

2007-06-05T19:10:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul and the Rest of the Republicans in Tonight's Debate

Just what the flip is up with the mainstream of the Republican party? Listening to the the media and establishment "frontrunner" Rudy Giuliani, and his two sidekicks in the so-called "Big Three" scares me. Especially with Giuliani and McCain, these guys take warmongering to a new level. If left up to them, the war in Iraq would have a blank check for an indefinite time period. Their supporters love them because they are such hawks, but it is on these points that these two seem most oblivious to reality. Just how many years, how many deaths, and how many hundreds of billions of dollars need to be spent before they retreat from their gospel of nation building and spreading global democracy? There appears to be no sign that Americans are "safer" today than we were four years ago, and it seems we are even less so, especially overseas. Terrorist recruitment is not suffering for a lack of converts. Yet King Rudy & Co. see this as a validation of their failed policies. Basically what they want is perpetual war for perpetual peace. And it's a good way to bankrupt and demoralize the country.

The Republican base loves this tough talking rhetoric. They apparently love failed policies as well. Especially on Iraq, they apparently don't grasp empirical evidence that trying to remake the country in our image just isn't going to work. McCain, however, just wants to blame it on Bush's "flawed policy and management," and wants to replace it with his own policy and management which I'm almost certain will be just as bad or worse. Here's the kicker, 65% of the country basically agrees with this above assessment. Republican primary voters do not. They will hold onto their obtuse and irrational beliefs regarding militarism even though the vast majority of the country is rejecting their foreign policy.

Funny the transformation of Republicans in the past 7 years. Back then, I could write columns like this and conservatives cheered (though note that I have toned down the meanness over the years). Today, if I apply those same foreign policy standards, I am an American-hating loon. I had thought in those days that Republicans were turning over a new leaf, when in reality they were just trying to stick it to Bill Clinton. Of course, plenty of leftists flip-flopped as well but such is the nature of politics.

One person who has stayed very consistent is Ron Paul. I always like Dr. Paul, but I didn't think tonight was his best night. For one, he had less than half the time to speak compared to the "Big Three" and some of his answers tonight--on immigration for instance-- weren't particularly impressive. One of Dr. Paul's problems is that he's too nice. I would like to see him be more aggressive in these debates in contrasting himself with other individual candidates instead of just running against the pack in general. I'm not saying he should be harsh, defamatory, unfair, or engage in unnecessary name-calling. But he has plenty of room to contrast his views with theirs individually. I was hoping he'd strike back at Giuliani attacks. Basically, Paul got so much attention last time because of his scuffle with Rudy. He needs to do something in these debates to stir the waters. Just stating anti-war positions is not going to do it anymore. If he doesn't do anything to stir the waters a bit, he'll get as much coverage and attention as Tommy Thompson.

This is not all Paul's fault. Even though he's not part of the "Big Three" he's been the most controversial of the "second and third tier candidates." With Paul, we actually could have a debate between he and the other candidates. Right now, these 10 man contests are more of a beauty contest, a test who can get in more cutsey one-liners and who can pander to militarists the most. While there is more uniformity amongst the current crop of Democratic candidates, their debate on Sunday at least had elements of a "debate" (contrast), even though the contrasts were mostly fabricated by the candidates. Today's Republican debate, on the other hand, was fairly boring. But overall, this campaign has been great for Ron Paul and has given him more visibility than ever. I just hope he can continue to be a part of the discussion and make more waves in the future. If the GOP doesn't get off of its World Policeman kick eventually, not only will the party pay, but so will the nation. I sincerely fear a Giuliani or McCain presidency.

2007-05-26T15:34:00.000-07:00

What Is Up With Dreams? One of the Many Mysteries of the Brain

I have always been fascinated by dreams. Apparently so are many scientists. This field of neuroscience continues to baffle many in the field as they struggle to make sense of dreams, their function, and their processes. Much of the same can be said of sleep as scientists have many unanswered questions regarding many of its nature and purposes. But what is up with some of the crazy things that happen each night when we are in REM sleep? Is there any hidden deeper meaning or purpose to our dreams? Most of the time, I really don't think there is (though I grant there are exceptions to this--for instance see the testimony of former Muslims having dreams or visions of Christ). As an example, last night I had a dream where I was at a play of some sorts and when I walked outside one of the doors to go to the bathroom Michael Moore was standing there talking to a couple other people.

After going up and introducing myself to Moore somebody opened a door which made us visible to the audience. Instinctively I moved out of the way out of fear the audience would see me. Moore didn't have enough time to get out of the way and was seen by the audience and he got mighty embarrassed and angry at me that I didn't get him out of the way also. That's the last thing I remember about the strange dream.

Let's break this down. First, why did Michael Moore make an appearance in my dream? Sure, he's occasionally the subject of discussion, and several days previously I had seen the trailer for his upcoming movie, but there's nothing so significant about him on a personal level. Also, I don't remember even thinking about him a day or two before the dream. Second, what merged Michael Moore and theatre into a single dream? Yes, I have a lot of experience in theatre, but I haven't done a mainstage show in several years and certainly none of them have involved Mr. Moore. Third, and this I found most interesting, was how my brain mixed up a couple concepts. In real life, if I were a non-participant in a production, it would not have mattered to me if somebody leaving an auditorium opened up a door and exposed me to the wings of fellow audience members. There would have been no reason to panic and run out of sigh. However, again in real life, had I actually been a participant backstage awaiting an entrance, or observing what was going on onstage, and had been inadvertently exposed to the audience, that would have been bad news. But my brain crossed those two very different scenarios into one.

