Pope Time

As most of you are aware, a few weeks ago the Catholic Church elected a new pope, Francis, to the head of their church. I've heard a variety of views upon this event and the Catholic church as a whole. Here's a few of the significant remarks I've heard or thought of.

First of all, let's motivate this blog. The fact that this new pope is in a position of leadership of over 1 billion people (approx. 1/8 of the world's population), it is an understatement to say that he has a significant amount of power/influence, which, in my opinion, surpasses that of most, if not all, political/social leaders of the modern world. That being the case, anytime a significant change occurs with this position, the shear authority that accompanies the role demands, in my opinion, that I take a look and heed attention towards the event.

Thought 1: This is my favorite thought, I am in wonder of the impact that this man has. That whatever he says is treated as the word of God (or a shade shy of it). I was in awe of the impact on world that one simple command from him could have. That if he declared that in order to be a 'good catholic' one must share the Gospel (perhaps on a timely basis like once a month). I was in wonder of how many people would a) have to know the biblical Gospel and be able to give an account (1 Peter) and b) would hear the Gospel (perhaps for the first time, perhaps just another time leading them closer to the truth)

Thought 2: The second thought was 'what is different between this man and I?'. I came to a few answers to this question. First, he wears funny clothes and a point hat (though I do wear funny clothes sometime, I do not have a pointy hat). Second, he is in a position of authority of a whole bunch of people. I am not, I may have authority over a few people, but it is nowhere near his scope. Third, he has had a significantly more time to study the scripture and preach to God's people. Then I asked, 'spiritually speaking, what's the difference?', we're both sinners in desperate need of a savior. If he's been redeemed through the cross I will happily call him brother and I look forward to his leading of people towards a biblical Gospel. (though some of my friends have expressed doubt that a Gospel focused person will ever be able to lead in the Vatican, I have hope that God for his word does not return void)

Thought 3: What role does the pope play in the life of the average Catholic? I could go into an extended example, but I'll cut to the chase, is he an idol? Is he, in effect, worshiped by the practicing Catholic? I know that official doctrine is adamantly against this claim, but what is the de facto belief?

Thought 4: Though closely related to thought 3, is he an intercessor? Is one of his roles to be a liaison from God to humankind? I have gotten this sense from some of my Catholic friends and I would like to directly challenge it. If his role is to intermediate from God to man, then that is a perfect modern-day example of the Judaic-temple religion under the rule of the Pharisees. The parallels between the New Testament Pharisee religion and the modern-day Catholic religion were so surprising and accurate that I was taken aback.

What are you thoughts on the new pope or the papacy in general?

Homosexuality and the Bible: Part II

Howdy all,

Given the recent surge in facebook for support of homosexual marriage I have felt the need to write a new note regarding the topic. If you want to read my first note here's the link: http://www.facebook.com/notes/travis-ray/homosexuality-and-the-bible/10151768580730567, or you can find it with my other notes.

My previous note was mostly focused on Homosexuality itself, this note will be aimed more so at the specific case of Homosexual marriage. As with last time, I have become slightly annoyed with both sides of the argument and I'm hoping to present both sides in a fair mannered way. Feel free to comment with a thought provoking idea or question at the end. 

First I'll discuss the religious side. The main argument I see from this camp is rooted in the definition of marriage, that is, 'A man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife' (Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5). And a deviation from these kinds of relationships (namely in a sexual manner) is 'unnatural' (Rom 1) and is often an indicator of other forms of sin, such as with Sodom and Gomorrah. So, for a Christian it seems difficult to justify a personal indulgence in homosexual marriage.

