obama reads my blog

hope and change: the lowercase for vice president!!

it would seem senator barack obama reads my blog!
from worldnet daily:

Some have been taking issue with largely unnoticed
comments made last year by Sen. Barack Obama
declaring the U.S. is "no longer a Christian
nation" but is also a nation of others, including Muslims and
nonbelievers.
...
"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian
nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation,
a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu
nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said
during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube

see! i told you .. just go back and read yesterdays post! i said these words
"this notion of america being a christian has got to go. that label is not true."

so.. you heard it here first... "barack obama reads the lowercase and agrees with stephen cavness."


obviously i am joking. (among other reasons...his remarks were made last year) the senator's purpose for his remarks is not in the pursuit of religious truth, but rather political gain. (just as any politician of any
party is prone to do)
he goes on to say:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped
being used to bring us together and started being used
to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of
the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been
all too eager to exploit what divides us," he said

now, many people who are lumped into the "christian right" i have little in common with, so my purpose is not to defend that label. my point is to show yet another example of tolerance being redefined as "do not say anyone is wrong, much less live as if your moral claims are absolutes".

i am all for being "together" with my fellow americans. we can and should be cordial and friendly with those with different beliefs. we can disagree without hating those we disagree with. but let us move past this silly notion that tolerating something or someone means we must validate those beliefs- and that anything less is "intolerable".

american religion:"3,000 miles wide and...three inches deep"

a new survey was just released further exposing the astonishing (and tragic) state of this one nation "under god".

the pew forum on religion and public life has released part II of its study of america's religious beliefs and practices. (i referenced findings from part I here).

among the findings [quoted from this associated press article] of 35,000 u.s. adults:

America remains a nation of believers, but a new survey
finds most Americans don't feel their religion is the only
way to eternal life — even if their faith tradition teaches
otherwise.

In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation
shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than
one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.

Nearly across the board, the majority of religious Americans
believe many religions can lead to eternal life:
mainline Protestants (83 percent), members of historic black
Protestant churches (59 percent), Roman Catholics
(79 percent), Jews (82 percent) and Muslims (56 percent).

By similar margins, people in those faith groups believe in multiple
interpretations of their own traditions' teachings. Yet 44 percent
of the religiously affiliated also said their religion should preserve
its traditional beliefs and practices.

d. michael lindsay sums up these findings quite well by saying:
"The survey shows religion in America is, indeed, 3,000 miles
wide and only three inches deep"

the report has generated among some the notion that the findings may be a
positive indication of a healthy growing "tolerance" in america - a view held
by c. welton gaddy, president of the interfaith alliance who was quoted in the associated press article as saying:

"It shows increased religious security. People are
comfortable with other traditions even if they're
different... It indicates a level of humility about
religion that would be of great benefit to everyone."

i guess i fail to see how being comfortable with other religions is somehow at odds with my caring more about the state and eternal destiny of their soul.


roger s. oldham, vice president for convention relations of the southern baptist convention (and my friend and former pastor) expresses a similar exasperation of the misuse of the idea of "tolerance".

"If by tolerance we mean we're willing to engage or embrace
a multitude of ways to salvation, that's no longer evangelical
belief," he said. "The word 'evangelical' has been stretched so
broadly, it's almost an elastic term."

our culture seems to celebrate being "open" to the possibility that religions other than one's own are just as valid and that more than one claim to religious truth need not be in opposition.
that is utter nonsense. i have written about this before here, here, and here, so for now i will not rehash this absurd redefining of the word "tolerance".

the issue here is the notion of being able to apply one's own meaning to words and labels.
it is not by saying "i am a christian" -whatever that means to the individual that one goes to heaven. it is by faith in alone in christ alone that we are saved. if what we mean when we say "christian" is not what the bible means when it teaches of being a follower of christ, then we are not, in the true and historic sense of the word a christian. but our culture has given us the bravado to redefine and determine meanings of words-to be as inclusive as possible. accept everyone into everything, reject no one from anything (except those who reject your beliefs).

what these reports are making more and more clear is not "new" news. the bible tells us that there will be people who expect that they have found the way to god, but because they did not repent of their sins and believe in the lord jesus christ (and him alone) that they will spend an eternity in hell. (yes.. i said the hell word.. it is real.. it exists. we ought not be ashamed to believe in that which jesus spoke very frequently of).

this notion of america being a "christian nation" has got to go. that label is not true. when overwhelming numbers of people who claim to be christian deny the basic and non-negotiable aspects of christianity we should stop using that label as a badge of honor and instead be broken over it.

the next time we are at a ballgame or gathering where "god bless america" is sung... instead of taking pride in being a "christian nation", perhaps we should be terrified that our nation is rapidly becoming one of the most spiritually lost and confused nations in the world... more corinth than paradise. and rather than sing/pray "god bless america" maybe we should fall to our knees and pray "god, have mercy on and save america".

christians who deny the deity of christ?

over the past 15 months i have preached through the gospel of john, 1, 2, and 3 john. john had a lot to say about the deity of christ and who he was. he also had a lot to say about avoiding false teachers and teachings.

with that in mind, take a look at some quotes from the cooperative baptist fellowship general assembly in memphis, tn. this past week. (read the whole story here from baptist press)

"Now we are reevaluating and we're approaching
everything with a humbler perspective and seeing
God's hand working in Christ, but not necessarily
as the incarnate God in our midst," Killinger said.
"Now, that may be hard for you to hear depending
on where you are coming from, but we can talk
more about it."

"Doctrine isn't the driving force to many people today"
except "to the fundamentalists who insist on it," Killinger said.
"But doctrine is a thing of the past now religiously".

There's an altered view of Scripture and of the role of Christ,"
he said of Christianity in today's world. "Christ is still Savior
to most of us, but maybe in a slightly different way than before."

"I'm just suggesting that I think we need to be a little less
certain about what Jesus meant, what He was about, what
His life and work were about. I think we're reevaluating all that.
"For example, Jesus did not conceive of Himself as the Savior
of the world and may not have viewed Himself a sacrifice at
all until the crucifixion, Killinger said

Killinger said he benefits from the mystical experience of
reading John's Gospel privately but cannot advocate John's
high view of Christ in serious preaching or scholarship.
"There are moments when I can do that privately and
mystically myself," Killinger said of benefiting from John.
"But at the same time, in terms of the cultural development
of Christianity, I have to look at what the scholars are saying
about the first three Gospels."

