Dave Ramsey - Basics of Biblical Finance

Here's a great sermon by Dave Ramsey. Enjoy.

Dave Ramsey - Basics of Biblical Finance (Life. Hope. Money.) from sermon on Vimeo.

Status Update Turned Intriguing Apologetics Q&A

Well guys, FB for all its nonsensical Farmville penguins, Mafia Wars Hits, and What Sex Position Are You's has reinvigorated me with a pleasant surprise. The other day a classmate of mine posted an update that I quoted in my last blog. I thought that the discussion would be beneficial to you who read my blog and like wrestling with the difficult questions of Christianity. So, below is the exchange I had on FB without the other names (privacy is nice).


CLASSMATE: Is grappling with one of the most difficult questions of faith I have ever encountered: if God is good and everything he created is good, then how did evil originate? That is how did evil originate ex nihlo?

FEMALE #1: How did God originate ex nihilo I think is the bigger question!

RUSTY PANG: Hi CLASSMATE, I came across your post this morning and thought I might help if you're interested. The first thing to realize is that you are not the first person to wrestle with the concept of evil and suffering. In fact, you are part of a long list of Christian philosophers, laymen, and pastors; whom all of which encountered a crisis of faith in this area. In other words, you are not alone and there are answers.

Feel free to shoot me any questions you have and I'll do my best to help you.

MALE #1: What brought this question to your mind? We need to get together again before I leave so we can talk cause I will definitely miss those.

FEMALE #2: Won't find that in Webster's! I feel so stupid when I read your posts-UGH! I'll google your Latin? Rusty-Please Enlighten me-friend request me if you don't mind?

CLASSMATE: Ok, the question is, if all things that come from God are good, and nothing evil can come from him, then how did evil get its start? If you say the devil, then if God created him good, how did he turn evil? If pride is evil, then why did God give it to him? It seems that we must accept that God created evil for his ultimate good and therefore can be blamed, or we must acknowledge that evil is part of a good continuum and is thereby good in and of itself and thereby doesn't exist.

RUSTY PANG: The first thing you must do to understand the answer is to reframe the context and definitions from which the question is asked. The best way to do this is to ask first: What is evil? How do you define it?

CLASSMATE: That is what I said. If it is a redefinition, then that takes a worldview shift of epic proportions. As it is, it is easy to see a black and white world but to see it in shades of grey seems to be a very subjective approach and requiring more discernment than simple answer. It is a discussion I am looking for. Maybe God isn't all good and maybe he is more of a "chaotic neutral" character. If he is the author of what I deem as evil then maybe even this idea of a perfect heaven is a farce and perfection is a balance of pain with happiness. That is why I ask the question as I do.

FEMALE #2: This is WAY over my head! Wasn't the devil good until he became jealous.

RUSTY PANG: The "shades of grey" are less subjective than you think. It is true that a continuum from white to dark exists, which you call grey and subjective. But what you are really saying is how your brain interprets the amount of light received by the receptors in your eyes. Such a thing is really more complicated than what we discuss in normal conversation and the only thing that remains subjective is your interpretation of the amount of light. The amount of light is a fixed quantity at the time you see it.

In addition to this, no one interprets darkness or the color black. The reality is darkness is defined as the absence of light. Darkness has no matter, no substance, and only exists in the absence of light. Darkness does not come ex nihilo. Evil is the same.

Most people, including myself, make the mistake of looking at Good vs Evil as a contest between two cosmic eternal forces always fighting for the souls of men. This is like the simple descriptions of light and darkness. The reality is that evil is nothing more than that which is not perfect. Evil is any deviation from the perfect standard (God).

I'd like to pause at this time for questions before I proceed further.

CLASSMATE: "In addition to this, no one interprets darkness or the color black. The reality is darkness is defined as the absence of light. Darkness has no matter, no substance, and only exists in the absence of light. Darkness does not come ex nihilo. Evil is the same."

I love that response. Good logic. So then that begs the question then, how can we live absent of good? I know it is not a cosmic struggle but I want to know:
1. If Eve inspired Adam
2. If Satan inspired Eve
3. Then who inspired Satan?

Or then do you think this is a question of being pulled away by our own evil desires? So then, maybe desire is what perpetrates evil in our lives? Maybe we could start a Buddhist-Christian Monastery. Anyway Rusty, I like your response but then here is the clincher, why would anything deviate if God is omnipotent and omnipresent? What would entice such a behavior? Curiosity perhaps?

RUSTY PANG: "how can we live absent of good?"

We can't. This is the death that was foretold to Adam and Eve before they sinned. Death, like evil, must be redefined. We understand life as a complex system of organic chemistry, but life is not relegated to a simple scientific definition. Life is relationship with God and without the relationship we have death. This is why "the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life." When souls are sent to hell, they will not cease to exist. They will exist without a relationship with Jesus and therefore, be dead. This is why we are born "dead," because we have no relationship with Him.

"who inspired Satan?"

If you are asking how did the angels first wrestle with free will? I do not have the answer for this. There is very little in scripture that helps us understand the struggle in heaven other than the fact that Lucifer believed he could be God. I can only respond to man's need for reconciliation because of our desire to sin (aka do things contrary to His nature).

"do you think this is a question of being pulled away by our own evil desires? So then, maybe desire is what perpetrates evil in our lives?"

We are not pulled away from righteousness because some part of us desires the things of God; rather, we are broken from the start. In Psalms 51:5, David writes "Surely I was sinful at birth,sinful from the time my mother conceived me." And in Romans 8:7-8 says, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." Therefore, we are not capable of the Buddhist ideal. We cannot remove our very nature to sin. The only solution is rebirth through the power of the Holy Spirit. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

"why would anything deviate if God is omnipotent and omnipresent?"

