homeschooling

i have something on my mind. actually, i have a lot on my mind. i'm not really sure what is going to end up on this page though. class this morning was interesting but the prof lost me after the first hour. that's not to say didn't get anything out of the second half of the lecture -- i did. however, i was better focussed in the first half.

the subject was essentially education. it's intriguing to me how that subject has been coming up very consistently throughout the past week. i am not generally overly concerned with the subject but it seems to me that maybe God is trying to cause me to be decided as to where i stand in correspondence with education.

i was homeschooled. i liked it until about middle school. i was really rather sheltered. that's not a bad thing up to a point but there does come a time when you have to start letting your kids be out a little more in the world so that when they turn eighteen years of age they aren't unable to cope with what is in the world. for me, i began to want to get out there a little prematurely. we changed churches and i suddenly found myself without friends and i didn't really know how to go about making friends. before, all my friends were kids i'd grown up with and competed with in gymnastics. there was no effort needed to really build those relationships. but when you start from scratch it's a whole new world.

in retrospect, i don't want my kids to have that struggle. i want them to be easily able to make friends and keep them and that not based on the fact that they are among the outcasts but because they are good well rounded individuals who can relate easily to people. this isn't entirely learned. i realize that but some of it can be.

now, what does all of this have to do with education? it comes to this. i don't want to sacrifice education for social skills. previously my mindset was lazy. i took the position that it would be better for my kids to go to a school -- any school. i'd help them with their homework and make sure that they studied and actually learned but they'd go to school and learn to develop social skills. but i have reexamined that. i am quite certain now that i will homeschool. likely, it will be from K-6th grade at the very least. that way i have the time to raise them up in the truth of the gospel and give them a solid foundation for the rest of their education to be based on. i think that is bare minimum. i want to train them up so that they are responsible and mature and able to know what they believe and defend it if need be.

socially, i think that children learn from their parents how to interact. so keeping my kids out of school when they're young will not injure them. they will have plenty of interaction with kids in church and cousins, Lord willing, and neighbors and the like. as awful as middle school and highschool were, i think that i did turn out alright. i had a couple rough years but i learn quickly.

i actually look forward to homeschooling. Lord willing, i can begin cultivate in them the love for God's work in the world, and other cultures and languages that i have. what could be better than to train up missions minded children with a great love for the Lord and His peoples.

A Few Thoughts on the Mosque Visit

Today we went to a mosque. We have been studying the rise of Islam for the past couple weeks in class but there's nothing like a little hands on experience, right? The goal of today was primarily to observe and thereby gain a better understanding of what Muslims believe.

We arrived in time for Friday prayers and the sermon. The sermon was really interesting. I had a little difficulty following the message but from what I can tell they do not really prepare beforehand. It appears that the aim of the message is to exhort the believers to good works and obedience to Allah by means of the Quran. They main emphasis today was that life is short and one shouldn't waste it with things like television while there are such devotions as prayer and discipleship that are far more profitable to spend time doing.

There are definately things about it that i agree with. James 4:14 tells us that life is just a vapor and as you read James it would seem that he is exhorting us to good works as well but there is a difference. James makes the distinction between believers and non believers in saying that knowledge of truth isn't enough to warrant salvation unless it bears fruit (ie. Good works). James explains that even the demons believe. What sets us apart from the demons is that we love God and out of that comes a desire to serve God and be obedient to His Word (bearing fruit).

Within the context of Islam, goodworks are a means of earning salvation. It would not be possible to live a life of sin apart from good works and still gain entrance into paradise. They do say that the primary requirement is belief in god but it is not enough to simply believe. One must earn entrance by fulfilling the five pillars to the best of their ability: prayers, alms giving, confession, fasting, and pilgrimage. And even in doing these things there is still no assurance. God does as he wills.

What I dislike the most about this god is that he seems fickle. I cannot understand how he can set forth rules and be holy and just as they say he is and yet still be able to make judgements completely apart from the decree he put forth. How can a man live a perfect life and commit one sin at the end of his life and still be cast in to hell while another man can live a terrible life and somehow he can be permitted to enter paradise because Allah wills. This god does not seem to set forth a standard and hold to it. He seems to change his mind and be blown by every little wind. For some reason my mind keeps falling back to the gods of greece...

where i'm standing...

In class today, we discussed the Anabaptists. At one point, Mike Rusten asked what denomination we think we would have been if we lived in the time of the Reformation. I quickly answered that I most likely would have been anabaptist but after thinking about it a minute longer, I changed my mind. I think I would have been Zwinglian. Stephen asked me about it saying that as we are baptist now it would be more sensible to say we'd be Waldensian because their beliefs were closest to our current beliefs. But I responded with a question: Are they really?