The thing that I see happens next is that the church takes this stance that it holds and attempts to make it a blanket law for all people. My concern with this is that they are trying to force people who are not under the heavenly law to obey God's laws. And they have resisted, afterall, why should they bother following the laws and decress of a God they don't believe in. As I was abroad last week I had a realization that telling a native of Mexico to obey a law that was specific to the US would sound like foolishness to them. In the same way telling a person who has not been redeemed by the cross to obey the heavenly laws is asking them to do something that they cannont (and probably don't want to) do, a law from someone that they have no allegiance to. That being the case, I do not have the authority to rebuke an unsaved person for their sins. Do they sin? Yes, but their sin has not yet been revealed to them (Rom 7). 

As for homosexual marriage, if the person is unsaved, God has 'handed them over to their sinful desires' (Rom 1). If an unsaved person wants to get a gay marriage, I have no grounds to tell them no because they are dwelling in sin. (In fact, the greatest thing I could do is not to criticize their gay relationships, but to share with them the Gospel of the risen savior Jesus Christ). However, if a person is claiming to have been redeemed by the cross and are practicing these lifestyles, then I have a responsibility to call them out on their sin. As for the passage of a law, the government can do whatever it wants and I am under their authority. Though I will not indulge in gay marriage I will rebuke only those who are claiming to follow the Lord and yet practice things contrary to scripture. 

Now for the other side of the argument. Again, I'm quite dissapointed that there has been a wholesome lack of legitimate arguments from this side and that they have reverted to satire and mockery to elevate themselves above the opposition. There are some good, biblical and culture reasons for gay marriage, yet most people don't invoke or extrapolate upon these arguments. I won't spend time going into the biblical arguments (mostly becuase I don't think they hold much water), but here's a site that shows a pro-homosexual biblical viewpoint with a rebuttal: http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-homosexuality-75108/

There are two main themes that I've been getting out from the cultural side of this argument, tolerance and human rights. Firstly, I believe that the working definition of tolerance has changed over the centuries. The tolerance that was brought by the pilgrams and founding fathers was something like 'if we don't believe the same thing, I'll accept you as a human being and won't seek out to persecute you.' Nowadays when people invoke tolerance it almost seems like the implication is 'if we don't believe the same thing, I'll accept your beliefs as being of equal weight and validity as my own' (ironically people who don't hold this belief are often called intolerant, as is the case we are discussing). Here's a through provoking quote I read from a friend recently:

Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. - Rick Warren

As for the idea of human rights, what are human rights? I feel that a lot of people put their arguments under the broad umbrella of 'human rights' with the implication that if I disagree with their point, then I am against human rights. And because American ideology is based on the idea of human rights/freedom I am also somehow speaking out against my country. One point I would make is if this whole homosexual marriage debate is about human rights, then why not attempt to get civil unions? They give you all of the legal rights of a married couple, but without any of the spiritual backing behind a marriage (which is, biblically speak, a spiritual act as much as, or more so than, a physical act). I know that the legal rights are not exactly the same, but I think that upping the status of civil unions would be a much simpler task than taking on the establishment of marriage. At least, I feel that if civil rights were the main goal of this camp then civil unions would be the simplest and most common-sensical choice. (Side thought:  marriage is, in part, a spiritual act, so should we consider spiritual rights instead of civil rights?)

This is getting fairly long, so I'll wrap it up. In my opinion the bible is opposed to homosexuality, an extension of which is gay marriage. For those who are unsaved, I have no grounds to call them out on their sin for God has not made their sin known to them. I am called to love on those who are unsaved just as Christ did, he never condoned their sinful actions, but if they became aware of their depravity he would point them to repentance, likewise were are to point people to repentance and salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. For those who are redeemed by the cross (to which I would include churches) I would expect them to not participate in homosexual marriage and those who do should be treated with church discipline (Matt 18). Also, not partaking in such an act were it made legal would allow us another opportunity to be set apart and holy within this world. 

Leave any comments or questions and I'll try to get back to you.

Live for Him,

Travis Ray

Fill in the ____

I've been thinking lately about fill in the blank statements. I've decided that in school, they are pretty lame because there is only one right answer that is supposed to go there. But with other questions (usually life/bible questions) it allows the responder to tailor the question to his/her situation. It allows for a simple teaching to expand to include anyone and everyone. I think the following statements demonstrate this phenomenon.