Certainly some dreams probably do have a deeper significance--people's fears, unresolved conflicts, etc. But at least in my case, most the dreams I actually remember are nonsense or more akin to my brain just doing random things while I sleep. What makes all this happen during states of semi-consciousness is interesting and apparently there is no definitive answer. The hard-core materialist will just link this to the randomness of the brain in general. And what we consider "we" or our "personality" is just stuff interacting in our brains. There's no eternal "spirit," no sacredness, just reductive physicalism. Of course, they can't account for the rise of consciousness in humans or any other creature for that matter. We can understand what parts of our brain do what, but the whole area of consciousness is more murky territory for neuroscientists. Many atheistic types just pronounce the rise of consciousness a mystery and leave it at that.

Obviously I don't buy into reductive physicalism for a number of reasons, but the brain certainly is a fascinating thing. And much remains to be discovered about these different subjects related to the brain: sleep, dreams, consciousness on a whole, etc. I do think there are some answers out there and if they come I don't suspect they'll validate the claims of mystics who find meaning in every dream nor the reductive physicalist who bases everything on naturalism. But whatever the answer, it sure would be interesting to know the cause (and purpose, if anything) of the oddball things my brain processes and arranges on a nightly basis.

2007-05-25T16:02:00.000-07:00

The Jews! The Jews!

From an email today going on and on about how the Jews control everything:

It's no coincidence that the city with more Jews than any other in the world has a baseball team with $220,000,000.00 payroll. I'm not saying the Jews are the reason why the Yankees have won 26 WS, but they're a part of it.

I burned the roof of my mouth eating pizza earlier today. I bet the Jews did it.

2007-05-15T22:58:00.000-07:00

Falwell and the Telletubbies

One more note on the Falwell issue. Since 1999 it has been repeated over and over again that Falwell "outed" Tinky-Winky, the purple telletubby. Over eight years later, this silly story is still printed in press accounts and has featured prominently in bloggers' hate memorials to Falwell as well as mainstream media biographies after his death. But in fact, Falwell never "outed" the goofy children's show character. What happened was another writer in the National Liberty Journal pointed out, correctly I might add, that certain gay groups were claiming Mr. Winky as one of their own. This had already been on the record prior to the Liberty Journal making note of it. So, Falwell didn't write or originate the story, and the story itself was just repeating what a few gay groups were already saying. But still to this day everybody quotes this anecdote as if it was gospel truth and to show just how supposedly gay obsessed Mr. Falwell was. Too bad all the Falwell smearers have their facts wrong on this issue. Then again, I guess that doesn't matter to people who want to smear a prominent dead Christian guy.

2007-05-15T11:35:00.000-07:00

Tolerant Loving People Who Are Celebrating the Death of Jerry Falwell

I was shocked and saddened today to learn of the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell. Though I have been very critical of some of Falwell's politics and theological positions, I nevertheless always considered him a brother in Christ. While I did not care at all for his dispensationalism, his hawkishness on foreign policy, and his apologetics for the Bush administration, he has done a number of good things over the years and certainly has impacted many people for the gospel of Jesus Christ. I never knew Falwell personally aside from a couple brief encounters. But I am always sad at any loss of life, especially when it is unexpected. I believe that Falwell is with the Lord. Whatever his faults were, I have no reason to question his salvation. But my real reason for this post is to respond to what others are saying about his death. When I heard the news, I immediately said to myself, "I bet some on the hard left are celebrating." And indeed a cursory blog search indicated this to be exactly the case.

The comments I've read from anti-Falwell types have been disgusting and heartless. Celebrate the death of a man because you disagreed with some of his opinions and political activism? The most passionate anti-Falwell types hated him because he did not support homosexual behavior and because he was anti-abortion. This alone makes someone a hateful, worthless bigot according to the hard left. But let's just say for a moment that Falwell is a bad as these folks claim. How does celebrating his death and laughing about such a tragedy make his critics any better? In fact, it arguably makes them much worse. I cannot recall the time I read about Falwell making statements where he laughed off or celebrated the death of a gay person, though his disagreements with their beliefs were just as passionate as their disagreements with his. Of course in political debate, some folks on all sides of the spectrum are able to dehumanize anyone who disagrees with them. Therefore, who cares about the people close to Falwell, his family and friends who are grieving, and who cares about the loss of life. Ding-dong the bigot is dead. That's all that matters.

I'll leave you with a link to this particular blog which "sheds no tears" over Falwell's death. Read the comments on this blog post and read through the loving comments left by those who celebrate death. This is coming from the same crowd no doubt that pats itself on the back for being so much more tolerant than people like Falwell: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/05/jerry-falwell-dead.html

2007-05-03T07:18:00.000-07:00

The Great Tribulation of Matthew 24: Past or Present?

The following brief study of the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21) was put together by Dr. Fred Long. For the past seven years, Dr. Long has taught at Bethel College in Mishawaka, IN, and this summer is joining the staff of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY. This study basically asks "What was Jesus talking about in the Olivet Discourse?" For instance, is the "great tribulation" described here a past or future event? Does Matthew 24 teach that there will be a rebuilt temple? Is the Antichrist referenced here? Read and feel free to add your comments.