I had issue with this myself for some time until I realized it was not about numbers. It was about the standard of true love and the quality, not the quantity. What I mean by this is that true love (God's love) exists only when it is freely given, not stolen or forced. If life is defined by relationship, how can one have a relationship with another if it is forced? God does not need us, but we need Him. He desires us, but we do not desire Him. He has fixed that problem by offering His Son in our place because no man could bridge the gap. He allowed Jesus to become sin and die for us when He didn't have to. He voluntarily chose us. He introduced true love into the world and provided the example that we are to follow. This is why He said, "If you want to keep your life, you must lose it." God is not toying with us like a little kid with ants. My question to you is, knowing that man would turn their back on you, would you still create us? Would you do this knowing that the only solution to the man-made problem was to die for everyone from all time and yet still be rejected by most? This speaks of the tremendous love He has for us. I have to be honest and state that I wouldn't. But then again, we are thankful I am not God.

CLASSMATE: My counter question is: Would you then create something flawed if you could create something perfect?

Even more: if you created the capacity for sin, then you are to blame for its existence, thereby indicting God for the sin on earth since he allowed for its capacity in the first place.

RUSTY PANG: Not at all my friend. Not at all. Are you responsible for transgressions, mistakes, and errors your children make during their lives on this earth? You created them and by doing so, the capacity to commit murder, to steal, or harm. No, each person is responsible for their decisions for good or for ill.

Regarding your question on perfection. This too has to be redefined. The best we, humans, can hope for in this life is perfection in process, not in result or destination. God is perfect and we are being perfected. We are the thing in which perfection is being acted upon. This is why we are told to become "Christlike."

But let us return to your original question: "How did evil originate?" It originated in humanity with the fall at the Garden of Eden and we continue to perpetrate this severed relationship with God by rejecting Him through our behaviors and will. Christianity provides the only plausible answer that explains a source, how it works and what the solution is. I'd like to know how an atheist would explain evil. Or perhaps a Buddhist, or a Scientologist without borrowing from Christendom. It's not that I am trying to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel. In my mind there is no contest. I am only trying to shed light on the chasm from which most religions won't even attempt to address properly. What is the point of arguing why God should be blamed for the capacity to sin when we are the ones sinning? Are we not trying to absolve ourselves from guilt by shifting blame for causation?

Let's assume God is mean and unjust. Does that change the fact He has established rules and laws to abide and to not do so invokes negative consequences? Suppose, I decide I do not like gravity. Does it change my adherence to its laws or effects? No, but I am thankful that our God is not unjust but perfect. I am thankful that I know the creator of the universe and he actually cares about me. I am thankful that He hears my prayers and is not bound by the limits of time or space.

In the end, you must understand that I cannot convince you one way or another. It is a matter of faith/trust in Jesus. Relationship with Him cannot exist without it. This is why He says, "Everything not done in faith is as to sin." God is faithful to see His children through their crises of faith as He will see you through yours. Would you like me to address any more questions?

MALE #2: This was very interesting and thought provoking post. I liked it. I never met Mr. Pang but "Wow" great insight!

MALE #3: I prefer Dunkin' Donuts over Krispy Creame.

In the stream and discussion, concept of Ex nihlo is an incorrect concept. We forget that eternity existed before this creation. It is fair to say that The Heavenly Host existed before (As well as God) creation. The concept that exists oft forgotten is the impact of Free Choice. Satan had free choice. We have free choice. Guess what, Jesus has free choice. The question is do you choose the rebel against God or do you choose to act in faith and follow Jesus.

RUSTY PANG: Thanks MALE #2 for the compliment, but the real gratitude should go to CLASSMATE for having the courage to admit a Christian can struggle with their faith. To bear the intimacies of one's soul so openly on a subject that tends to divide is why I wish to help. We all do our parts.

MALE #1: Ok, I know I’m arriving a little late to the discussion and for that I apologize, but I just wanted to throw my thoughts and questions out there and see what you think.

Is it really a correct thing to say that good and evil exist on a continuum like light? Granted darkness is an absence of light but I don’t believe that it necessarily is the case for evil. God is considered to be a being that is all good and therefore is absent of evil. If a being such as God is absent of evil then why and or how could he create a creature (us) that would consist of a continuum not present in Himself? I mean to say that God is capable of freely choosing between things and it isn’t evil because God is all good and while lacking the capacity for evil still retains the ability of free will (I say it this way because many people use free will as a reason for evil).

“Are you responsible for transgressions, mistakes, and errors your children make during their lives on this earth? You created them…”

Is this to mean that God has an equally limited degree of control to the way we turn out as we have over our children. If God created people ultimately out of nothing and doing so by His own, imagination/desire(?), would He not have the ability to change or form the very fabric of our personalities and moral constructs to that which He chooses? These are things that we cannot do with out children which is why I believe we lack responsibility for the transgressions, mistakes, and errors of our children even though we created them.

“What is the point of arguing why God should be blamed for the capacity to sin when we are the ones sinning? Are we not trying to absolve ourselves from guilt by shifting blame for causation?”

Psalms 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me,” leads us to believe that by our very nature and that even before we have to ability to act consciously, we are sinful. Wouldn’t that by default assign the blame for the capacity to sin on God since that is how He created us? If we are at birth sinful without action, how can that blame be rested on our shoulders?

RUSTY PANG: Hi MALE #1,

I apologize for not responding sooner. My schedule was as most would say, busy. Okay, now to the brass tacks.

"Is it really a correct thing to say that good and evil exist on a continuum like light?"

Yes. At least as far as any analogy or metaphor can go before it falls apart when analyzed too closely. The purpose of using light versus darkness explains the concept that God could not be any more evil than light can be any form of dark. Darkness exists as the absence of light and evil is much the same.

"If a being such as God is absent of evil..."

This assumption must be addressed before we can continue further because of way it is worded. Perhaps you never intended what I am about to address; nevertheless, it affects the rest of the thought. God is not absent of evil any more than light is absent of darkness. Darkness is like empty space, a vacuum if you will. It has no substance and really is defined as the absence of something else. Similarly, evil can never be described as being God lacking it. You might as well say God lacks the lacking. Although it may be true, it really isn't worth saying. It is better to say that evil is the absence of God or that God is good. This brings us to man and His willing diversion away from God, which by definition is an evil act.

"why and or how could he create a creature (us) that would consist of a continuum not present in Himself? I mean to say that God is capable of freely choosing between things and it isn’t evil because God is all good and while lacking the capacity for evil still retains the ability of free will (I say it this way because many people use free will as a reason for evil)."