The pastors also said they did not disbelieve in an afterlife
but were not overly concerned about it, Killinger said. When
asked whether they thought people of other world religions
are going to hell, the pastors replied that they did not think
in terms of heaven and hell, he said.

During the same workshop June 19, Killinger said the Old
Testament book of Daniel "fibbed a lot." Even though Daniel
claims to be written earlier, it was actually written in the
second century B.C., he said, and pretends to prophesy
about events that occurred previously.

"The scholars almost all admit Daniel fibbed a lot because,
as a book, it was actually written in one time and set back
in time to make it look as if the prophecies it made came true,"
Killinger said. "That would validate other prophecies it
was going to include, you see. So that's cheating a bit."

i am not sure what "scholars" this man is speaking of, but i know that it is not "almost all".

i have said it before and i say it again, we must be *clear* about who god is, who jesus is, and what the gospel is. there are many false teachers and teachings out in teh world that are disguised as "christian". let us not be led astray, and seek to keep others from being led astray as we seek the truth in the bible that does not "fib".

pray for steven curtis chapman and his family...

one of the daughters, age 5, of steven curtis chapman and his wife, mary beth, was struck by a car driven by their son, and died wednesday.

read the story here

i cannot imagine the grief of losing a child in any circumstance... and my heart especially goes out to the brother who will no doubt live with "what if"'s for the rest of his life.

the song, "with hope", written by chapman after the heath high school shootings in paducah, ky. in 1997 resonate again ...

"with hope"
This is not at all
how we thought it was supposed to be
We had so many plans for you
We had so many dreams
And now you've gone away
And left us with the memories of your smile
And nothing we can say
And nothing we can do
Can take away the pain
The pain of losing you, but ...

We can cry with hope
We can say goodbye with hope'
Cause we know our goodbye is not the end, oh no
And we can grieve with hope'
Cause we believe with hope
(There's a place by God's grace)
There's a place
where we'll see your face again

And never have I known
Anything so hard to understand
And never have I questioned more
The wisdom of God's plan
But through the cloud of tears
I see the Father's smile and say well done
And I imagine you Where you wanted most to be
Seeing all your dreams come true'
Cause now you're home And now you're free,

We can cry with hope
We can say goodbye with hope'
Cause we know our goodbye is not the end, oh no
And we can grieve with hope'
Cause we believe with hope
(There's a place by God's grace)
There's a place
where we'll see your face again

We have this hope as an anchor'
Cause we believe that everything
God promised us is true,
So we can cry with hope
And say goodbye with hope

We wait with hope
And we ache with hope
We hold on with hope
We let go with hope

america is not a "christian nation"

here are a couple of figures i have run across in recent weeks. with the sbc annie armstrong easter offering for home missions in full swing, let these facts and figures wake us from the pipe dreams that america is god's favorite country....

"...the first and most important statistic is that there
are a lot of americans who don't go to church - and
their numbers are increasing. the figure has jumped
from just 21 percent of the population in 1991 to 33
percent [in 2003]. In fact, if all the unchurched people
in the u.s. were to establish their own country, they
would form the eleventh most populated nation on
the planet."
george barna, "unchurched nation" moody magazine (july-august
2003) -read in the radical reformission by mark driscoll

• • America's Protestant majority -- a mainstay of American life from the
    colonial era to the present -- is in decline and Protestant Christians will soon become a minority. The survey revealed that only 51.3% of Americans now identify as Protestants.
    
  • Mainline Protestant churches and denominations continue to lose membership and now represent only 18.1% of the population.
    
  • Those identifying as "unaffiliated" represent a fast-growing segment of the population (16.1%), including atheists (1.6%), agnostics (2.4%) and "nothing in particular" (12.1%).
    
  • At least 27% of families are interfaith to some extent. The percentage rises to 37% if spouses of different Protestant denominations are included.
    
  • Among younger Americans (ages 18-29) almost a quarter claim no religious affiliation.

  reflections by albert mohler on a recent survey by the
  the pew forum on religion & public life

"be open minded so i can keep mine closed"

in another display of the double standard that perfectly illustrates our cultures incessant misuse of the concept of "tolerance" i refer you to this story....

When a same-sex couple asked Christian photographer
Elaine Huguenin to photograph their commitment ceremony,
Huguenin declined, citing conflicts with her personal beliefs.
The couple took action, however, filing a
complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division.
Now Huguenin’s studio Elane Photography is being tried
under state anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation
discrimination.

to recap, a couple asked if a photographer would photograph their wedding.the photographer (who is not obligated to accept any offer from anyone) says no because the content of the photo shoot conflicted with her "personal beliefs".

so now the couple is filing an injunction that would prohibit this photographer from ever refusing her services to same sex couples.

so the personal beliefs of the photographer in how she runs her own business are less important than the couple's values who were never promised service in the first place?

lets look at what has happened in finer detail.

a same sex couple were denied services of a photographer, because the photographer disagrees with their lifestyle. the photographer did not try to keep them from their having their 'commitment ceremony'. she simply turned down their offer to pay her money to photograph this event.

notice this... the event will take place anyway. the couple did not lose the ability to have their ceremony photographed. they were not forced to not have their ceremony because the photographer did not agree with their lifestyle. they can simply move on and ask someone else to take pictures. their "right to have pictures taken" at their same sex ceremony was not taken away.

but what about the photographer. if the plantiffs have their way, she will be forced to act against her conscience. her right to disagree with and not contribute to same sex unions would be overruled. she faces loss of income, fines, or worse if she refuses to live in a way that she believes is contrary to her value system.

this goes beyond issues of homosexuality. change the "social situation" to whatever you want.
if a muslim photographer were asked to photograph a christian baptism, he would be well within his rights to refuse his services. can you imagine the outcry if he was forced by law to photograph this ceremony that was contrary to his faith?

it is becoming more and more acceptable in the court of public opinion for one party's belief system to be violated so that another's can have their ***wants***.

it seems everyone's "rights" to not have their "rights" to be denied applies to everyone except those who disagree with you!

as john mellencamp put it"...this is ouuuuur country!!"

baptist by name; relativist by belief

in my "history of the baptists" class today, my professor, dr. tom nettles shared excerpts from this news story concerning the new covenant baptist celebration assembly of baptists in atlanta last week led by former president jimmy carter.

here are some excerpts:

Baptists must stop trying to convert everyone to faith in Jesus Christ
and realize that there are multiple "good" interpretations of Bible
passages that appear to exalt Jesus as the only way of salvation,
panelists said Jan. 31 at a session called "Can We All Get Along?
Finding Common Ground with Other Faiths."