1. We don't follow Jesus.
2. We don't follow Jesus because we sin.
3. We don't follow Jesus because of 'fill in the blank'

The first and second statement are true, but the third makes the responder apply the question to their own life. It makes it personal. If I'm attending a bible study, I can nod and say 'true' for the first two statements, whether I know what I'm claiming or not. but with the third, I can't give a simple nod. I have to complete the sentence with my own thoughts. Sure, I'll still be able to make up an answer, but I have to think of and give an answer. Perhaps I'll comprehend what I'm saying.

A side note, this thought was sparked when I was thinking of how I sign letters/posts. Normally I sign them with 'Live for Him' based on a wrist band I wear. It has always seemed like a good life motto and mission statement, that I kind of adopted it. But a few days ago a thought occur to me, 'what can I replace 'for' with? And what does the new phrase mean?' In other words, Live ____ God. Here's a few of my substitutions:

Live at God
This seems really selfish. Like I'm going to show God how to live. I got it right, so I'm going to live my right life at you (God) and maybe He'll catch on. I'm going to do whatever I want and I'm going to throw it at you, because its my life, therefore I know how to live it best.

Live on God
This seems better. Making God the metaphorical base in my life. It reminds me of the song 'leaning on the everlasting arms.' Still I could take it to mean that God is below me. That He is the base and as long as I keep that base I can do whatever I want. Perhaps I'll, metaphorically, use this God base to build a castle for myself.

Live for God
This gives my life a purpose. As if I'm being employed to work for God. It doesn't give me the option to make my own outline of how to live life, because it has been given to me. Yet, I feel like this phrase is missing something. It almost seems like I could live for Him, with His rules, but still live a legalistic, unfulfilled life. Using the above example, perhaps god have me the base to build and He gave me the building plans and materials to do His work. That sounds pretty good, but I thought of a better phrase.

I thought, 'ok, at the end of the day what will I come home to.' I'll have a study foundation that cannot be shaken. I'll have the best building plan and all the best materials to make the structure. I have all the tools complete the best structure ever. But it's just a building. It's what is inside the building that matters.

Side note: Scriptural notes on some buildings. Jesus called the Pharisees 'Whitewashed Tombs' (Matthew 23:27). They were good looking on the outside, but dead on the inside. Paul calls our bodies 'Temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). It's what's on the inside that counts.

So here's my new phrase...

Live with God
I've started to realize that, even if I have the best foundation and the greatest structure. It means nothing if I don't get to spend time with the designer, if I don't get to know the One who creates perfection (That's a fun thought). So I will still Live for God, but I will also Live with God. To know Him, for who He is. Then we will build the house together, after all Jesus was a carpenter :)

I'd love to here some of the words you can put into the phrase. Let me know your thoughts.

Live with Him

-Travis

Homosexuality and the bible

Recently I have gotten really annoyed with the talk (it's not even a debate anymore) about homosexual marriage. I find both sides presenting petty and flawed arguments. I'll start this blog with some biblical background on homosexuality and then I'll look at the two main 'arguments.' Please read this all the way through to the end and then, if inclined, comment with a thoughtfully created idea or objection.

So, what does the bible say about homosexuality? Is it a sin? Debatable, it is clear that by reading the Mosaic law, prophets and epistles that homosexuality is a bad thing and a sign of other bad things. Do homosexuals deserve to go to Hell? Yes. However, they deserve to go to Hell for lying, lusting, idolatry, or hatred, etc. In fact, every sin anyone commits creates for them a debt worthy of Hell. So, yes homosexuals deserve Hell, but everyone deserves Hell because "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23).

The most extensive passage about homosexuality is presented in the Romans 1: 23-32.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

It says that God gives people over to their desires. He lets people indulge in their sin if they don't choose Him (note: this goes beyond homosexuality).