God created us, which also means He did not beget us. What this means is that God the Father beget God the Son, not created Him. Although we hear this regularly in the church, the implication is profound and widely misunderstood. Like begets like and like creates unlike. For example, a human begets another human but creates a human statue. God begets the Son, but creates man. The creative act means He created something that may look similar but is different. This includes the capacity to sin. God does not possess free will in the sense that you and I possess free will relating to evil. To possess free will means to have the capacity to choose between no less than two options. God cannot be evil because to be evil means to act contrary to God's nature. He cannot be contrary to himself; therefore, He cannot do this any more than a human can take on the nature of a dog, nor can a dog take on the nature of a human.

"Is this to mean that God has an equally limited degree of control to the way we turn out as we have over our children."

No. Having the power to control another is not the same as exercising it. Additionally, to create a sentient life is to imbue free will.

"Wouldn’t that [Psalm 51:5] by default assign the blame for the capacity to sin on God since that is how He created us? If we are at birth sinful without action, how can that blame be rested on our shoulders? "

Yes, but we are still to blame for our acts of sin. Being "sinful at birth" is also rendered "shapen in iniquity," meaning that my relationship with God was broken from the start. Your question, according to the way you worded it has a faulty assumption. To have the capacity to sin automatically means that you will sin. With the same logic I could say that if I give you the gun with the capacity to murder, you will. This is not so and we know that the choice to murder is different than having the capacity to.

I don't pretend to know everything, so I hope these answers are satisfying.

2 Timothy 4:2

"Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction." 2 Timothy 4:2

Today has been really interesting, at least in the spiritual sense. This morning I responded to a friend's FB post in which he wrote, "Is grappling with one of the most difficult questions of faith I have ever encountered: if God is good and everything he created is good, then how did evil originate? That is how did evil originate ex nihlo?"

Ex nihilio is latin for "out of nothing." This usually refers to the concept of creation in which God created something from nothing. The true creative ability at work, as it were. Anyhow, what spawned out of these conversations has produced some interesting thoughts for me and has forced me to remember my apologetics. Apologetics is defined as the "defense of the faith," or in layman's terms "knowing why you believe."

As these conversations continue to grow and expand, I was reminded of Paul's charge to Timothy (it's at the top) and wondered just how prepared I am at any given time? How prepared are you at any given time to answer the earnest questions of an individual seeking truth? I wish I could say that I had no room for improvement, but that would be a bold faced lie from which I should be tossed from the castle walls. Instead, I will say that today was a good day. Today, I was prepared. Tomorrow, only God's grace can tell, but I thank Him for today.

Work is not another four-letter word.

Sup guys! I just finished my first oral presentation in class. I have to say it wasn't too difficult, but I figured I would post my promo video and paper here for you to read. If you work for a company I want you to rethink your role there. Maybe undo all that negative thought processes linked to work. If you are an employer, I want you to properly understand your role and not abuse the authority God has given you. Hopefully, this may enlighten you to His design of the workplace.

Keep in mind that I had to present this information in a secular class, so I'll let you in on a little secret. In the sphere of labor, God is the one who provides the overarching standards of ethics and values for a company. Enjoy!


Business Ethics Provide the Foundation for Employee and Employer Relations

Peter Cooper once stated, “I have always recognized that the object of business is to make money in an honorable manner. I have endeavored to remember that the object of life is to do good” (1874). A common belief in our culture today is that profits may only be realized at the expense or abuse of another. While it is true that every company has fiduciary responsibility to its stakeholders to earn profits, Cooper would tell us to that these profits exist for the ultimate purpose of doing good. Therefore, profits and good are not anathema; rather, they are collaborative. However, recent corporate scandals and abuse during the past decade have contributed to a mindset that has pitted employee against employer (BBC, 2002). Inversely, we have seen a rise in demand in Corporate Social Responsibility for the treatment of employees by their employers. This has raised the question; to what extent is a company responsible for the welfare of its labor force when it eats into profit margins? Before one can analyze if a relationship exists between profit and CSR, we must define and understand both concepts. Once proper definitions are established, the ideal ethical social structure of a business may emerge. In order for a company to earn maximum profits through satisfied employees, both parties must be accountable to a higher authority of ethics. Furthermore, a proper mechanism to address violations of the mutually agreed ethical code of conduct must exist. It is only with this structure that we can find a harmonious relationship between employer and employee.

What is Profit?

Profit is the quantitative measurement of the success of a company in a given year. In Lapin’s words, “Profit is a way to measure how useful a business is” (2002). It is a recordable rule of thumb for the financial health of a company and sometimes an indication of future growth in the next fiscal year. The business community has a moral obligation to be profitable both by law and ethics because of the amount of usefulness it may contribute. Ultimately, one can describe profit as an aggregate indication of good (Lapin, 2002). This is aggregate good is due to the principle that no exchange of products or services can be made unless both parties believe it to be an equitable exchange. This is the invisible hand that Adam Smith refers to in his book The Wealth of Nations (1776). Unless the company continually provides a product or service to the community over time, no profits may be earned. Furthermore, many companies fail because of their inability to meet the needs of its consumers to the point of unsustainable levels leading to the closure of the business. In addition, there are a small percentage of companies that perform illegal or unethical actions that lead to their closure, like Maddoff’s prosecution in 2009 for creating a Ponzi scheme in the financial market for example (LA Times).

Employer and Employee Responsibilities

Corporations and employers have a moral obligation to be aware of the trust placed within them by employees to perform the best of their ability. This trust by employees should not be abused or taken advantage of. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide the highest quality of work experience in a combination of benefits that may include: higher wages than the market average, affordable healthcare, excellent training, discounts on company services or products, and empowering each worker to personal growth. According to The Great Place to Work Institute, companies that create this type of culture making their employees a priority will find increased retention rates, overall increases in productivity, and new opportunities leading to company innovation and growth (2007).

Employees, likewise, have ethical responsibilities to their employers that are necessary for a successful workplace environment. The first responsibility is hard work regardless of supervision and the second is mutual respect to coworkers. Furthermore, the employee has a responsibility to know intimately his talents, personality strengths, and the skill sets, so that he may choose a compatible job that he will be perform excellently in. The combination of knowledge and loyalty will allow the employee to create the best product or service in his industry. This will increase the success of his business, thus ensuring his own security in the process. Conversely, it is important for the worker to realize his employment is not an entitlement, but voluntary so as to promote appreciation within the individual.