In dialogue with people of other faiths, Christians must appreciate
diversity and recognize that trying to bring all people to faith in
Jesus ruins what Gerald Durley, pastor of Providence Missionary
Baptist Church in Atlanta, described as the beautiful mixture of
religions in the world. He compared the religions of the world
to a vegetable soup in which diversity enhances the flavor.

while we should not persecute or hate anyone because of their religious beliefs, it is outrageous that a self-professed christian would say that religions of false gods whose practioners are headed for an eternal torment are "flavor enhancing.

i am dumbfounded when, at a baptist gathering, the idea that there are other valid interpretations of the scriptures that "appear" to claim jesus is the only way of salvation is uttered as an acceptable way of thinking.

All Christian witnessing must be based on personal experience
rather than dogmatic appeal to absolute truths, [david]Currie said.

"It is never appropriate to be dogmatic in one's convictions," he said.
"God is truth. I don't know all truth. So what I bear witness to is what
I have experienced in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and
that's as far as I can take it."

my question to mr. currie would be:
"if christian witnessing should be based on personal experience rather than a 'dogmatic appeal" to absolute truth', how can you be certain that your personal experience is valid? what if someone else claims to have salvation based off of their faith in islam? how can you know that your assurance that you are saved is worth anything? how do you know that your "experience" was valid? what is your personal relationship with jesus based on? how do you know what is pleasing to jesus? how do you know what disobedience is?"

When audience members asked about evangelism, Currie said Jesus
did not tell people what to do with their lives until they asked. He said
the most effective evangelistic technique is to remain silent until an
unbeliever specifically asks about the Gospel.

"For the most part ... the most effective evangelism slogan I know is
'love people and shut up.' That is good evangelism. And when you love
them, ultimately they'll ask you why and then you can tell them.
But if you start telling them before they ask, they're not going to
hear you."

ummm... "jesus did not tell people what to do with their lives until they asked"?
have you *read* the new testament?
sure there are instances where non-believers are searching and when they know they are around a believer they may ask some questions- but what we see in the new testament is the believing community being intentional about sharing the gospel, not waiting for someone to ask.
yes we should love people unconditionally, but part of loving them is being concerned for their soul. i have loved and cared for many people who were lost who never asked about the gospel except to tell me they dont want to hear it.

i wasn't sure what to expect from this gathering. i had my guesses, but i certainly had no idea that this type of post-modern, relativistic conversation would take place. not only is this kind of talk not baptist, it isn't even christian.

people do not have to be southern baptist to be christian. but they must at least affirm the exclusivity of the gospel.

for more on this meeting go here:

the "hard" questions -rape and abortion...

one of the more common objections to a pro-life stance is

"what about cases such as rape, incest, etc.?"

these are questions that do not have easy answers, but they have answers none the less.
rape and incest are horrible tragedies and ones we should never take lightly. for a woman to be violated in any way is a horrible and terrible thing. so we should never respond to these questions coldly or callously, as if the integrity and person hood of a woman who was raped is less important than an unborn child.

one response ,among others, is that rape and incest are horrible evils, but the answer is not to commit a second evil by killing a human life.

along these lines, there is more helpful information found here. i hope this article and its parent site can prove helpful to you as you engage in this delicate and often passionate discussion.

...it is critical to remember that the vast majority of abortions
do not happen as a result of any of these [rape, incest, fetal
abnormalities]reasons.
In fact, according to a study in Family Planning
Perspectives (published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute,
which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood), less
than 6% of all abortions done in the United States are done for
all of these reasons combined.

If the woman does become pregnant, a rare but possible occurrence,
she may be made to feel twice as tainted when society is not prepared
to cope with the circumstances of this child's conception. Counselors
and abortion providers encourage abortion as the perfect "solution."
Irrationally, society expects her to kill her unborn child, not for
something the child has done, but for the crime of his/her father.
Once again the mother is pitted against her child.

Subjecting her to an abortion only compounds the initial violence
of the rape. Only in this second tragedy, the woman becomes the
aggressor against her own child.

Although research in this area is limited, at least two studies done
with women who've become pregnant following a rape have clearly
shown that women who aborted their children feel twice victimized
and angry about the abortion (Mahkom, "Pregnancy and Sexual
Assault," Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers
of America [1979], pp. 53-72).

Women in one study who carried their babies to term,
although frightened at first, felt they had done the more
positive thing by giving their children life; they felt they
had turned something awful into something good
(Mahkom and Dolan, "Sexual Assault and Pregnancy,
" New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University
Publishers of America [1981], pp. 182-199).

barbaro and roe vs. wade

because barbaro is back in the media spotlight and last week was the 35th anniversary of roe v. wade, i am re-posting this post that i wrote a year ago ...
[edit:] in case the youtube link at the bottom does not work for you, you can still get a much less gruesome but very much powerful reminder of what is at stake, take a look at this. ]
________________________________________________

in case you missed it, barbaro, last year's kentucky derby winner was euthanized yesterday. if you missed it, you're power must have gone out, and your paperboy must have called in sick.i was literally amazed yesterday, when for over the course of several hours there was a continuous "ticker" running at the bottom of the t.v. screen giving the apparently earth shattering news that barbaro was dead.

granted, i live in louisville kentucky, home of the kentucky derby in the land of horse racing. but as i got online, it was on the front page of all of the major news sites. then as i turned on the television is was on *all* of the major networks. today, it was on the cover of national newspapers.in the span of 12 hours i saw two separate "heart wrenching" stories of how the death of barbaro was profoundly impacting the country. fans in tears. endless flowers, and countless over sized cards expressing condolences.

i have nothing against animals. i would even call myself an animal lover (except for snakes).my best friend from my childhood was my black lab, "buffy". i found her when i was seven years old, and we were thick as thieves until she died after my sophomore year in college. we had to have her "euthanized" after she was hit by a car. old age and a bad leg had made her too slow to run from the cars that she was usually scared of. there was no way for her to recover, her body had been crushed, so we had her put to sleep. and i cried. i was over 20 years old and i sobbed.

i say this to make clear that i understand loyalty and devotion to animals. i know what it is like to love an animal.but yet i do not understand how our country can show so much grief and attention to a horse that was by and large unknown to anyone outside of its owners and caregivers a year ago.here are some excerpts written on the death of this horse :

Barbaro's death is not for the sports pages. It goes on page
one and also Editorial. People who haven't been to a horse
race in their lives feel undone by the loss.