General Structural Observations on the Olivet Discourse
Dr. Fred Long, 10-2002

I. The Matter of Setting is Clear: the Temple and its Buildings will be destroyed

Note the Chiasm in Mark’s account:

A Mark 13:1 And as He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him,
B "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones
C and what wonderful buildings!"
C 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings?
B Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down."
A 13:3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately,

II. The Matter of Questions: The First is clear, the second not as Clear

A. The First: “When will these things be?” (i.e., the temple being destroyed)

B. The Second Question:
1. In Mark and Luke:
a. I believe the second question is simply an elaboration of the first, “What will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled (about to take place)?”
b. I believe implicit in the disciples’ thinking is this, “When the temple is destroyed, surely this is when Jesus returns for good, to judge and set up his eternal kingdom.”
c. Matthew makes this question/assumption explicit.

2. In Matthew:
a. The second question in Matthew is this: “What is the sign of your coming (parousia) and the end (sunteleia) of the age?”
b. I believe this refers to Jesus’ final coming in Judgment and to set up his eternal kingdom and/or New Heavens/New Earth.
c. In the disciples’ thinking according to Matthew the assumption
might still be that the destruction of the temple, since it is so cataclysmic, must correspond with Jesus’s final coming and judgment and eternal kingdom.
d. Some see three questions behind Matthew’s account: 1) When will the Temple be destroyed? 2) What is the sign of your coming? and 3) What is the sign of the end of the age?
po,te tau/ta e;stai kai. ti, to. shmei/on th/j sh/j parousi,aj kai. suntelei,aj tou/ aivw/nojÈ However, in the Greek “coming” and “end” share a definite article, so really, these belong to the same question.

III. The Matter of Answers: How does Jesus answer these questions (or other
implicit questions)? Four Options:

Option A. He doesn’t answer their first question, but rather goes to the “meat and potatoes” implicit question for Mark/Luke or the explicit second question in Matthew. He answers the question, “What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?”

1. This is a futurist interpretation, very popular among evangelicals. All of the Olivet discourse is happening now or will yet happen. It is basically a checklist for us to keep looking for today.

2. The strength of this position is that certainly the beginning of the Olivet discourse (Matt 24:3-34) contains many “signs” which culminate in “the sign of the Son of man” (24:30).

3. The weakness is that Jesus ignores the first question(!). Also there are other notable difficulties with the passage, among which are 1) Jesus says “this generation will not pass away before these things take place” (“this generation” always refers to Jesus’s contemporaries, e.g.,
Matt 11:16; 12:41-45; 23:36*) and 2) the tension created by Jesus giving all “these signs” in Matt 24:4-34, yet then later saying “no one knows the day or hour” in the remainder of Matthew 24, where Jesus also emphasizes the suddenness of his coming.

Option B: Jesus answers the first question first, then the second question. He then gives a corresponding “time tables” for each in ABAB pattern. This is a Partial Futurist position.

A Matt 24:4-28 Jesus describes Temple destruction
B Matt 24:29-31 Jesus describes His Second Coming
A Matt 24:32-35 Time Table for Temple Destruction: One generation
B Matt 24:36-39 Time Table for Second Coming: No one knows

1. The strengths are many: 1) It takes the first question seriously; 2) It resolves the tension of how certain things could happen within “this generation”, and yet others when “no one knows.”

2. There are some weaknesses, however. First, do the events in Matt 24:4-28 really only relate to the destruction of the Temple? Second, it seems as if Jesus sees the events of vv.4-28 as “immediately” preceding Jesus’s second coming (see v.29). This did not happen.

3. Third, would Jesus’s hearers have understood the alternation between ABAB (i.e., temple, second coming, temple, second coming)?

Option C: A third position is similar to B above, except that it sees the description of the Second Coming (parousia) not at Matt 24:29-31 but at 24:36ff. This is called a Partial Preterist position.

1. Matt 24:29-31is rather a description of Jesus “coming in judgment” upon Israel/Jerusalem.

a. It employs apocalyptic and poetic language from OT passages. For example, the sun/moon/stars language (Matt 24:29) is found in the OT referring to the fall of a nation. For the falling of Babylon, see Isaiah 13:9, 10, 13. For the capital city of Bozrah in Edom, see Isaiah 34:3-5. See also “the day of the Lord” in Joel 2:1-10 (a locust army); cf. Micah 1:3-4.

b. “The nations of the earth” (Matt 24:30b) actually refers to the “tribes (fule) of the land (of Israel).” This limits the description to the destruction of the temple.

c. Jesus “coming with the clouds” (Matt 24:30c) indicates that Jesus is acting with kingly authority in judgment on Israel (see Dan 7:13-14). Jesus told the high priest Caiaphas that he and others (you pl.) would see “The son of man coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt 26:64).

d. The gathering of the “elect” by the angels refers to the protected (Jewish) Christians, who, by way of the destruction of the Temple are legitimated as the “elect” of Israel in the purposes of God. “Four Winds” is language of extent, i.e., what is taking place is far reaching (Zech 2:6; Ezek 37:9); cf. Rev 7:1-8.

2. Note the transition at 24:35. The Final (Second) Coming of Jesus is described as “unknown” (24:36); thus, we must be ready at all times.

3. There are some difficulties. First, the description of the Son of Man on the Clouds in 24:29 sure sounds like the second coming to me (cf. Acts 1:11; Rev 1:7)! Is the language really so poetic/apocalyptic? Second, can we be certain that at Matt 24:36 Jesus indeed takes up the final second coming? This may not convince all.

Option D: The last position is basically a combination of all the above in that there may be dual fulfillment, first, in AD 70 and then in the future. The problem with this is, how can we be sure of this? I would call this the Typological Position.