The Sphere of Labor

The social sphere of labor (see Figure 1) is just one of many social systems in the world. The sphere of labor is composed of the employer, the employee and the business ethical standards they submit to (Tackett, 2009). This mutual agreement of ethics and values is essential in order for a positive relational environment to exist between employer and employees. If at any point either party ceases to recognize the standards that exist outside of self, the standard becomes relative to the individual party. That is to say, what may be right for the employee may not be right to the employer leading to conflict. For example, if an employer has sales figures prioritized first, whereas, the employee values service we can see the potential for dissension. Essentially this pits the employer against the employee because whenever a situation arises where the two values compete; the employer prefers that the employee sacrifice his service in exchange for additional sales. The employee may follow his request but then resents his boss for violating his ethical principles. If the worker refuses to make the sale, the employer begins to lose confidence in his labor force. Both parties are motivated by different standards resulting in the degradation of their relationship.

Figure 1. Labor Sphere

Leadership Accountability and Transparency

Great companies tend to rely on the input and feedback of its personnel on the front lines. Sam Walton used to visit his employees at his stores spontaneously and each employee that wrote a letter to him with a complaint or grievance received a personal letter signed by Walton (Gross, 1996). This increased the trust between him and his employees because they were treated as valuable contributors to his company. To replicate his success, a mechanism needs to exist in which employees can communicate their grievances without fear of reprieve. Additionally, should these complaints be valid, it is the employer’s duty to fix them. All problems should be viewed as positive opportunities for relational reinforcement rather than trite dissatisfaction. To avoid conflict altogether is impossible; management of conflict to resolution is not.
Part of the mechanism to hear violations of ethical operation includes a broad awareness of what is expected of each employee. The company’s values need to be communicated regularly to its staff in an engaging and pragmatic way. This may begin with a leader who is a vision caster in his company; meaning, this person has an ability to inspire others to follow him after the company’s goals. While these regular infusions of values are being presented, it should be mentioned that the success of the company ultimately rests upon the shoulders of the individual. This will result in an increase of initiative and personal responsibility as the leadership of the corporation passes authority down the corporate ladder to every individual worker.

Conclusion

Corporate Social Responsibility to the employee need not be complicated. As the employer services the employee’s needs, the workers will reciprocate benefits back to his company through loyalty, personal responsibility and creativity. This is the positive cycle of corporate collaboration that can only exist if extensive trust has been established through mutually agreed ethical standards of operation. In this environment the employee must seek the highest good for his employer and likewise, the employer has a responsibility to seek the highest good for his workers. This combination of mutual respect and service in the workplace environment has a tendency to produce the maximum profit and production in an industry. This model should be become the standard structure of every corporate business.

Can Christians drink alcohol?

At my church, the elders just finished approving a paper that defines out position on alcohol. I find that this issue is hotly debated amongst Christians but is a poorly understood topic. Scripture is very plain when it comes to disputable matters like alcohol, but we felt it necessary to provide a concise document outlining where we stand, and the explanation behind it. Many have found this to be an interesting read. I hope you do as well.


Providence’s Position on Disputable Matters

Conversion to Christianity is a supernatural and wondrous event, but it happens in a moment, whereas, sanctification requires the rest of the believer’s life.
C.S. Lewis once stated, “One of the reasons why it needs no special education to be a Christian is that Christianity is an education itself.” The Christian is required to interpret every experience within the proper context of biblical ethics and morality. This requires knowledge, critical thinking, intrapersonal skills and the Holy Spirit to guide the child of God in becoming a mature and fully developed adult in the faith. The process of sanctification, encountered daily with the help of the Lord, is why Lewis says Christianity is an education. For what other subject requires at least some measure of knowledge in anthropology, pneumatology, Christology, history, literature, psychology, and sociology to name a few. The educational requirements for sanctification are vast but be encouraged because the Lord is faithful to finish His work in those that believe.

There exist subjects on which the Lord speaks directly to the individual Christian and not the leadership governing the church body. One of these subjects, the Christian position on consumption of alcohol, resides in an area that Paul calls "disputable matters." For the purposes of this paper and future reference, we shall define disputable matters as: Subjects or arguments concerning Christian conduct that are not explicitly addressed in the Bible or reasonably inferred by scripture. Other topics such as smoking, holy days, food consumption, etc. may be substituted for alcohol in this discussion, but we will limit this address to alcohol, since it is often the most discussed of disputable matters.

Consumption of alcohol is an emotionally charged issue, mainly due to the negative experiences that are tied to it (i.e. alcoholism, regrets, and debauchery). While reading, it is important to recognize that there exist social influences that subtly insert themselves into our reasoning, and affect our opinions, regarding the drinking of alcohol. That is to say, Americans may have treated this subject with more emotional fervor than other societies, as indicated by our culture and history. Additionally, even within the American church we are still divided for it still remains hotly debated. It is important to acknowledge that many times we come to our conclusions based upon life experience, rather than the writings of scripture. When we do this, we tend to elevate the opinions of man to a height that is equal with scripture. This is something that should never be done.

There are three viewpoints regarding the issue of alcohol: For, against, and "it depends." We could evaluate the pros and cons of each viewpoint, but I believe our time would be better spent in scripture, for we can lose proper perspective analyzing the numerous tangents. Scripture is the final authority in all matters at Providence Community Church, so we must look there before we can properly address alcoholic consumption. Romans 14-15 provide us with the context and direction on this subject. We would encourage the reader to have a Bible available as we continue.

After reading Romans, the elders have concluded that the official position of our church is to not have an official position. As Paul says, “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” When it comes to the issue of alcohol, we believe that the decision to drink, or not, is a personal conviction between the believer and the Lord. This personal conviction comes from the Holy Spirit and may change, as the Christian’s understanding and maturity changes, but it must be emphasized that the Christian should only do that which he possesses the faith to do. In other words, no Christian should consume alcohol unless his faith (given by God) allows him to do so, otherwise it is sin.