Animals get hurt being what they are. Horses run on stilts for legs.
If horses didn't run on ideal conditions on a race track, they would
try to split the wind on a lumpy field on the other side of nowhere.

The loss of Barbaro's life is unsettling for two reasons. One, we got
to know the horse. We saw him blast through the starting gate, then
shake off that violent encounter, and start running as best he was
able again. We saw him fall. We saw him taken from the track by van.

We followed the surgeries and were gladdened by the rehabilitation.
We saw him wobble from a barn with casts on both right-side legs.
We saw the limp. The appetite. The bright eyes. We saw what was left
of the one hoof, it looked like a peg.

Another reason the loss felt so heavy was because we've
had animals. Few animals are cowards. Some are born sneaky.
But not even chickens are chicken.
– jay cronley espn.com

So many people felt a stake in Barbaro's recovery. They imagined
his pain, grimaced each time he faltered, took heart as each day
passed and he was still alive, making painfully slow progress.

The 2006 Kentucky Derby winner's fight for survival was their fight,
a symbol of strength, courage and comfort -- and, more than anything
else, a source of inspiration. He was, after all, winner of the world's
most famous race, in a sport desperate for a superstar...

"Certainly, grief is the price we all pay for love," co-owner
Gretchen Jackson said. We just reached a point where it was
goingto be difficult for him to go on without pain," Roy Jackson said.

"It was the right decision, it was the right thing to do. We said
all along if there was a situation where it would become more
difficult for him, then it would be time."

When Barbaro broke down... [w]ithin 24 hours fans across the
country seemed to be caught up in a "Barbaro watch." Well-wishers
young and old showed up at the New Bolton Center withcards,
flowers, gifts, goodies and even religious medals, and thousands
of e-mails poured into the hospital's Web site. The biggest gift has
been the $1.2 million raised since early June for the Barbaro Fund,
money to be put toward needed equipment such as an operating room
table and a raft and sling for the same pool recovery Barbaro used
after his surgeries.
- associated press

and now... the contrast:

As we soberly mark the 34th anniversary of the judicial atrocity
known as Roe v.Wade, the sheer number of innocent victims of
that act of judicial tyranny overwhelms our everyday experience.
Even under the most conservative of estimates (and we lack
certainty because we do not have a national, uniform mandatory
abortion reporting requirement), somewhere between 40 and
50 million unborn children have died under this nation’s regime
of abortion.

To put that number in some context, the best estimateis that the
total war dead, of all causes, for all of America’s major and minor
wars since 1775 is 1,329,991 or an amount equal to just one year
of Roe’s infernal tally.

.- Nikolas T. Nikas ,president and general counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund,
a public interest law firm that advocates for life-affirming policies regarding abortion,
human cloning and embryo research, and end-of-life issues.

i understand loving an animal. i understand people reacting to it. i understand the public display of sadness.what i do not understand, is with as much outcry against the war in iraq, the rising death toll of our troops, and the demands to get out to save lives...i do not understand the relative silence where there should be outrage, grief, and action.

the following is not for the weak or faint of heart. i debated whether or not to even link to it.
but i do so with hopes that these images will spread and help stop the killing of human beings... babies, whose worth is not determined by success on a race track, but by being an image bearer of god.

i cannot stress enough the sensitive nature of this video. it is graphic. it shows aborted children. the only reason i link to it is for the purpose of showing it to those you know who hear abortion and think "woman's choice" with no thought of the death of a human. i am repulsed by the images. but i am more repulsed that what is shown in these images is legal.i strongly advise expectant parents not to watch.a graphic video of the horror and violence of abortion. viewer discretion is advised.

HT: justin taylor

2 former presidents and a novelist = new baptist identity?

former presidents jimmy carter, bill clinton, and crime novelist john grisham will be among those in atlanta this week to discuss unity among baptists.

Carter said he had been praying for a new willingness
among Baptists to come together and even set an
example for other denominations that are on the
brink of dividing over conflicting issues such as the
ordination of gays.

read the full story here

im not sure if the national media will pick up on this or ignore it, but it should be interesting.

the most pro-abortion canidate ever?

is barack obama the most pro-abortion canidate ever?
read terrence jeffrey's answer at townhall.com here

HT: justin taylor

***disclaimer***
it is not the purpose of this website to endorse any candidate for president.
-however-,
i do feel that before voting, one should be informed of the positions held by
those running. for that reason i will from time to time comment on positions
held by various candidates for the purpose of promoting "informed voting".

response to the mormon response...

in case you missed it, fox news sent a list of 21 questions about the beliefs of the mormon church to officials of the church of latter-day saints. they replied, question by question. (you can view the questions and responses here).

at first glance, the answers may seem satisfactory. but upon close inspection, it seems that the answers given by the mormon church are not complete.. or completely honest.

rob bowman, of the southern baptist convention's north america mission board examines the answers given by the mormon church and points out the need to "say what we mean, and mean what we say". read his eyebrow raising assessment of the latter day saints answers here.

rob's bio from www.reclaimingthemind.org begins...
Robert M. Bowman Jr. (M.A., Fuller Theological Seminary) is the manager of Apologetics and Interfaith Evangelism for the North American Mission Board. For five years he was a lecturer in the M.A. in Christian Apologetics program at Biola University. Rob has published over fifty articles in such periodicals as the Christian Research Journal, Moody Monthly, Pastoral Renewal, and Areopagus Journal. He has also authored or co-authored a dozen books, including two that won the Gold Medallion Award...

fresh prince gets it wrong...

i am closing in on my 30th birthday. but one of the things that keeps me from feeling "all grown up" is re-runs of shows that were popular when i was a teenager. one of those shows is "the fresh prince of bel-air". while it wasnt groundbreaking television (though the theme song may be!) it is still entertaining to watch all of these years later- if for nothing else but the clothing and hairstyles!

i like will smith's acting. i find most of his movies enjoyable. he seems like someone who would really be fun to know. but on one important issue, he is dreadfully and fearfully wrong.

recently he has been speaking of a growing interest in and study of scientology. through his wife's (jada pinkett-smith) work with well known scientologist, tom cruise, smith has become more vocal about his research into this false religion...