2007-04-30T21:33:00.000-07:00

Your Loan Officer Lied to You (And You Let It Happen)

Note: If you are unhappy with your current interest rate on your mortgage and/or are curious if you qualify for something lower and want me to take a free look at your situation, email me directly at Wbarnwell1@gmail.com. Also email me if you plan on making a home purchase in the near future or have any other needs involving mortgages.

A good rule of thumb in life is, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.” This is especially true in the world of lending and home mortgages. Basically any promotion for a “great” home mortgage program you see on the internet or on TV is something you should be wary of. You would think this is common sense, but apparently it isn’t, since mortgage companies continue to rely on these types of ads and consumers continue to fall for them.

Whenever you see any type of ad on the web that promises something like “A 300,000 dollar home mortgage for only $600 a month!!!” your baloney meters should be going off of the charts. No, this isn’t a well-hidden great deal that you just happened to stumble upon. At worst it’s a scam and at best it’s a legitimate but unwise loan product that is bad news for the vast majority of consumers.

Such loans typically fall under the umbrella the Adjustable Rate Mortgage. All home loans are basically categorized as Fixed Rate Mortgages (FRM’s) or Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM’s). With a FRM, the interest stays the same during the life of the loan, unless one opts to refinance at some point with the hope of obtaining a lower interest rate. With an ARM, the interest rate, which is tied to an index, will periodically adjust. It’s the latter group that most the neat and gimmicky loans fall under (balloons, interest-only, options, etc). This does not mean that an ARM is never a good idea. Often times they can be. It depends upon one or a combination of these various factors: (1) A borrower’s individual situation (2) If the borrower only plans on staying in the residence for several years, and (3) If they are knowledgeable risk-takers who have taken into consideration all of the risks involved. Also, ARM’s can be refinanced just like FRM’s.

The problem with various ARM’s is that they are often sold to uneducated borrowers who haven’t read the fine print regarding their “great deal.” For example, just about every mortgage company will post rates on their websites or on rate sheets that they distribute. You might see something like, “We offer rates as low as 1%!!!” Then if you look next to the 1% you’ll probably see an asterisk. Whenever you see an asterisk, again, the warning bells should be ringing loudly in your head.

Follow that asterisk to the bottom of the page and you’ll probably see something in miniscule print that explains something to the effect of, “A payment based on 1% does not constitute a full payment of principal and interest. Full payment is based on a fully indexed rate of 6.17%. Making minimum monthly payments may result in negative amortization.”
If the asterisk set off alarm bells, the words “negative amortization” should send you running for cover. What is negative amortization? Basically, when a payment doesn’t even cover the full amount of interest owed per month the remaining interest is then added onto the principal value of the loan. Thus, with these types of payment habits you wind up owning more, not less. Keep this up over time and you’ll owe a lot more.

Of course with any kind of debt, nobody is forcing you to make minimum monthly payments. But human nature is such that people would rather pay later, not now. Many people hate going to the dentist. They don’t like practicing good oral hygiene. They know these aren’t good habits, but they just figure they’ll deal with it later, rather than invest the time and money now. Only when they finally go visit their dentist three years later their teeth are filled with cavities. All that waiting and putting responsibility off catches up with people at some point.

Creditors know that when faced with the option of making minimum payments, or going above and beyond, plenty will only do the absolute minimum of what is required. Your credit card companies know this well. This is why it’s insane for credit card holders to regularly make minimum payments on their high-interest revolving credit cards.

The home mortgage industry knows that people like “choice” so in recent years the popularity of “Option-ARM’s” has increased. These are Adjustable Rate Mortgages that give you the option of what you want your payment to be each month. Typically you have the option of making an interest only payment, a fully amortized 15 or 30 year payment, or some other lower payment that will not fully cover interest and principal.

These can work well for responsible people who might have fluctuating income (such as small business owners) and understand the nuances of Option loans. Unfortunately, the crowd normally signing up for such loans is not typically the most responsible lot. They are suckers for the TV commercials from the big name mortgage companies that make it sound like there are no consequences for regularly making half of their full payments. “What a great deal!” they say to themselves as they proceed to call up the “mortgage expert” who promised the option of paying $650 a month for a $200,000 loan.

You see, it’s not that Option-ARM’s are always an unwise product. They can be good products for strategic and wise people. It’s just that it’s usually unwise people who flock to such programs without first getting all of the facts.

In the past few years, their loan officers were able to approve them for these types of loans, but the borrowers were not psychologically or financially prepared to make their higher payments once their rates began adjusting upwards and once (or if) they realized that their principal was getting larger and not smaller. Given that they were willing to look for the easy way out when it came to borrowing such a large sum of money and making their payments, they typically were the type that looked to cut corners in general in life. Add it all up and it doesn’t equate to a very responsible borrower. And it’s these types of folks who are foreclosing at record rates throughout the country.

The moral of the story? If you aren’t prepared to at least usually make the full payments with these types of loan products, you have no business “buying” a house.

Every loan officer is required by law to provide their clients with a “Good Faith Estimate” about the cost of closing their loan. They are also required to tell you the details about the nature of the loan you are signing and answer any of your questions to the best of their ability. But many of them hope you don’t ask a lot of questions. They hope you don’t really read the Good Faith Estimate too closely. Many will tell you just enough to get you to closing, sign the documents they need signed, so you will go on your way and they will get their commission check. It’s only later that you or a loved one realized that you’d been suckered.