Do I really consider myself baptist? Sure, I was raised primarily in the Baptist church amd my parents are Baptist but I have had a lot of time lately to learn and grow and determine where i stand. I am no longer sure that I qualify to be considered baptist. The following are my reasons why:

1. Baptists are most commonly arminian. No, they are not all but when you use the term "baptist" in many circles people jump to arminian.
2. I don't agree with their stand on the gifts. Most baptists tend to be cessationist. That means that they believe the gifts were only for the New Testament time and that they died out a long time ago. We no longer have them today.
   
3. I don't agree with their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 -- specifically in regards to head coverings and submission
4. I'm not sure that I agree with their beliefs on infant baptism. Don't call me a heretic yet! I'm still studying it and I plan to formulate my own beliefs according to Scripture so I could go either way on it but I definately don't have the animosity toward paedo-baptists yet. I could go either way at this point.
5. Finally, I'm not sure what their view of the end times is but I hold an unusual view concerning the end times so I doubt it's baptist. i tend to hold the midtrib, amil position... i'm still learning about it but that's where i am right now.

So there you have it. why i'm probably not a baptist. I'm probably more of a non denominational leaning I think. I don't know. You be the judge.

Our god Is Too Small

Are you putting God in a box?

I am not a big fan of the phrase "put God in a box" but as it stands i'm at a loss for a better phrase to describe the situation. I'm tired of defining God. I'm tired of people who think they can define God.

I'm ready to stand with Albert Einstein on this one. He was once asked about church. He said that he couldn't stand the place because no one there knew a thing about God, yet they all thought they did. They drew these lines around where they thought he was but Eistein said that he saw God everyday in science and was conviced that they had no idea what they were talking about.

How often do preachers and teachers stand up before us and try to tell us that God is just so? But how do they know? I feel like the more I read Scripture the less I really know about God. I read His declaration of Himself, The Lord, The Lord, Gracious and Merciful, abounding in Steadfast Love and Faithfulness! and in the very next sentence He declares, Visting the iniquities of the parents on the third and fourth generations! What is that? How does that fit with His graciousness and mercy? He's just but He's merciful. He's love and yet wrathful. He's holy yet personable and desiring to have a personal relationship with us! How does it all work?

I am becoming more certain everyday that I know nothing about God. He's unfathomable and incromprehensible. I think that one of the biggest mistakes made by evangelicals today is to pick one attribute and hold to it. How much more are you missing if you only believe that God is love. That's like seeing a garden and only taking note of the lavender. You go from the garden completely missing the daisies and roses and blackeyed susans and violets and tulips and all the rest of the great things that are there!

Having such a closed minded view of God makes worship shallow. I makes God seem to be less awesome. Maybe this is why we don't tremble when we come before Him... Our god is too small. How can we tremble at someone who is as easily defined as a word in the dictionary? How can we fear the one who can destroy the body and cast it into hell if all we see is God is love? Where is our reverence? We have none and no hope of coming to that point unless our eyes are opened to His immeasurablity.

God, Let me not forget to tremble!

Shakespeare Said It Best

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
Oh no! It is an ever fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken...


exerpt from a Sonnet (117?)

On The Rise Of Islam...

This is the other essay from the exam. Again, I am far from an expert. I'm not even sure if all my thoughts are correct. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

The rise of Islam can be explained by a couple key factors. From the leadership abilities of Muhammed to the lack of necessity for contextualization, the religion and way of life had an advantage from the beginning.

In the time of Muhammed there was no religion that was uniquely Arab. This made it more easily spread in the long run. But when Muhammed first started to introduce his teachings they were not accepted except by a small minority of people. He and his followers were chased out of their hometown and spent ten years building his following in Medina, their new home which they had captured by force. It was an unlikely victory and created the first Islamic State. During this time Muhammed grew to be a great leader and military power. He, at last, rallied his followers and they returned to Mecca, where they quickly overtook the city and claimed in the name of Islam. Muhammed led his men across the Arabian peninsula, uniting the Arab peoples under one common rule of law and religion, Islam.

After Muhammed's death Islam continued to spread. It started to move west but the Turkish Nomads overtook it within the first 100 years and they set up their own government. But it did spread east. Christians throughout the area were more than willing to accept it for a number of reasons. First, it brought with it a local ruler. The area of southern Persia had been ruled by the Byzantines in the west. But many people felt that someone so far away couldn't possibly understand what was going on locally and therefore couldn't rule effectively. And they were somewhat oppressive toward Christians. When Muslims came into the area they set up a local government which was more effective in leadership. Secondly, because Christians and Jews were seen as “people of the book” they were treated well. They were no longer oppressed but rather there was religious tolerance for them.