[smith] told [access hollywood]: "I was introduced [
to] [scientology] by Tom and I’m a student of world
religion. I was raised in a Baptist household, I went to
a Catholic school, but the ideas of the Bible are
98 percent the same ideas of Scientology, 98
percent the same ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism."

i hate to break it to you will, but any religion that denies that there is but one god who is creator of all things and exists as the father , son, and holy spirit, and denies that the only hope of salvation is faith in the life, death, and resurrection of jesus christ is not even close to christianity. if any other teaching does not have these things at its core, then it is 100% *not* like christianity.

this doesn't mean that we boycott anything having to do with will smith or any scientologist... but we can become more informed about what scientology is so that if we hear someone say " i heard will smith is looking into scientology and that it is not that different than christianity" that we would seize that opportunity to make the gospel clear. we can also pray for will smith and other celebrities that have been or perhaps are being seduced by this false religion. (tom crusie, john travolta, lisa marie presley, etc.)

i will do some research on sources pertaining to scientology and post them here so check back in the next few days...

more on the "compass.."

dr. albert mohler, president of the southern baptist theological seminary writes on the controversial movie, "the golden compass" on his blog.

it is well worth the read and is an example of how to handle "controversy" without adding to it.

the outrage of religous intolerance

those crazy christians. more cries of "intolerance" are surely swirling over those texas skies in recent days.

a church in texas is taking some heat because it refused to allow an "interfaith" thanksgiving meal and prayer service involving christians, muslims, hindus, jews and other religions.
the gathering was scheduled to be on the property of hyde park baptist church, but upon receiving information that the event was to contain prayers of other religions (thereby to gods that would be considered false gods to the church who owned the property), the church pulled out of the event. (read the whole story here)

"They notified us four days before to say that we
could not have the Thanksgiving service on their
property," said [AAIM Interim Executive
Director]".They said they did not realize
that we'd have non-Christians at the service."
Church officials told her they thought "interfaith"
meant different sects of Christianity.

we cannot know what was said and the exact circumstances that went on that led to the churches decision to not allow the service to be held on their church property.

the wording in the above paragraph is crucial, and we must remember that the events being described are being interpreted by the person writing the article.

to say "they did not realize there would be non-christians at the service" sounds very bigoted and just plain mean. but i think it is safe to say that the concern was that there would be non-christian religions using a christian church property to pray to false gods-not just that "non-christians" would be there.
i would dare say that no true christian church refuses non-christians...in fact any true christian church that is behaving in a scriptural way would welcome non-believers into their midst every week and celebrate the fact that they came.

another phrase worth examining is "Church officials told her they thought "interfaith" meant different sects of Christianity."

when i was in college, there was a student center called "interfaith student center". it was a religious organization (like b.s.u./b.c.m. or r.u.f.) that did not have a denominational affiliation. the students that made up that organization were catholic, methodist, pentecostal, etc. but all of the groups represented were christian groups.
in addition, often times "interfaith worship services' or "bible studies" were advertised around campus. these, too, were made up of many denominations within christianity.

so it is not a stretch to say that when the church initially received a request for an interfaith thanksgiving prayer service on their property, that they assumed it was a group made up of different christian denominations.

should they have found out exactly who was in charge and what the event was before giving the ok? most definitely. but to simply state "the church thought interfaith meant different christian groups" is misleading and can come off as a condescending comment.

now.. what actually happened at the service?

The Interreligious Ministries service blended traditions
from the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Baha'i, Sikh
and Buddhist faiths, among others. It began with a procession
of leaders of a variety of religions, followed by customary
Muslim and Jewish calls to prayer, and a Christian bell
choir signaling the start of worship. There were offers of
gratitude to God in the Christian, Muslim and Hindu
traditions. A Buddhist ritual closed the hour-and-
15-minute celebration.

i am all for dialogue with other faiths. in fact, as christians we are called to share our faith with unbelievers. to do this well takes more than just handing someone a "tract and a weak-faced smile", but that we actually are able to talk *with* the person, not *at* them.

we should not be scared of people of otehr faiths. i have friends of ther faiths who have been great friends. so we should not close ourselves off from anyone who is "different".

so i am not at all against the idea of discussion and conversation, and even understanding with other religions.

but the line is drawn when anything resembling an act of worship or honor is given to another god. the muslim god is not the christian god. jews are not christians. hinduism and buddhism are false religions. this doesn't mean we cannot get along with people of other faiths, but to worship with them as other/false gods are given homage and prayed to is wrong.

we do nothing but muddy the gospel when we blur the lines of christianity in this way. we need to be clear that there is no god except the god of the bible (old and new testaments), that there is no salvation outside of faith in jesus christ, and that while we can get along with people of other faiths, we will not dishonor our god by participating in services where people worship false gods, and in doing so dishonor the one true god.

rather than join in on an inter-religious(a better term i think) service, perhaps we should take the time to befriend those of other faiths around us and share with them the good news of jesus christ so that they may spend an eternity in the presence of the glory of god. we may hurt their feelings by not joining in their worship, but perhaps the lord will save their soul because we don't.

"friends of god" his worst enemies?

[this is part 3 of a discussion started here]

"friends of god" is a documentary aired on HBO that explores some of the more visible, as well as lesser known "evangelicals" in america and their message.

HBO describes the show as follows: (its worth reading to get a feel for what the content was)

The estimated 50 to 80 million evangelical Christians
living in America today have become a formidable force
in our culture and democracy.

But the evangelical movement is a big tent. To try and
get a better understanding of the range and diversity
of this community, intrepid filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi
hit the road to meet some evangelicals and learn about
what their influence may mean for the future of the country

Pelosi ventures out over a year-long period for up-close and
personal encounters with some influential members of the
evangelical community, from Joel Osteen, the most-watched
TV minister in America, to pastor Ron Luce, the founder of
"Battle Cry," a concert tour that has drawn more than two
million young people to its events nationwide.