Maybe you’re reading this and saying, “Yeah! They sure did take me for a ride! I should have had more information disclosed to me! They shouldn’t be allowed to put out those misleading rate sheets with all that tiny fine print! They should have told me more upfront before closing!” And yes, they should have. But maybe your anger is directed ultimately at the wrong place.
In the end result, the problem is not “predatory lending,” it’s an uneducated consumer. There would be no “predatory lending” if there were not consumers who would take the bait. If you or your loved one had done your homework ahead of time, you could have saved yourself a headache. So yeah, while your loan officer and 90% of the mortgage ads you see online or on television are not giving you the full story, we also have an obligation to ourselves to know what we are getting into.

If you’re unhappy with your fixed or adjustable loan product, you have certain options. It may or may not be in your best interest to refinance your loan. If refinancing wasn’t the best option you could begin making a larger than required monthly payment. You could employ more responsible spending habits in general, paying down other high interest debts and focusing on building up some personal savings. Others think it’s better to invest in the stock market or gold rather than paying off their mortgage early.

Whatever path you take, you need to develop a plan. It’s also time for consumers to educate themselves about such financial matters instead of blaming everybody else for their situation. Mortgage and other financial professionals might mislead you, but ultimately you are the one signing the dotted line.

2007-04-25T07:18:00.001-07:00

A Victory in the Abortion Battles

The same week of the terrible and horrific shootings at Virginia Tech there was another story that deserves our attention. By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court affirmed a bill banning a particular form of late term abortion, known as the “D & X”— or dilation and extraction method. To critics, this procedure has rightly been labeled “partial birth abortion” and even “infanticide.”

Certain groups are denouncing the Court’s ruling as chipping away at women’s rights and previous legal constitutional precedent. However, the original Roe v. Wade ruling was built on shaky legal foundations and further abortion rulings left the door open for further debate. And if we want to make precedent the key point of this debate let’s not forget that the Supreme Court once also upheld laws legalizing slavery and eugenics (the eugenic movement was a late 19th and early 20th century movement designed to clean out the gene pool of undesirable elements of society by forcing compulsorily sterilization). So, sometimes the Court gets it wrong. Did they in this recent ruling as well?

It’s interesting to note that the vast majority of Americans oppose partial birth abortions—including many people who are normally “pro-choice” in earlier term abortions. And they oppose the procedure for good reason. Here is a technical description from Wikipedia:

“Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vaccum aspirated using a suction curette.”

While it’s important to point out that pro-life groups sometimes exaggerate the instances of these procedures—partial birth abortions are only responsible for 1.4% of all abortions each year—the fact still remains that 2,000-3,000 of these abortions were occurring each year. Each year late-term abortions were killing just under the number of people who died during the 9/11 attacks.

Debates on life and death issues should not be spun and politicized, and many who politicize these issues are heavily inconsistent themselves. In political debates, those who usually are most likely to talk about defending the rights of the poor and downtrodden are typically the most enthusiastic about abortion rights. Inversely, those who make the biggest deal about defending the right to life are usually the loudest and quickest to want to bomb this or that country, or increase the frequency of the death penalty.

Nevertheless, the issue here does not and should not center on women’s rights vs. an oppressive society. Many doctors contend that there is never a valid reason to receive a late-term abortion and contrary to other medical groups argue that risks to the mother’s life have been minimized if not eliminated. Also, just because the fetus is dependant upon the mother does not mean that it is nothing more than a “parasite,” as some pro-abortion individuals allege. If that was the case, then many of our most vulnerable citizens today who are dependant upon others are nothing more than “parasites” as well and can also be eliminated for society’s convenience.

The arguments for partial birth abortion pale in comparison to the arguments against. This time the Supreme Court got it right, and those who cared about this issue should be thankful for this victory.

2007-04-20T15:25:00.000-07:00

It's Unbiblical to Correct False Teaching

Several weeks later and I'm still getting a fairly steady flow of emails denouncing me for daring to take issue with John Hagee, his dispensational theology, and his desired foreign policy for the Middle East. Well-intentioned readers are writing me warning against speaking out against "the Lord's anointed" and pleading in the name of Christian unity to not publicly speak out against Hagee. There's all sorts of problems with this. First of all, if a well known Christian teacher was spreading inaccurate doctrine about the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc, nobody would have a problem with other Christians publicly taking issue with it and trying to set the record straight. Such would be expected for the sake of other believes who would be misled. But if you apply the same standards to correcting bad eschatological teaching, suddenly now you are arrogant, mean-spirited, and are causing division in the body of Christ. Sorry, but that just doesn't work. If the theology of Hagee, Lindsey, LaHaye, etc, is indeed inaccurate, then other Christians have an obligation to speak out. We don't just stay silent in the name of "unity" while others in the church try to monopolize theological discourse on debatable secondary issues that don't even have a firm grounding in the Scriptures.

One person asked, "If you are so concerned about false teaching, why not pick on the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses instead of a man of God like Hagee who has done so much good?" First of all, as deceptive as Mormon and JW theology is, they at the very least are not pushing for bloodshed in the Middle East, nor are they trying to influence American foreign policy. So while there is a bigger threat to historical orthodox Christian doctrine from these groups, the dispensationalism of Hagee is a bigger threat to those inside the church. And let's not forget that many Evangelicals aren't even aware that there is another option other than dispensationalism. The teachings from the pulpit are influencing escapist, pseudo-gnostic, and militaristic thought amongst the masses in the pews.