Now to the 'arguments' about homosexuality. I'll start with the 'religious' argument. Within this camp I see people claiming that 'God hates gays,' 'gays are going to Hell,' etc. (I don't usually see biblical basis for these claims, but when they do they often use the texts I alluded to above). The problem I see is that people elevate homosexuality to some supremely evil sin. Something that is so evil that God Himself hates it and will send you to Hell for it. Yes, God does hate it, but He hates that you stole two dollars from mom's purse just as much.

I feel like this argument is presented to make the presenter feel more righteous. To scapegoat the gays and make oneself feel more holy because they 'aren't as bad as them.' (a similar thing is done with criminals). However, their sin isn't 'more sinful' than yours. All sin is equal in God's eyes. A humbling activity I've been taught is to, when we see a 'sinful' person, call ourselves 'just as bad or even worse.' When I see a murder think 'I am just as bad, even worse.' When I see a thief know that 'I am just as bad, even worse.' The same goes for the liar,


Also, the bible doesn't say we should reject the sinners and take away their rights. Christ gives very few commandments, but two of the most important are "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’" (Matthew 22:37-38). It doesn't say we should only love those we like or the righteous people. During Jesus' ministry He didn't surround Himself with self-righteous priests. He lived with tax collectors, adulterers, gluttons, etc. He loved them, taught them and lead them to a life of serving Him.Regardless about whether you feel homosexuality is a sin the truly Christian way of treating homosexuals is not with contempt, but with love.

As for the other side of the argument the pro-homosexual side I have grown quite disappointed. There are some very good arguments that can be made, both biblically and culturally, that homosexuality is not evil or sinful. Arguments that have put a great deal of effort and thought into coming to a reasonable conclusion. Arguments that can be contested, but are rebutted calmly with intelligent thought. Unfortunately I do see many of these arguments, instead I see people using mockery and satire in an attempt to make their competition seem unintelligent. I'm a fan of satire, but when you can't make a legitimate argument with it. (here I'm speaking mostly about all of the facebook links I see on my news feed)

Both sides have legitimate arguments at their base, unfortunately these thoughts are shrouded by petty, biased and uninformed views. People taking texts out of context and using the bible to support their own view as opposed to seeing the message of the bible as a whole. People using mockery to try and make a legitimate point (also why I dislike political commercials), but after all I am just as bad, even worse.

Feel free to comment, but don't just yell at me. Take some time and put some serious thought into your comment and I'll put some serious thought into a reply.

Live for Him,

Travis

Emotions

I just watched a documentary on human trafficking called Nefarious: Merchant of Souls. I left the showing with many emotions; anger, confusion, shame, fear, hopelessness, conviction, etc. I'll be processing these feelings for a while and to get started I figured I'd just start writing. I have no plan or rough draft for this blog, it'll just be my train of thought as I try to grasp at some of the feelings and ideas in my mind. (I'll put my feelings in parenthesis so you can track my emotions)

I've seen plenty of films and shorts on human trafficking and I've done a fair bit of research. As I watched the film I knew most of the facts they were using. It seemed like other things I've seen before, group goes into an area, interviews trafficked people, pimps, traffickers, etc. The thing that caught my attention this time was that they kept digging. Most films I've seen show the researchers finding the trafficked victims, we hear their story of how they were abducted or forced into the sex trade. This film opened with that, but it continued on further. It talked about how a women's family can be so poor, that she would go sell herself to bring food home for her siblings and parents. Even that motive I am familiar with, but the next two levels I was unknowing of (at least in how severe they are).