Pelosi also visits with a spectrum of others who embody a
wide range of evangelical experiences, among them visitors at
religion-themed parks, a Christian comic, creationist educators,
Liberty University students and activists in Washington, D.C.

...Pelosi travels to the red states and beyond to meet an array
of open and forthright evangelicals who represent a broad
sampling of the community. Many are pro-life and against
gay marriage, and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible,
rebuking Darwinism.

Among them is Pastor Ted Haggard, who recently stepped down
as president of the 30-million strong National Association of
Evangelicals - the largest evangelical group in the U.S. - following
allegations that he had sex with a male prostitute and bought illegal
drugs...
...
During her journey, Pelosi also visits with Rev. Jerry Falwell,
leader of The Moral Majority and chancellor and founder of
Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., who articulates a
commitment to change the country and urges his congregation
to "vote your values" in elections.
"Evangelicals are the largest minority block in this country," he says.
"It's not a majority, but I don't think you can win without them.
John Kerry learned that. Al Gore learned that. And Hillary will learn
that in 2008."

i happened to have the t.v. on while i was reading a book (i know.. i need background noise to concentrate..weird but true) and i heard the intro the program. i happened to have a blank tape in the v.c.r so i recorded as i watched. i sat in disbelief at how foolish it was.
my initial reaction was shock and disbelief, then frustration, then border line anger.

i watched it again about two weeks later after it had a chance to simmer and my reaction was similar, albeit with several audible laughs. it seemed it was better to laugh than throw a perfectly good television through a perfectly good window. fruits of the spirit and all.

you may be thinking that my anger was directed at the filmamker, alexandra pelosi (and yes, she is related to speaker of the house nancy pelosi, alexandra is her daughter-though i must point out that i did not know who the filmmaker was until after the second time i watched the program)

but in truth, all she did was ask people questions about what they believe and filmed them doing what they do. it wasn't the filmmaker that made evangelicals look so closed minded, ignorant, and absurd- it was [a lot of but not all of] the "evangelicals" that were interviewed.

i won't hit (much) on ted haggard as his downfall has been very public and it couldn't be ignored as he was interviewed for the film before the scandal broke (but unfortunately not before it was released with comment).

some of the"highlights" were
* the flagrant mixture of the gospel and "church" with american patriotism to the point where the two could not be distinguished. (this shameful aspect was the most prevalent theme in the film)

* laughable if it weren't so pathetic and shameful "gimmicks" such as a drive through bank window converted into a "drive through church".

* a christian "comic" who bemoans the fact that christians aren't allowed to perform in the broader media while pontificating and stomping his soap box about politics and patriotism and christianity - but not doing what stand up comedians do -namely doing stand-up comedy.

* a pastor, when confronted with a chance to explain the gospel to an unbelieving film crew instead unbelievably chooses to "explain" that christians have better sex lives than non-christians, and takes a random survey about the intimate details of some of his congregants bed room lives.

there are more and perhaps i'll cover them in more detail another time.

lest i be leveled with the charge that i cannot see anything positive, there were some neutral and even enduring moments in the documentary. but overall, if i were an unbeliever and saw this documentary, i would be stupefied that anyone would care what an evangelical thought or believed.

and i say this in light of the fact that scripture clearly teaches that the gospel is foolishness to the unbeliever and is not discerned by the darkened mind. (1Cor. 1:23; eph. 4:18)

but if i were an unbeliever, it wouldn't be the gospel i would reject, because amazingly enough, after an hour of examining what evangelicals believe, what comes across loudly is not that we as a human race are fallen creatures in need of a savior who calls all to accept the gift of eternal life and freely gives it to all who come.

unfortunately and sadly, the message that comes across loud and clear is that "evangelical christians" are mad that the liberals, homosexuals, and pro-choicers have taken over god's chosen country and we want it back.

this is a tragedy and i fear the repercussions could be severe. not because of a 60 minute HBO special, but because if this is really the prevailing view of "evangelicals" in our country...we are in big trouble... and we are failing in our mission as christians.

no life in the best life now

[this is a continuation of a discussion started here]

the first program i saw that made me wonder why anyone in our country, let alone the world, would take american evangelical christians seriously was the episode of 60 minutes that aired sunday night, october 14th.
one of the segments was devoted to joel osteen. now i can hear some of you saying "ok stephen, we know, you hate joel osteen... give the guy a break."

while i have discussed joel osteen in the past on this blog, it is not true that i hate him. in fact, i honestly believe that he is sincere in what he is doing and what he teaches. i also believe that he means no harm and has all of the best intentions in the world. i do not believe that he would deliberately lead people astray.

but sincerity can be sincerely wrong.

the fact that he has a large church is not the primary reason that i am so wary of him. some of my greatest influences(spurgeon, piper, etc.) pastor or pastored churches with thousands in attendance.

large crowds do not an evil preacher make.

the fact is, i do not hate joel osteen. i fear him. more accurately, i fear the effect he has on the thousands who are given a hopeless hope.

why?
for starters, here is how 60 minutes started their program:

Joel Osteen's positive, upbeat can-do message has turned
him into America's most popular preacher and earned him
the title of most influential Christian in the country.
He pastors the biggest and fastest growing
American church and his services are the most watched
religious broadcast in the country

so what is it that america's "most popular preacher" and the "most influential christian in the country" teaches?

Osteen preaches his own version of what is known as the
"prosperity gospel" -- that God is a loving, forgiving
God who will reward believers with health, wealth and
happiness. It's the centerpiece of every sermon

as stated before on this blog, it is hard to reconcile this with the scores of passages that promise suffering and for some, torture and death for the sake of the gospel. what would the believers in third world countries who go to bed hungry or are persecuted by their government for their faith think of osteen's message that god will reward believers with health, wealth and prosperity?

quoting osteen, the interviewer notices what i hope you have noticed by now..