Here are some excerpts of our text with the subject of alcohol substituted in italics for the disputable matter:

Romans 14:5-6 “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards alcohol as acceptable, does so to the Lord. He who drinks alcohol, drinks to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

Romans 14:22-23 “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he drinks alcohol, because his drinking is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

Therefore, if the Christian's conviction is to abstain from alcohol, we say, “GREAT! Blessed be the name of the Lord.” If your conviction is that alcohol is acceptable, we say, ”GREAT! Blessed be the name of the Lord.” The important thing is not whether alcohol is consumed, but the attitude of the believer's heart. Paul is teaching us that sin cannot be found in food or drink; rather, sin is birthed in the heart of man, and the Christian is held accountable for the condition of his heart. God “sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance , but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

Knowing this, Paul reinforces God’s perspective on the matter by emphasizing His word that is written on our hearts (2 Corinthians 3:3). This means that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit for direction and faith, before we are moved to action on our convictions. As we proceed to action that is motivated by love, Paul leaves us with behavioral instructions that are to be followed. Because no Christian lives in a vacuum, those “whose faith is weak,” and those who “are not condemned,” will have to interact harmoniously. So, how is this accomplished?
Fundamentally, Paul commands us not to judge each other’s opinion on the matter as right or wrong. He says, "Each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.” Love needs to be the calling card of our decision making, but this sentence referring to a “stumbling block” is sometimes abused and taken out of context. Sometimes, one Christian will tell another that he should not drink because it may become a stumbling block. However, the Christian who drinks is not accountable to the one who doesn’t; rather, the Lord will judge him for his motives.

It is worth mentioning that the context of “destroying your brother” (14:15) is referring to a Christian who, knowing his brother's contrary conviction, drinks despite this knowledge. There is an intentional disregard for the life of his brother and a selfish preference of his own liberties. What does this mean for the one who drinks? If he is aware that someone in his presence does not possess the faith to drink, he should not drink (14:21). It is as simple as that.

However, do not take this too far; Paul is not saying that a Christian is responsible for scenarios that he is unaware of. For example, if a believer goes into a liquor store to pick up some wine and another Christian, who chooses not to drink, sees this, it is not a sin. If someone is aware that his friend, who struggles with this issue, is there it is better to not enter the building. This is an inconvenience, but we are told to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (14:19). This may be the reason a mature Christian chooses to abstain from alcohol altogether in order to avoid any stumbling block situations. However, this does not make him holier or closer to Christ, nor does scripture state that this is a behavioral standard that we all must meet. Rather, he does this out of love for the benefit of the weaker Christian.

For those whose faith allows him to drink, alcohol should not be considered evil since Paul says, “I am fully convinced no drink is unclean in itself” (14:14). Furthermore, abstaining for the benefit of a fellow Christian, “Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil” (14:16). This means that we, who have a stronger faith, are expected by God to help the weaker Christian through our abstinence, but also through education. Paul is saying that we need to encourage those in the family of God to seek a greater faith in this area. Those more mature in the faith have an obligation to present truth objectively, yet filled with love, gentleness and respect. Never at any time, should the more mature believer teach with condescension. Be on guard, because in 1 Corinthians 8 we read “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.”

Now, for those who struggle with accepting another believer who drinks, please note that the word used in Romans 14 to describe a “weak” Christian is asqueno, which is translated "weak" 12 times, but is also translated "sick" 18 times. This shows that Paul expects the “weak” Christian’s opinion to improve on the matter, much in the same way that when a person gets sick, we expect that it be a temporary state from which he will eventually recover. This good state of health is how we are intended to view our spiritual sanctification. From the first day of our rebirth in the Lord, we are constantly being purified and refined into a holy people. Paul recognizes that we all have struggles that are carried from our unbelieving lives into our new ones, but as the Holy Spirit sanctifies us, we work out our salvation in these areas to realize ultimately that the “Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (14:17).

If the Christian, who is convinced that he should not drink, and is being led by the unconditional love of Christ, he will not judge another member in the family if that person chooses to drink. We are all under the same banner of love and remember what Paul says, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” However, when one is convinced in his own mind to abstain, we say, “Blessed be the name of the Lord.” Each of us is accountable to God; therefore, we at Providence encourage all believers to continue according to their faith in the same way.

We can plainly see what Paul has done here in Romans 14-15. He has leveled the playing field and made us all equal and accountable to Lord in this area. The issue for the early church was food sacrificed to idols; whereas, today the controversy is the consumption of alcohol. Paul’s primary concern was the unity of the church. We should always vigorously defend the essentials of the gospel (i.e. deity of Christ, the atonement, man's need for salvation). However, the non-essentials, or disputable matters can be discussed; but we should never make them more important than they need to be. Too many churches split over non-essentials and the Holy Spirit is grieved tremendously when this occurs. Providence will always be a church that defends the essentials passionately, but we will not allow the non-essentials to interfere with the unity of the body.

In conclusion, the elders of Providence Community Church, regarding the disputable matter of the consumption of alcohol, maintain the biblical position of having no official position. However, we would encourage every believer to prayerfully consider their own convictions on this matter with the Lord, while respecting the convictions of others, even if they differ. May our words and actions at Providence be sweet with the incense of love and grace for one another. In all things, blessed be the name of the Lord.

Rusty Pang, Elder at Providence Community Church

Rhwanda Missions Trip Update

Hey guys,

Darren (Our Pastor), is in Rhwanda doing some mission's work educating pastors in their country with Valley Church.

Rhwanda Blog

This is the first sermon I've heard from John Piper

Hey guys, I came across this sermon while I was perusing John Piper's website DeriringGod.com.

I highly recommend to listen to the whole thing. John is preaching on the section in the Gospel of John where Jesus meets the Samartan woman at the well. Thanks John for this.

**In Scorpion's voice** GetInHereMinistries

After yesterday's "Don't Do It" song, I decided to check out the guys behind the magic. Their names are Johnny and Chachi. I already love it. Their official website is JohnnyandChachi.com. They produce all kinds of media for churches and ministries.