The next part of the film focused on areas in Southeast Asia, namely Thailand and Cambodia. It talked about how parents will sell their daughters to make money for the family. I knew this occurrence happened when the family was starving, but it showed fathers who sold their daughters so that they could drink beer and smoke cigars all day long, or get a new cell phone or tv. It even mentioned that when a woman would give birth to a daughter they would tell her, 'congratulations. Jackpot. You have a financial safety net. If you're family is ever in financial need you can just sell you daughter.' I'm not a parent and yet I find this invigorating. Who would consider selling their daughter into a life of prostitution for personal gain? (Anger, confusion)

The film then took a domestic approach, looking at trafficking in the US. It talked about how women are lured into prostitution with the hope that they will meet a rich many who will marry them or that they will make a profit and be able to afford college. The disturbing part was that most of the women who entered prostitution did so because they felt that their body had no worth because they were abused as children, often times by family or friends. One pimp commented, 'I thank the abusive fathers, they prepared the girls for the life of sex and pain they were going to be apart of. I'm simply continued their work.' Broken homes driving young girls (average age 13) to live a life of selling their body. (Anger, disappointment, fear)

During the next part of the interviews focused on the girls' stories when reality set in. When they realized that their initial goals were not worth it. That they were never going to meet a nice husband or get the money for school. That their shame was too much. Any gain they got was not worth the cost it took to get it. (Anger, sadness). Every girl said they had a moment when this reality set in. They broke down crying by the side of their bed. They were full of shame, anger, depression. They thought that no one will ever love them. They all lost the reasons for living. Many turned to drugs for temporary happiness, others just lived in their depression, day after day with no hope for joy or a future. (Anger, depression)

One girl told a story of when she reached the point where she lost hope in life. She felt unloved and had recurring nightmares of the people who have abused her. When she reached the bottom of her depression she had another dream, one where she was in a garden and Jesus was sitting there. He didn't judge her, beat her, or abuse her. He would simply look at her and say, "I love you." There were many stories similar to this, but the thing that caught my notice was the women when they were telling their stories. When they were talking about their lives in depression, feeling unloved and shameful, they had sorrowful looks on their faces. But when Jesus enters into the picture there is a glow that comes to their persona, their face lightens, they start weeping. (A feeling I can't describe at the moment)

Then I thought back to some passages in Jeremiah I've read in the recent past. In chapter 3 the Lord repeatedly compares Israel to and adulterer and prostitute. "But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers-would you now return to me?" (Jer 3:1) At first I glanced over this verse, but now I'm starting to see that in our sin we are just like those prostitutes. Living in depression and shame with ambitions in mind that justify our actions. Then we reach a time when we decide it's not worth it, that we have been chasing a fruitless dream. We are dead in our sin and we're too far in to know what to do. We either live in our depression or find quick fixes of happiness, but we always go back to terrible life we know we're living. And the ONLY thing that can change that is Christ Jesus. We are just like the prostitutes in our sin, shouldn't we be just like them in our rejoicing over Jesus when he brings us into new life? (Awe)

I feel like this blog is reaching its limit, though there is still many thoughts I have flying around my head. I'd love to talk with some of you about them. My final thought comes from the last Cru meeting of the past year. In Bill's final talk he said that, "God loves you just the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you that way." God loves you as a His child when you come to Him. He loves you in your sin and sorrow, in your joy and pain. He loves the broken prostitute you are when you come back to Him. BUT He loves you too much to leave you where you're at. He wants to blossom the relationship and make you into a new creation, fearfully and wonderfully made for the Glory of God. (Joy)

Live for Him,

Travis

Becoming

I just got back from a Men's retreat with my fellow campus crusaders. There were many topics discussed at the weekend. One idea that stuck out to me was during the 'becoming a Godly husband' topic. All the guys have heard this talk many times, do this and don't do this, 'Love your wife as Christ loved the church' (Eph 5:25), etc. This talk, however, was different. First off, the speaker was very direct and blunt. He didn't weed around the bush.

One of his most convicting and overarching statements (being that it applies to all parts of life) was the following quote: "you will never be what you are not becoming." The meaning behind this quote is that someone doesn't just become what they want to be. The main example being, you don't just become a good husband or wife when you get married.