So, while I'd love to have a private discussion with Hagee on these issues, his ideas are flooding mainstream Evangelicalism and even secular society in a very public way. It is a sham to then insist that individuals like myself just cede the debate and keep to ourselves. Also, I don't hate John Hagee, Hal Lindsey or anyone else. In fact, I've written some positive things towards Hagee in the past. I also was inspired by Hagee's preaching as a teenager and early young adult and it helped me recognize my need for a Savior in Jesus. But this does not mean he or any of the rest of us are infallible. Yes, John Hagee has done some great things for the cause of Christ, but I believe his ministry is being blessed in spite of, not because of his very public and loud dispensationalism and warmongering. And on this very important issue where there is so much at stake and so many implications based on ones view, the Church as a whole needs to dig into the Scriptures and see what they really are telling us in regards to the Lord's return. Thankfully, I believe the tide is beginning to turn and individual dispensational minded Christians are slowly beginning to rethink their prior assumptions.

2007-04-10T09:19:00.000-07:00

Need an Honest and Competent Loan Originator for Your Mortgage? I Can Help.

Edit: If you are unhappy with your current interest rate on your mortgage and/or are curious if you qualify for something lower and want me to take a free look at your situation, email me directly at Wbarnwell1@gmail.com. Also email me if you plan on making a home purchase in the near future or have any other needs involving mortgages.

*************
As you maybe have guessed from some earlier posts, I have been laying the foundations to do some extra work in addition my regular ministry and teaching responsibilities. I am now working a side job as a loan originator with a mortgage brokerage by the name of Encore Mortgage. A mortgage broker is someone who can shop around for potential borrowers to a number of different direct lenders. For example, if you went straight to your local bank and talked to their loan officer, you'd only be dealing with their products and offers. However, if you go and see a competent mortgage broker, they are signed up to do business with a number of different direct lenders and can shop around to find borrowers the most competitive rates for which they qualify. Encore is signed up with all the big name direct lenders and dozens of smaller lenders who sometimes offer even better rates than the big shots. Competition works for the consumer.

I see this as an exciting and interesting new way to help people. You perhaps have read about how the Real Estate and mortgage industries are in such turmoil right now. They are now receiving their just desserts. Several years ago when the Real Estate market was hot, a number of individuals flooded those professions hoping to make a quick and easy buck. And they did, for awhile. But all has changed now, and some states like mine are now facing massive foreclosures. Why did all this happen? In short, it was a combination of factors. First, lenders were getting too eager to sell loans and were qualifying people who did not have the long-term capacity to pay their bills. Second, many consumers, egged on by their Realtors and loan officers, bought more house than they could realistically afford, and financed their purchases with unwise loan products that had a variety of bad features. When their loan teaser rates ended, many couldn't afford the full payments. Often their small monthly payment habits would lead to negative amortization--where the remaining interest they did not pay was added to their principal balance. Therefore, their overall debt was getting larger, not smaller, with each payment. However, we also cannot forget the Federal Reserve, whose easy credit policies led to the whole housing bubble to begin with.

So why jump in now when the market is bad? Because when all the dishonest and incompetent lenders and brokers close up shop, the sensible and responsible will still be standing. Plus there will always be those who are in the market to make a purchase, refinance their existing loans, and so on. Also, I see this as an important way to help people and also do something else I enjoy and find interesting. So, if you yourself are in the market or know somebody else who is, I would obviously like to help. There are a couple clear reasons why it is in my best interest to impress you or your referral. One, I want you to continue reading my columns. And two, I obviously would prefer the business would come my way instead of somebody elses. If you are in the Mid-Michigan area, you're certainly welcome to meet with me at our office, but if you live anywhere else in the country, all you need is a phone and access to a fax machine and we could just as easily help you or your referrals out.

Regardless of what type of residential property you are looking to purchase or refinance, we can help. If you are looking to get out of your Adjustable Rate Mortgage into a fixed rate, or even refinance your present high interest fixed rate mortgage, we can help. If you are curious about refinancing and want to know if it really would save you money, I can gather your data and let you know. You won't get ripped off and your service will be prompt. Also, why not work through someone you know or are familiar with rather than with someone you've never heard of? And if you don't qualify for what you are looking for, we'll give you free credit advice with periodic updates to support you along the way so that down the road you get what you need. If you have any questions or are interested in just taking a curious look at your situation, email me directly at Wbarnwell1@gmail.com

Regardless of whether or not this applies to you, I will continue to offer up posts and original articles on issues pertaining to Christianity, current affairs, cultural matters, and economics. I will not be cutting down in my pastoral ministry efforts or journalistic contribuations. So stay tuned and keep reading!

2007-04-05T06:39:00.000-07:00

Biblical Literalism and the Role of Women and Slaves

I was flipping through a book I found sitting around in my church yesterday titled Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership. The book basically argues for a structure of church government that is more Presbyterian in nature, rather than congregational; ruled by a plurality of elders rather than just one top-down leader who answers to a general church board. While there's much to be said about that, I was curious to see what the author's views were regarding women in ministry. Not surprisingly, the author rejected it out of hand, and basically claimed that if we took the Bible seriously, there's no way we would even want to debate the issue. The author, like many other anti-women in ministry folks, is a particular kind of Unbalanced Biblical literalist. Unbalanced Biblical Literalists typically approach issues like this one by quoting a few Scriptures about the husband being the "head" of the wife, women being "silent" in church, etc, and claim this settles the debate once and for all. How the Scriptures applied to Christians in first century Palestine regarding social structures in society and church are the same ways they apply to everyone everywhere in 2007. Anything less is wishy-washy liberalism.