They have two videos I will post here. The first is some practical prayer processes to a better prayer life and the second is their 3 driving techniques to save humanity. I realize the last sentence was completely redundant, and so is this sentence when I reiterate a ridiculously redundant raving. Booya!

I digress, here is Killer Prayer Tips from youtube.


And News World Today with Johnny and Chachi


Enjoy the videos. I'll be back later today with commentary that explodes in hilarity and yellowness.

Added content: Man, these guys are men after my own heart. If you aren't a regular church goer, it may be hard to get all of the subtle sarcasms and jokes. I apologize if it is that way for you, but know that Christians are no different when it comes to jargon, group qwerks, and dynamics. We're a people who are forgiven and striving for growth despite our weaknesses. Now, with that disclaimer in place, allow me to point out one particular Christian prayer pattern I've perceived. You like that? Alliteration is amusing.

Have you ever noticed that people don't pray as if they are really talking to God? It's more like a letter to Santa. If you want to be a normal Christian that prays, you're prayer should follow this format:

"Dear Jesus, **pause as one thinks up wish list, but then remembers thankfulness**

Thank you for [insert arbitrary thing that one should always be thankful for]. Please help [insert name of a human] with [insert thing that human needs help with]. I also need help with [insert your problem and/or wish list request]. Thank you for [Praise something you like about God].

In Jesus' name I pray [Most don't know what this means, we just say it], Amen."


We might as well adlib this prayer. You remember those books from elementary school. They have you fill in adjectives, nouns and the like before you read the story. Then, when you read the story it becomes hilarious as you find that random insertions actually create a coherent story...most of the time.

I wonder, if we prayed like we actually believed we were talking to the creator of the universe, how dramatically those prayers would change. It may turn our adlib short story into some of the most heartfelt dynamic standards of literature equivalent to a work by C.S. Lewis, or Shakespeare.

If the relationship between humans is better in person, than through ink and paper, how much more our relationship with God.

From blessing to burdens...

I recently listened to a series by the Sun Valley Community Church in Gilbert, Arizona. The teaching series was on biblical financial money management. For those of you that know me, you understand this is a passion of mine and I feel that the church could not have batched this any more badly than we have today. This can be represented in the misquoting of 1 Timothy 6:10, "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." Most people, utter this phrase without "the love of" changing the meaning of the scripture.

Although, it may on the surface seem subtle, but it changes everything. By making the money, and not the pursuit of it, the seed of all kinds of evil we have made money fundamentally evil. Furthermore, it is not even the pursuit of money that is evil, rather the fruits that came from the seeding. Daresay, not only do I think that it is possible to pursue money in a holy way, but I believe that it is scriptural to pursue money. And yes, God wants you to have plenty of it. So much that my hope is that all Christians possess the capacity of character to have millions touch their fingers.

I realize that this seems like I'm preaching a prosperity gospel, but if you reread my statements carefully and understand the scriptural principles it is founded in, you will see that I'm not telling you that God wants you to healthy, wealthy, and happy. Rather, I am making the statement, "How did we allow our pastors stop teaching us about money when 1/3 of the bible refers to material management?" This is the most written about bible topic, yet is the least spoken of in the church. If we are to be like God, and He is the ultimate example of a giver, why aren't we giving like He wants us to? I believe it is because church goers become so offended when they hear a preacher talk about money, that they have neglected to ever do so from a pulpit. In doing so, we have unwittingly tossed the most abundantly talked about subject in scripture creating a gap for all the unbiblical perspectives of money to creep into God's people. It's never about the amount of money, it's always the attitude towards money.

There was a phrase uttered in one of the sermons referring to money as God's blessings being turned to burdens. Food, money, relationships are some examples. These are all gifts from our creator and we turn them into burdens, or worse, idols. Why is this so?

I believe that we've walked away from the fundamental concept of personal restraint and wisdom. There are so many things in life that when overdone, or not at all, become a problem. We all need to eat but if you took your cues based upon what you see in the world you wind up with a eating disorder. Advertisements teach us to be anorexic or obese depending on whether you care more about what others think or what you desire and deserve.

Money is no different. The church generally preaches that we are supposed to have peace, freedom, and growth in our lives but how many in the church today would describe their finances like that? The more likely scenario is a description of turmoil, slavery, and stagnation. Most feel like they are spinning their wheels and no traction is being made.

Where does the path to this financial freedom lie? Well, any positive growth begins at a negative starting line. This is natural and should be expected. If you want something different, you need to act differently. Things need to change because as Dave Ramsey would say, "Broke is normal, so let's get weird."

Time to get weird people. If you want material that will change your life, you need to read and change it yourself. You dug yourself into the hole, time to do the work to climb out. Let me say though, it is absolutely possible. There is always hope, sometimes it's hard to see, but it is always there.

Some books to start strong:
The Total Money Makeover: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness
by Dave Ramsey


The Millionaire Next Doorby Thomas Stanley

At the end of the day, there is no get rich quick plan. Getting wealthy so that you can give it all away is a path of baby steps. There are no teleporters on God's path to financial money management.

What is intellectual dishonesty?

I play an online game in which you can create your own cyber nation, in fact, the game is called cybernations. It's original, I know, but the link to check it out is below.



What does this have to do with intellectual dishonesty? I'm not going to bore you with all the details of the game and this blog is not about the entertainment factors in it, but I recently had an interesting exchange with a member on this site, we'll call him "eaglecat." Why, because that's what his name is. Anyway, in a nutshell he attacked me (a smaller and less defended nation) because I had attacked another guy (a smaller and less defended nation). Now, normally, I don't have a problem with someone attacking me unprovoked, except that this gentleman claimed that what I was doing was wrong, but he was in the right. This is the part that got interesting. In a nutshell, he stood above me on his moral soapbox shaking his cyber righteous finger telling me "NO! BAD BOY!" Except, he did it with F-bombs and *#&^@#*&%[insert expletives]. When I pointed his hypocrisy out, all of a sudden it became personal. I pointed out his intellectual dishonesty and without going into all the details, I began to reflect on the consistency of the encounters like this, and it spawned a blog. I haven't heard any public commentators use it, so I feel it necessary to define it before I proceed.