Islamic Rule had many strengths. Beyond those already stated (ie. local government, religious tolerance), it brought with it good moral law that had been lacking in the area. There was more security and safety for it's followers and their “brothers,” as they called the Christians and Jews.

Even though it can be challenging to witness to Muslims today, because of their good moral law and basic foundational religious beliefs that coincide with basic Christian doctrines, it has provided us with a door to reach them with the gospel. We don't have to start at the ground level we would have had to start at for the Zoroastrian peoples that were previously ruling the area. I would say that it was a good thing Islam took over.

Not in the original essay but should be noted: the following is a response to an argument against the final thoughts of my essay -- specifically the fact that a Islam has made it easier to witness. The argument was that it is easier to witness to a heathen than a muslim.

There is a big difference in gospel presentation between a Muslin and your average heathen. But when it comes to Islam, a Muslim doesn't need to be convinced of the most basic foundational pronciples (ie. There is a God and only one, Jesus Christ did exsist - although the details they have of Him are sketchy, God is sovereign and wrathful and deserving of our attention and devotion, etc). The basic framework is there! Even a heathen has a belief. It may be that we evolved or that there are multiple gods or that all religions will take you to heaven. They can be just as hard or harder to witness to than a Muslim.

The problem is that we Americans have no idea how to approach a muslim -- especially since 9/11. We look at them like they have two heads or like any minute they are going to pull out a gun and kill us. We don't see what we have in common but rather the differences that divide us. There are so many bridges built between Christians and Muslims that if we knew enough of the Quran and what it teaches, and enough of our Bible and what it teaches, we wouldn't have such a bad attitude toward witnessing to them (I don't point the finger at you at this point. I point it at Evangelical Christendom). The American church has written off Muslims as "unreachable" for so long. But the truth of the matter is that they are only unreachable as much as we are unwilling to go to them.

Witnessing to a Muslim is no different that witnessing to your next door neighbor who was raised Catholic. We have to build a relationship with them and come to them humbly and with a culturally relevant mindest.

Justification Apart From Christ?

This is the first of two essays that I wrote for the last exam we had. I should say that I am by no means an expert on this! This is only fallible man trying to explain something that he knows very little about. Read on.

The question of whether or not it is possible for a man to be justified apart from knowledge of Christ is an old question. It has been debated and argued for centuries but even with all of the debates, the answer is unchanged. It is just simply not possible.

Some will point to the Scriptures, specifically the Old Testament, and ask how was it possible then for Abraham to be justified? Christ had not yet come. Could he have possibly known? But this really isn't the issue. Paul addresses this in Romans 4, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Abraham received the promise and had faith that God would do it. He looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise. Maybe he didn't fully understand it but He trusted God.

Today, no one can say that they have such an excuse as it might be argued that Abraham had. Christ has come. He accomplished the work His Father sent Him to do. Now, it is for us to spread the gospel in the name of Christ. Jesus Christ came and brought us redemption through His blood. We now trust in His righteousness for our justification because He took our transgressions upon Himself and was punished for them. While before, the Jews missed the mark by trusting in their good works for their righteousness before God, we now look back to Christ and are saved by faith in Him. Romans 10:4 says, “For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness and everyone who believes.” The Law was put forth that we might know of our utter inability to keep it and turn to God for the help provided in Christ. This was a stumbling block to the Jews (Rom. 9:33), but for those who will turn to God, He promises salvation. This is seen in Romans 10:9, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

But that does bring us back to condemnation apart from knowledge of Christ. What about the man on the Island? Has he no hope of salvation? Because everyone has the general revelation from God, they are without excuse. Paul explains this in Romans 1:19-20, “Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” This should make us realize the necessity for us to proclaim the gospel. We are called by Christ and scripture to proclaim the truth of Christ to nations. “How then will the call on Him in whom they have not believe? How will the believe in Him they have not hears? And how will they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14)

Further, the scriptures say that faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of the Lord (Rom 10:17). This states a strong case for the inability of belief apart from preachment. That's not to say that a person can't pick up the Bible and hear the Word of the Lord through the reading of the scriptures. God works through His Word. But it does not help the man on the Island who doesn't have the Bible. He is still condemned because he cannot obtain the special revelation of God solely from what he sees.

This should spur us on in our zeal to proclaim the gospel of Christ to the nations. How will they hear if we do not go and tell them? It is our responsibility as followers of Christ to obey His command to us, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20a) In doing this, they may hear and turn to faith in Christ for their righteousness before God.