" [quoting osteen]
'To become a better you, you must be positive towards
yourself, develop better relationships, embrace the place
where you are.'[end quote]

Not one mention of God in that. Not one mention of
Jesus Christ in that," [the interviewer] remarks. "

"That's just my message. There is scripture in there
that backs it all up. But I feel like, Byron, I'm called
to help people…how do we walk out the Christian life?
How do we live it? And these are principles that can
help you. I mean, there’s a lot better people qualified
to say, 'Here’s a book that going to explain the scriptures
to you.' I don’t think that’s my gifting," Osteen says.

the problem is, pastors and preachers in the new testament are called to use scripture, to teach their hearers the word of god.
paul told timothy "preach the word" jesus commanded to "teach them to observe all things i have commanded". the new testament is full of passages speaking of "preaching" being the proclamation of the gospel to unbelievers and the reiterating of the need for the gospel in the lives of the believers. the new testament is a collection of books written to believers with its emphasis being the glory of god in the gospel of jesus christ. our need for the gospel isn't over after conversion!

so i guess therein lies the root of my problem with joel osteen. what he does is not preaching.
now you may ask... why does that matter?

here is why it matters.

"I like to see myself as a life coach, a motivator to
help them experience the life of God that God has
for them. People don’t like to be beat down and told '
You’ve done wrong... think that most people already
know what they’re doing wrong. And for me to get in
here and just beat ‘em down and talk down to ‘em,
I just don’t think that inspires anybody to rise higher.
But I want to motivate. I wanna motivate every person
to leave here to be a better father, a better husband, to
break addictions to come up higher in their walk with the Lord "

if joel were simply on the speaking circuit doing motivational speeches, with teh same content, at conferences, business luncheons and trainings, self help groups, etc., for the most part, i wouldn't bother being worried about the content of what he teaches.

but the rub comes in here. people don't go to motivational speakers with an idea that what they are hearing will make them right with god. the preacher doesn't have to "beat people down" with what they have done wrong. but he is called to make people aware that their sin separates them from god and nothing they can do will ever be enough to earn his favor or mercy. this opens the door for teaching of grace and mercy!

osteen's message is that we are good people who haven't reached the goodness of our internal potential because of external problems.
the bible's message is that the problem is internal and the remedy is external.. in christ.

these are two different messages.

the gospel as presented by jesus and his disciples is this "repent and believe".
yet osteen himself in this 60 minute special and in an interview with larry king has explicitly stated that he tries to steer clear of speaking of sin or guilt.
how can one in need of the gospel "repent" if they have never been told they are in need of it and what it *means* to be a sinner in need of repentance?

so how is it that those who need the gospel can hear it at one of osteen's services?

these verses from romans are quite troubling in light of what osteen *isn't* saying:

rom. 10:13-15
For "everyone who calls on the name of
the Lord will be saved." How then will they
call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how are they to believe in him of
whom they have never heard? And how are they to
hear without someone preaching? And how are
they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written,
"How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the
good news!"

suppose someone goes to osteen's church. the are motivated by what they hear. they may even take great steps in improving their lifestyle. that is a credit to the way osteen seeks to encourage his hearers to take responsibility for their lives.

but what if they are lost?

will they ever hear the call to "repent and believe"? do they even know their need for the gospel? or is what they hear convincing them that the secret to happiness lies within themselves and their own efforts? hopefully you can see how dangerous this is.

osteen is not unaware of his critics. he responds to the charge that his teaching is dangerous by saying:

"I don’t know what can be so dangerous about giving
people hope...Causing people to have better relationships.
I'm not leading them to some false God or something like that."

osteen may not be preaching a "false god", but is he building up the "self" to the detriment of the realization for the need for the gospel?

i occasionally will watch osteen's services late on sunday nights. its true that he will hold up his bible and say (with those in attendance repeating after him):

This is my Bible.
I am what it says I am.
I have what it says I have.
I can do what it says I can do.
Today I will be taught the Word of
God.
I boldly confess my mind is alert, my heart is receptive.
I will never be the same.
I am about to receive the incorruptible, indestructible,
ever-living seed of the Word of God.
I will never be the same. Never, never, never.
I will never be the same. In Jesus name.
Amen

after reciting this (notice the power of what "i" can do), osteen goes on to give clever jokes, some anecdotes, and some encouraging comments after having read a passage of scripture. but he never preaches the word of god.

i am scared for the lost persons (perhaps in the hundreds or thousands) who attend lakewood's services or watch on television and think that because they have heard and sincerely believe what osteen has said, that their attendance or assent to the "message" makes them right with god.

so what you have is a 20 or 30 minute motivational talk that encourages people to try hard and not give up, that god wants good things for them, then says "if you want to become a christian say this..."

this is terrifying.

certainly the bible does speak to what are called "practical matters" of life; love, finances, work, relationships, etc. but from genesis to revelation the emphasis of scripture is living life for the glory of god. (1 cor. 10:31 for example). when the emphasis is always on "me", how can we expect anyone to know that the greatest joy in life is joy in christ?

john piper asks a great question in his book, god is the gospel

"Would you be happy to go to heaven... to have all
your family there, to be free from all diseases, to
have every kind of pleasure you desire, etc....
would you be happy to go to heaven... if God were not there?"

if the message heard week end and week out is absent of the call for finding fulfillment in joy in christ, how can the heaer answer yes to that question.. or even know that they should?

to be sure, christians are to have blessings and pleasure. but if at the root of our blessings and pleasure the joy is in the gifts and not the giver, then we are idolaters.

having our best life now is recognizing that any and all good things in our lives are the result of the grace and mercy of god, the chief of which is the salvation of undeserving sinners offered freely by god through the life, death, burial and resurrection of jesus christ. this is teh message of christianity. we can be better husbands and wives, better parents, better employees, have better relationships with our friends and families, even put in a lot of hard work and effort to improve our lifestyles. but if the foundation of our joy is not rooted in joy in christ, then how will we view our lives if all the "stuff" goes away? when thieves steal and moth and rust destroy?

our best life is the gospel- and the benefit comes not from our trying harder, but from our recognition of our inability to satisfy our deepest desires and the utter ability of christ to do just that. but not because of the lifestyle he can give us- but because of the life he gives.

so no, i do not think joel osteen is evil, or the anti-christ, or even a mean person. i mean no disrespect of his person and i do not call in to question his character.
but the message of joel osteen makes me fear for those who hear it and assume it is the gospel. rather than getting their "best life now.." they may be missing any chance of life at all.