Intellectual Dishonesty: To choose, or hold firm to, an false idea or reality despite being presented with contradictory evidence pointing to a superior alternative. This is intentional logical fallacy. For example, if a person, who is holding a red triangle, still desires to call it a blue circle, despite any evidence presented to prove the geometric object is a red triangle.

My wish, when defining this phrase, is not to put others down who use them, although it will happen undoubtedly, but to make those who who are unaware, aware. I desire progress and all progress requires a measure of the uncomfortable before growth can occur. This is natural and to be expected for all change comes packaged with a need for an adjustment. What new adventure or experience comes without a measure of uncertainty?

The bizarre thing that I have discovered, is why have I not noticed the saturation in our society. Perhaps, I too was part of the problem, or more likely, I was simply ignorant of it's existence. Most, I believe, are unaware and therefore may benefit the most from reading this blog. Also, in the world of debate, discussion and communication the awareness of this tendency in our culture to accept intellectual dishonesty will help us to scrutinize it more. Subsequently, there should be less fights and arguments as long as the one who is committing the intellectual dishonesty is humble enough to accept constructive criticisms instead of responding like a child who snaps back after recoiling from the initial discomfort. You know the ways, "I'm rubber. You're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

Humans do not like being wrong. It is embarrassing and hurts our pride like few other things may, but we must understand the difference between fact and opinion. We are perfectly right in our opinions, in fact, it is the only thing in which we can be perfectly right at all times. No one can argue with another about the rightness of their opinion, because it is yours to create, to have, and to espouse. However, the problem lies when an individual claims their opinion to be fact, or truth.

Claiming your neighbor is an adulterer can only be true if that neighbor truly has committed infidelity, but claiming such a thing is just an opinion unless you possess some proof. Is this not what gossip is? Like a man who adds coffee to his sugar, do we not add a little truth to our opinions? This is far reaching, and sometimes, I sadly admit rampant in the church.

I am learning, regrettably, to distinguish what is my opinion and what is truth. This has allowed me to identify those indispensable, timeless realities that I am willing to defend adamantly and has made me aware of much more that I should not care as much for. Religion, politics and economics are three fields of study that I am cementing my beliefs in because of the timeless truths contained there within.

I find that humans should approach their opinions like a scientist who studies the stuff in the box of the universe. Hypothesis, theory and law. Laws are the timeless truths but require intense testing, scrutiny and analysis. And through the scientific method we can arrive at an established and predictable timeless law from which our lives can function.

This has led me to discover certain things as being the only reasonable solution. What I mean by this, is that in the past it was the most reasonable of other reasonable solutions. However, as I move down the process of scientific method, I have come to believe in certain laws. Christianity is no longer the most reasonable solution to the problem of salvation, but it is the only reasonable solution. It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a creator.

If you wish me to explain this in more depth, just comment and I will be happy to elaborate, but it really does take a blind faith to believe in evolution. It takes more blind faith to believe in global warming. It takes more blind faith to believe that socialism is an effective way to run a society.

It is not these ideas in themselves that are wrong. These are natural conclusions to draw from a worldview that believes man is inherently good. Unfortunately, when you begin with a broken foundation, you get a broken house. To begin in the negative will only lead to negative results. To a scientist that starts with a belief that gravity is not real will stand amazed when he sees a plane fly and perhaps may draw the conclusion that the plane, like a fish in the sea, is less buoyant than the air in which it swims. He may never get to understand that gravity is overcome by a law in physics called lift.

What does this mean ultimately? We must always question what we believe. Not like a cynic, but as a scientist. If we do not do this on a regular basis we become subject to most well argued and propagated argument, not the most reasonable one. And this, I believe, is what ails the world the most, of which Christians are no exception. This can be fixed, and must be fixed in our churches so that we can be the city on a hill of a dark and blind world.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

Why a classic liberal wants to help gays remove the state from marriage, BTW I am one.

Dear reader,

To those of you who have taken the time to visit my blog and read regularly the words that I type, I would like to extend my deepest appreciations. It is with this sentiment that I wish to articulate my opinions on how followers of Christ should approach this opportunistic time to cooperate with the gay marriage movement, at a time when they and the religious right are so irreconcilably opposed. If you are not a christian, you are welcome to engage on this debate and I appreciate your input, but expect this is written by a christian to christians. By the end of this discussion we all may find ourselves in a place of congeniality, as long we think critically with gentleness and respect.

Let us begin…

I am a Classical Liberal. I am not a Conservative, nor a Republican. This is a term I now use to define my political positions on social laws, economics, and roles of government. I cannot be a conservative, because I am not conservative in nature. I am progressive, one who likes to move forward and challenge the current modus operandi of our culture. I am not willing to be satisfied with the status quo. A classical liberal is capable of this without abandoning his biblical world view. Therefore, convinced of these fundamental truths, I am now principled and unwilling to capitulate to the lesser ideas formed out of hollow philosophies founded, not on the indispensable, immutable God, but on an imperfect and deeply flawed humanity. It is this belief that allows me to hope that you can walk with me as I discuss the need to support LGBTs (Lesbian Gays Bisexual Transgenders), as we work to remove the state from sanctioned marriage.

I’m sure your first response to my suggestion to cooperate with gays was one of shock and appall. I ask you to bear with me a little longer and ponder this question: Do you realize that the concept of licensing also carries with it the right to prohibit? In other words, when the state deems it appropriate, they can prohibit your God-instituted, covenantal relationship. By filing a marriage license, California courts are now allowed to meddle in your marriage bed. This is a very uncomfortable risk to Christians when we allow the long arm of government to decide what is right in our families. It may become expedient one day for the state to decide that your marriage is now obsolete, or the religious beliefs which define it to be intolerant, and therefore, illegal.

If I didn’t care about people, I would have been libertarian, for my views about government are not very hopeful. It is an untrustworthy monster and operates far too many times contrary to my biblical convictions. I would gladly take any opportunity to increase personal freedoms and liberties. Marriage, of course, is no exception.