Yet, on their own terms, they are wishy-washy liberals in the way which they approach passages dealing with slavery. Even though the Bible elevates the position of slaves and calls for humane treatment, it nevertheless allows the practice. In fact, in the same sections that these Unbalanced Biblical Literalists cite regarding the subjection of women, there are passages talking about the subjection of slaves. Most of these passages directed at women are part of larger sections in the so called Greco-Roman "household codes." In the same passages where Paul is telling wives to submit to husbands he also says:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ" (Eph. 6:5).

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything..." (Col. 3:22).

Right before Peter tells wives to submit to their husbands, he says, "Slaves submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh" (I Peter 2:18).

We could go on, but my point is this: why be such pressing literalists on the women issue, but not the slave issue? People complain and object about me pointing this out, but it's a very reasonable question, one in which their own strict literalism allows no valid answer. You can't argue for the exact same applicational features for the passages on women in the name of Biblical literalism, but then fudge the issue a few verse earlier when it comes to slaves. If we are talking original meaning and author's original intent, Paul and Peter were not talking about "employer/employee" relationships. They were talking about slavery. No, perhaps it generally wasn't as cruel as the type of slavery that Americans are accustomed to learning about in their history classes, but it was slavery nonetheless, and something almost all of us today would be uncomfortable with and rightly so. The "employer/employee" application is just that, a good application, but it takes us away from the very literal, "words-on-the-page" meaning of these passages.

About 99.9 percent of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, accept this fact today. They do not apply the passages regarding slavery in a strict literal manner. But there was a time, not that long ago in our history when the church was seriously divided on this issue. Many a preacher and laymen harped about how the church would fall apart if we ignored the "plain meaning" of the Bible and abolished slavery. After all, they reasoned, slavery was a social reality in the Bible, and the Bible never plainly directed people to abolish it. Most of us today, however, recognize that abolishing slavery outright is actually more Christ-like and that we are simply building off of the foundations of the redemptive themes found in the Scriptures and that we are taking these teachings in Scripture to their logical conclusions. Thus, we face these verses of slavery head-on in their original meaning and first century context and then we apply them to our culture. The Unbalanced Biblical Literalist has no problem when you do this with I Peter 2:18. But if you apply the same standards, which they themselves use for that verse, just a few verses later for 3:1 regarding wives, suddenly you are a flaming liberal who doesn't take the Bible seriously.

So, either fundamentalists apply the same standards of interpretation, evaluation and application to the first century household codes for women that we do with slaves, or they should just admit that they are biased on this issue. Either we go back to the glory days of slavery, or we at least attempt a "fair and balanced" application of both I Peter 2:18 and I Peter 3:1. Many are scared of doing this because they think it does an injustice to the Bible. Again, if that's the case, they are already doing such an injustice by failing to take the slavery passages in their most literal application for today. But in reality we are not doing such a thing. It's not a matter of accepting what we like in the Bible and tossing out the parts we don't like. In the case of these issues it's grasping what the text originally meant and how we best carry out those redemptive themes in the 21st century. If there's NO change in the nuance of application then it's time to round up the slaves and the head coverings back on women. Also, those of us in the West should start greeting each other with holy kisses during our congregational greeting times. No, a simple handshake won't work. If we want to be strictly literal, then it's a kiss that's needed, nothing else.

The big scare tactic here by the unbalanced literalists is the issue of homosexuality. The reasoning goes something like this, "Well if we allow women in ministry, gays will be running our nursery next! Before you know it, all of the church will be accepting homosexuality!" As I've said elsewhere, the household code passages are not even addressing homosexuality. I'm arguing for a consistent application of a unit of passages, none of which have anything to do with homosexuality. In fact, almost all Evangelical Egalitarians who support women in ministry believe homosexuality to be a sinful behavior and are not looking to open the floodgates for gay liberation in the church. But that's simply another discussion and does not carry weight in this debate, but it is a convenient scare tactic: "They don't take passages about men and women seriously, they must not take passages about homosexuality seriously either!" I suppose I could turn that around and say, "They don't take the passages about slavery seriously, so they must not take the passages about homosexuality seriously either!"

My larger point here is that to best appropriate what the Bible meant in its original context and how it applies today, quoting a few Scriptures and acting like the debate is settled is usually inadequate. Only synthesizing a well thought out Biblical theology following a logical and rigorous approach to application will best yield the Bible's guidance for today. Of course that takes more work and more thought, and it's much easier to just listen to Dobson cite a few prooftexts, but it's actually treating the Scriptures with the honor and integrity that they deserve.

2007-03-28T11:00:00.000-07:00

Another Brilliant Bible Scholar Speaks

From some lady named Kelly, unedited:

Email #1
Hey Mr., i would like to say brother, but, i just read some of your stuff. Honestly, this really fascinates me, every time there is a false doctrine being preached, the person doing it says " you need to study the word" " lets see what the word really says" man that is ridiculous. the catching away in the twinkling of an eye, so what are you saying , that is the 2nd coming?? does that sound like the 2nd coming?? two men at the mill one taken and the other one left, thats not even a rapture verse, you should study a little more. you can't be surprized when real christians think that or assume that your not one, look at what comes out of your mouth. God is not the author of confusion, people like you are. I'm not saying this in an angy way either, its just a fact. i started to read your stuff and thought that it might carry some weight but then it fell to jibberish and cultish, isn't th holiness movement a well known cult?? Last point, and the most clear point which shows that your lost is, " then how are we supposed to make the world a better place" WHAT???? did God command us to make the world abetter place?? is that the goal of the true child of God, didn't Jesus say that the world would hate us because it hated Him first??? dude your LOST!!! i doubt very much that your gonna make it. i'll pray for ya right now, but after that i will probably for get about you, as you will me. so REPENT AND BELIEVE, read the word as i do, a lover of truth with no agena but to learn Gods truth!!! sincerely , someone who knows p.s. sorry if that sounds a little harsh, but people like you in my opinion are really glazed over in the mind and i'm trying to plant a seed that the birds of the air won't snatch up right away!!!!