(for previous discussions and further concerns regarding this matter see here and here)

are we serious?

in the 3 weeks since i had back surgery, i have spent a lot of time doing 2 things. reading and watching television. i have been able to read more than usual since i am at home 24/7 and i have enjoyed that. but the major difference is the amount of t.v. i have watched.

normally, my schedule is such that if i watch television at all, it is either early morning sportscenter and/or news, or late at night (around 11:30 pm) when i get home from work before i go to bed. before my back went out, i had, besides news and sports, 2 shows that i intentionally tried to watch (or at least record) each week. over the last three weeks i have been amazed at how easy it is to get sucked into television habits.

bare with me, this is not going to be a rant against television...(though i suppose that wouldnt be entirley bad)

there were two programs that i came across recently that made me wonder why anyone in this country would take evangelical christians seriously at all.

it wasn't due to an unfair summary of a biased news anchor, it wasn't because a reporter mis-represented the views of the estimated 50-80 million american evangelicals.

nope. what made evangelicals look so ridiculous were the evangelicals that did all of the talking.

the two programs were the october 14th edition of 60 minutes and a documentary on HBO called ""friends of god".

over the next few posts, i will review and explore what it means if the evangelicalism presented by these two programs are representative of the actual substance .

the anti narnia

according to snopes.com (a site that researches , verifies, and denies those claims we all get in our email boxes) regarding the new movie, the golden compass, set to release this holiday season is in fact based on a set of books by an author who says "my books are about killing god".

go here for the whole story.

now having said this, i am not saying that we should picket movie theatres who show this film, or start picket lines and write angry letters to the editor over this. i may still watch it to see what an atheist thinks about god in order to better understand and remind myself that when i speak about my "faith" or "god", that i can be speaking with very intelligent people with their own ideas and preconceived notions- and i need to be clear about the truth.

i pass this on simply because this link has sources for its quotes. one of the worst things we christians can do is start railing against a movie, book, etc. with claims that have no foundation.

so if a co-worker asks if you know anything about this movie, you can say "i know a little bit.." and share what you do know-not what we have heard from a frantic email forward with no support for its claims.

why "religion" is ridiculous

[note: this is an older story, but i have had
it filed away as a topic for awhile.]

"2 + 2 = 4. 2+2 also equals 1."

"i believe that gravity will pull me towards the earth if i hurl myself off of any object at any hight (assuming i have no assistance). i believe gravity will not pull me towards the earth if i hurl myself off of any object at any hight. (assuming i have no assistance)

"i believe that wearing the color purple is a sin, forbidden by god. i also believe the color purple is what god wants me to wear every day."

all of these statements are absurd. they are self -contradictory, and both assertions in each statement cannot be true at the same time.

i have another one.. except this time i am not making this up.

there is a priest in seattle who claims to be a christian and muslim.

read the story here

christianity (orthodox and historical )claims that jesus is deity, who came to give his life as a ransom for sin, died on a cross, rose again, and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of god the father. christianity teaches that the only way to heaven is the belief that jesus is god, and belief in his work as the christ. we know this from the only inspired revelation from god, the bible (66 books of the old and new testaments)

islam teaches : (from http://www.soundvision.com/; a site for islamic information and products)

The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus:
a comparison
The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon
him) is of great significance in both Islam and Christianity.
However, there are differences in terms of beliefs about the
nature and life occurrences of this noble Messenger.

Source of information about Jesus in Islam :
Most of the Islamic information about
Jesus is actually found in the Quran.
The Quran was revealed by God to
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
be upon him), and memorized and
written down in his lifetime.
Today, anyone who calls him or herself a
Muslim believes in the complete authenticity
of the Quran as the original revealed guidance
from God.

Indeed, they have disbelieved who have said,
“God is the Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary.”
The Messiah said, “Children of Israel, worship
God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever associates
partners in worship with God, then God has forbidden
Paradise for him, and his home is the Fire
(Hell). For the wrongdoers,there will be no helpers.”
(Quran, 5:72)

"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more
than a Messenger before whom many Messengers
have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly
to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other
mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to
them; and see where they are turning away!"
(Quran 5:75)

"Say: "God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything].
He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered,
and there is nothing comparable to Him!"
(Quran 112:1-4)

"Such was Jesus, the son of Mary;
it is a statement of truth, about which
they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the
majesty of God, that He should beget a son.
Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter,
He only says to it, ‘Be' and it is"
(Quran 19:34-35)

"“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him,
but they thought
they did.” (Quran 4:156)

so what are the beliefs of the woman who claims she is both a christian and a practicing muslim?
from the article:

She believes the Trinity is an idea about God
and cannot be taken literally.

She does not believe Jesus and God are the same,
but rather that God is more than Jesus.

She believes Jesus is the son of God
insofar as all humans are the children of God,
and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are
divine — because God dwells in all
humans.

What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that
out of all humans, he most embodied being filled
with God and identifying completely with God's will.

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was
resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with
the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a
challenge the rest of my life," she said.

She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair,
because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "
he has connected me with God," she said.

That's not to say she couldn't develop as deep a relationship with
Mohammed. "I'm still getting to know him," she said.

consider richard- a man who is 6" 2', 195 lbs. he has brown hair and green eyes. he wears a t-shirt and blue jeans to a state university. he studies american history because he grew up near a civil war battlefield. his great-great grandparents parents were both born and raised in america. he loves baseball, apple pie, and country music.

for all intents and purposes we would all probably agree that this guy is an american.

unless we throw in the fact that he was born and raised in canada and moved to america with his canadian parents when he was 8 yrs. old.

richard is not an american citizen.

according to the u.s. citizenship and immigration services :

Most people become U.S. citizens in one of two ways:
By birth, either within the territory of the United States or
to U.S. citizen parents, or by Naturalization.

richard looks, sounds and "acts" american. he speaks the language, knows the history, and has tremendous affection for america. yet he is not a citizen.

the same holds true for christianity. you are only a christian if you believe the teachings of christianity, including that there is one god in three persons- father son and holy spirit. through jesus christ the son, and only through him, is there salvation because of his life, death, and resurection. there are no other ways to god. (god and allah are not the same person, see here)

if this is rejected, then what is left is a person who may love the history of christianity, christian ideals, participate in christian activities, owns and has read the bible, but is not a christian.

words have meaning. words have a definition. if you are a christian then you believe and adhere to the beliefs of christianity, which are exclusive to any other religion.

anything else is simply "religion", in which there is no salvation.