This brings me to the opportunity the “religious right” have before them. We are labeled as the intolerant, mean spirited, homophobic, gay haters of America. I think it is time to communicate a message to those unbelievers that we do not hate them. We do not fear them, although we may forget sometimes that they are made in God’s image (imago deo). We would be a better people if we remember that our God loves them more than we ever could. So, I ask why not work in concert, not against, the LGBTs and kick the state out of our marriages? And in the process, reach out to a people group who misunderstand the message of the gospel.

My fear is that the religious leaders of our day will not recognize the greater threat and continue the passionate battle of world views. They may print informative pamphlets, effective email campaigns, well produced commercials and stop the gay agenda. And although successful, in pursuing this path we reinforce the gay hater, intolerant, uncaring Christian stereotype. There is a better way in which the Christian may stand for righteous living, but still love the unrighteous. Here is how we should do it.

There should be a practical course of communication to the leaders of the LGBT movement. First, a white flag should be raised by prominent Christian leaders to open the doors of communication. Second, we must state that we still believe marriage is not a right but a gift granted by God alone. We are not willing to compromise on this. However, since they wish to remain secular, we also recognize their right to call the commitment to their relationship whatever they wish, including a marriage. We can both retain our beliefs and accomplish what we want. Third, peace between activists on both sides needs to be agreed upon and that the new enemy is the state. Fourth, there must not be any expectation, once it is complete, that Christians must conform to the belief that marriage can be anything other than between one man and one woman. Just as they have the freedom to define it in their social circles, we are free to define it in ours. We must maintain the strictest of difference when contrasting Christian marriage and all other secular relationships. Fifth, we get the law added to the next election through petitions from both sides.

If we do this successfully, a new law must be drafted in which the state only recognizes civil contracts between two consenting adults, much like a business. The words marriage will no longer be defined by the state and doing this will limit state involvement in these contracts to medical and financial powers of attorney and probate. This will be regulated on the state level just as they are today. This new law, however, should be created before the civil activist machine is in full force because it will provide a purpose for Christians and LGBTs to remain unified until the task is complete.

What do we do then? Well, we go back into our churches and focus on our marriages. Take the institution back and redefine it in our culture. We become different again and show it. The society will shift back again to Godly principles once we love our spouses unconditionally and teach our children to do the same, just as God intended. In doing so we will have not only transformed our current generation, but benefited future generations through fundamentally Godly foundations.

Let us be proactive in our political pursuits. Let us spur one another to walk in faith and not fear of those who do not profess Christ. It is for the Lord to judge the outsider, not for us. It is only when they wish to join our churches or become Christians that the Bible teaches us that we can hold them to our standards. But ultimately, all of this needs to be done without attacking their humanity. Remember the heights from which you fell before you met Christ so that you reaffirm your humility. And with this renewed attitude, we may win more to the Lord than we have ever done before with our Christian tracks and our angry fists.

So, when you see the Christians circle their wagons against the LGBTs, it will do you good to remember your own depravity and these words by C.S. Lewis:

“The dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. It is with immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.”

What is truth?

Jesus said to Pilate these profound words, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth." The Bible: John 18:37

"What is truth?" The answer to this question determines everything. Everything.



I just got back from a training seminar to lead our small group through this foundational understanding of our world. If you are not currently attending this small group and wish to participate, please get a hold of me and you will be welcome to attend.

Be advised that this series has the potential to undo your very identity and is not for those who wish to remain curious at a distance. However, the benefits will be remain for eternity.

Source material:

The Truth Project Website

Scewtape, you sly ol' demon. Why do you teach me so well?

Whenever Janelle and I drive long distances we love it. It's a special time that we can have to talk about life, our dreams, our problems, or sometimes to just make funny noises that no one else can hear. (If you have ever spent any time with us, this is normal)

Anyway, on this particular trip back from Fort Bragg, we listened to The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. In a sentence, my brain couldn't unpack the wisdom fast enough. I had to literally stop the cd after every letter to ask Janelle, "Did you get that?" When really, I was just making sure I got that. But don't tell I think she is smarter than me, shhhhh.

I digress, I'd like to review the entire book, but that would take forever and I really don't want you to know how much time I can waste writing reviews on books. Therefore, let me fast forward to the tail end and comment on the last portion of the updated version, which includes a toast to graduating tempters from Screwtape some years later. Here is an excerpt to catch you up.

"The scene is in Hell at the annual dinner of the Tempters' Training College for young devils. The principal, Dr. Slubgob, has just proposed the health of the guests. Screwtape, a very experienced devil, who is the guest of honour, rises to reply."

"You can get him [your assigned human] to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided. The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say, "I'm as good as you."

The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don't mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says I'm as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.

And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food."
- Screwtape

I believe that Mr. Lewis has better described my little war against pseudo racism and the hypocritical positions they, who stand on their soapboxes, preach. This combined with false humility (counterfeit humility which lowers oneself instead of lifting up others), is what modern socialism is.

It is the entitlement generation, my generation which knows not oppression but voluntarily oppresses itself for the pity of others, to only then raise themselves to their superiors with, as C.S Lewis would state, "I am as good as you." This is the most deceptive pride in our post modern world.

This type of person will ask for help out of the mudpit of circumstance but when a ladder or rope is lowered, rebuke the helpers efforts since they were unwilling to carry them out. Additionally, anyone who takes the initiative to climb out, they rebuke, belittle and berate in attempts to guilt them into wallowing with them in misery.

Socialism, our liberal government, can only guaranty the equality of results to the point in which no results can be produced. In other words, if you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time. This is no way for any free nation to live and prosper. This is no way that God intended man should live, so why do I find myself living in a nation that promotes suffering and submission to an overlord state as a legitimate ideal? To which some Christians can be the worst.

If you are one of the better humans, one to whom are told, "I am as good as you." I encourage you to keep growing and keep prospering. Realize that this phrase comes out in different words like,"You are arrogant" or "You think you're better than me." Know the lies and act appropriately.

If you are embarrassed to discover your own weakness living in the other camp, I encourage you to change your ways and become competent and confident in the life and choices you have. Change only happens in the present. Don't let the future hold you back.

I implore you to read this book, material that has survived the test of generations. I have included links to the audio and hardback versions below.

The Screwtape Letters, Hardcover


The Screwtape Letters, Audio Collection