Email #2
Thanks for the quick response, i have studied this more than you know and a proper " debate" would take time, time that i don't have. BUT, if your willing i will make my points one by one with scripture and we will see if you can hang with me. If you really want to know the truth, then you will find it. First of all , forget the argument that " history" says there has never been this pre-trib theory, therefore it can't be true, because number 1 thats not true, there have been writings found that support the belief in a pretrib rapture. anyway lets stick to what God says and not man, the jews are still waiting for messiah, does that mean he hasn't come yet???? now i will give it some thought and prayer and get back to you on my first point soon and you can try to shoot them down one by one or start to learn the real truth!! and i did hear that the holiness movement was a cult unless i'm thinking of something else, didn't they start out by not believing in the trinity??? Chosen by Him, kelly

Email #3
alright now your getting hostile, do you believe that there even is a tribulation?? the time of Jacobs trouble?? :You definetley are putting more weight on fact that "history" says this or that. paul said i show you a MYSTERY!!!!!! why couldn't the jews realize that messiah had to suffer?/ it was in the scriptures wasn't it? so just because the forefathers of the church couldn't figure out the pretrib rapture mystery, doesn't prove that its not true! can you understand that? so really what your saying is there is no rapture at all or are you a post-tribber? common man lets get it going, who is going to repopulate the earth during the 1000 reign of Christ? let me guess, there is no millenium, right? and besides, wesleyanism is not something you want to raise a flag for is it?? don't they believe you can lose your salvation?? wooooooo you don't want to debate that do you?? how about election, my true specialty, no no, i think you even cited methodists, are you kidding me, they have been dead for decades, my motherinlaw goes to one and it is dead as a doornail. you see how frustrating it is for me, you have said so many things in IGNORANCE, where do i begin, now you are right about me questioning your relationship with the Lord, but honestly if your not getting the truth, i can only think of the poor slobs who sit under the teaching of a creflo dollar or benny hinn or something!! God help you, i mean it, listen my favorite teacher is John MacArthur, he is obviously much wiser than i am, so i suggest you learn from him, ;you won't be dissappointed or deceived!!! amen and amen, kd

I get plenty of these type of responses each time I write a piece on eschatology. This is just one I found particularly entertaining. See my responses in the comments section. Honestly, I don't even know why I take the time to communicate with people like this who are not interested at all in intelligent discussion or really digging into the Biblical text.

2007-03-27T15:07:00.000-07:00

Check Out My Radio Interview Regarding the "Rapture," Dispensationalism, and Middle East Affairs

If you're interested, check out my interview with antiwar.com regarding "end times" Bible prophecy and the dispensational movement.

2007-03-22T21:30:00.000-07:00

Letter from a True Christian

In response to my column John Hagee Wants War with Iran and He Wants It Now!, one reader writes:

Well, as you yourself say, "maybe, just maybe YOU are wrong"!
You are as phony as what you write about.
Your rant is about an unknownable timeline based on an unprovable assumption by you, about a POSSIBLE event, and that Hagee is wrong and that YOU "maybe, just maybe" might be right??
Your pathetic "assumptions" and "hopefully's" are just as "dangerous" and as inconclusive as you say his are because YOU believe YOU are right and HE (Hagee) is "dangerous" because he "may be wrong"!

I say to you, "YOU ALSO DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE"!

Are you afraid "this same group of people" (his Ministry?) has the power to nuke Iran? Or start a war over there?
You are a moron! And a fool! You are an educated idiot!

I watch him occassionally but I or any other TRUE Christian, would NEVER attack him and besmirch him and his beliefs as you have just publically done.

You say it is some sort of a "good" to "call this crowd out"!
YOU, mister tough guy? HAHAHAHA!!

What is it you hope to gain? Attention??
How dare you, you little twerp!
What could you possibly hope to gain in your shamefull personal attack on him and his beliefs, that also will reflect on his family and his followers; ALL of whom have done more for more people than you will EVER do because he would NEVER attack you or your beliefs as you have just done to him! HE is a TRUE Christian, NOT YOU!

People will NEVER much follow you or ever really believe in you or your teachings because of this ugly side of you and your self righteous behavior! People around you will always sense this in you. It will ALWAYS come out! That is who you are and what you are all about!

He has founded several churchs and has done much good for MANY people and communities. Have you ever founded anything? And you never will!

How you ever became a pastor is beyond me and YOU sir are one of those types who give Christianity a bad name but you are so arrogant you don't care, because of who you think you are!

You are not a loving or true Christian. If you were either, you would not, you COULD NOT, have ever done this shamefull and disgusting slander. If I could 'call you out" I would beat you to a pulp and maybe make you into a man, maybe even a gentleman to boot. Maybe someday someone will! MEN don't just "call people out"! SOMETHING will happen when you do! You just don't get it!

But until then, you will forever be just nothing but a disgusting little, little man.

Perhaps one day I will know what it means to be a True Christian, just like this awesome guy. There's much that could be said here about his confused theology and worldview, but we'll just let his self-contradictory and totalitarian words speak for themselves.