Everyone has their idea of what their ideal marriage will look like. What kind of person their spouse will be and what kind of person they will be. But we don't just magically become this person when we get married/enter a relationship. There isn't some beam of light and we become all knowledgeable. The temptation and sin that has plagued our life doesn't just disappear. This is one reason why I think many modern marriages end in divorce, that the act of getting married all the problems are suddenly solved.

Back to the quote, its implication is that whatever future spouse you desire to be, you should be working towards that right now. If you aren't becoming a loving person now, you will not just become a loving person later. If you are not becoming a respectful leader now, you will not just become a respectful leader later. You can fill in the blank with whatever qualities you want to be evident in your future life.

This relates nicely to a very unfortunate situation I often hear. The, "I'm going to live my life now (partying or self-centered life) and then when I'm older I'll settle down and become spiritual." The quote applies.

Most of you would say that you want to be loving in your relationship with your future spouse. That starts now, with your dating relationships, with you friendships. If we want to live the life we desire, we must be working towards it now. If you want to love, start loving. If you want to lead, start leading. If you want to respect, start respecting. Your future starts now.

Also, you can only become the best you can be through the power of Christ. Whatever quality you desire in your life is good, but is made perfect in Christ. He is the only way to overcome those temptations and sin that have plagued your life. Through Him is the only way to view your husband/wife as he/she truly is, a child of God.

Live for Him,

Travis

Eternal Life

I've recently been thinking about eternal life. I've been thinking about my preconceptions, public perceptions and biblical explanations.

First off, I'll go over my preconceptions about eternal life. To be honest, I never really put much thought into it. Heaven was just some place good Christians go when they die. A few months ago I came to realize that there was so much more. I've always accepted the idea of a hell, but I never really gave much consideration to it. A little while ago I was really slapped in the face when I heard a speaker talk about heaven and hell. He went on to say that people, given our sinful nature, all deserve hell. That we don't deserve to experience God's presence in hell, but though the sacrifice of our savior Jesus Christ we can be be saved. I had to overcome a huge hurdle and admit to myself that, 'I deserve hell and only through Christ can I experience the eternal love of God.'

Now, what about the public idea of eternal life? I've heard a lot of different ideas of what heaven and hell is and how/why people get where they do. Some of the most common ideas I'll lay out in the next paragraph. One idea I hear a lot is the 'I'm a good person, so I deserve heaven.' By extension all the 'bad people' go to hell. Another thought I've heard is, 'I went to church/said a prayer/am religious etc. so I deserve/earned heaven.' I've heard people looking forward to seeing loved ones when they get to heaven, a parent, sibling, child, even some animals. I've heard people look forward to a world without sin or crime, even looking forward to golden streets and pearl gates.

I'm sure you have all heard many other beliefs about heaven, but what does the bible say? First off, who goes to heaven? The good? The reightous? Here is where the famous John 3:16 is often sited, "For God so loved the world that who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." One thing that I'd like to point out is that of belief. This passage isn't talking about some half-hearted belief, such as reciting some prayer from church or singing a worship song. This belief is a fully enveloped, all consuming belief.

Anyway, what does the bible say about eternal life? Are there streets of gold or gates of pearls, maybe they are alluded to in the bible. Are our dead relatives going to be there? maybe. But the bible clearly states in John 17:3, "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Meeting disciples or family in heaven would be nice, but you get to meet God. What are you priorities? Moreover, nowhere in this definition is there a necessity to die from our earthly bodies. If eternal life is knowing God, that starts here and know. He doesn't say, when you die you then you will know God or when you're older you will know God or when you're less sinful you will know God. It reminds me of City on our knees by Toby Mac, "If you gotta start somewhere why not here? If you gotta start sometime why not now?"

So here's the point. Eternal life starts now. It is about us knowing God though Jesus Christ. Plain and simple. It isn't about our dreams, wants or desires, it is all about God. So what role is God playing in your eternity?

Live for Him,

Travis Ray