An amateur looks at Love Wins

At the end of February a pastor from Michigan named Rob Bell released a promo video for his soon-to-be-released book, Love Wins, and a firestorm of controversy erupted in the online evangelical world. The next month the book came out, and the controversy continued. From the end of February until about mid-April it seemed everything Christianity-related I read online had to do with Bell's book. In a nutshell, Bell's book is (as his subtitle suggests) A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person who Ever Lived. In this book Bell is seen by many as having taken a step toward (if not a canonball-sized plunge into) universalism - the idea that in the end, all people will be saved. Though the controversy is now "old news," I just recently had a chance to read the book, and I wanted to share my thoughts.

When I began reading, I started taking notes on just about every sentence on every page, but I soon realized that this was taking a ridiculous amount of time, and it was completely unnecessary. Many others have posted detailed reviews of this book and have done so much more eloquently and intelligently than I would ever be able to (I can provide links to enough blog posts, articles, and broadcasts to keep you busy for the rest of the calendar year, if you're so inclined). And so, I settled in and finished the book within a couple of days (the book will NOT take you that long if you just sit down and knock it out in one swipe - a couple of hours maybe). I thought I'd provide you with my overall reactions, which could very well be longer than you're willing to read from a nobody like myself.

THE GOOD
Bell's book has forced Christians to examine their theologies about heaven and hell more closely. This is good because often these ideas -- especially hell -- are more or less avoided. Also, Bell emphasizes in parts of his book that we should be careful when we describe heaven as a distant location of wonderfulness where all Baptists (or Calvinists, or Presbyterians, etc.) will someday go, as if it's some pie-in-the-sky place and we're all just waiting around here to die so we can get there. If this is what we believe, we don't have any real obligation to working on problems in our lives on this planet. Also, if we truly believe this, why don't we just all kill ourselves so we can get to heaven sooner?

And unfortunately, that's about it for the good.

THE BAD
Let's see... where to start.

There are many notes I jotted down while reading that won't make their way to this "review," but I'd like to start with the opening pages of Bell's second chapter in which he basically ridicules a painting that his grandmother had hanging in her house while little Rob was growing up. It's a painting that depicts the "cross as a bridge" image that you've probably seen a million times. There's a great chasm with hell at the bottom. On one side of the chasm is humankind, and on the other side is God (often depicted as popular ideas of heaven with shiny streets and angels and harps). The only way from one side to the other is to take the cross-shaped bridge. Bell rails against this image, saying it makes us think heaven is somewhere else that we need to get to, and it's dangerous for us to think in those terms. Ironically, this "artist" (or so he is described by most of his defenders, and perhaps even himself?) doesn't seem to understand that oftentimes paintings are metaphorical. I'm guessing that neither the painter of this image, nor Rob's grandmother, really believe that there is some physical place where we have to go and walk across a cross, and if we don't step carefully we'll fall to our eternal damnation in a fiery furnace. But the image, according to the Bible, is pretty accurate. There is a gap between people and God. A huge gap, called sin, that can never be crossed with anything man-made. The only way to bridge that gap is with the cross of Christ. What's wrong with metaphorical paintings that have assisted missionaries and evangelists for years, Rob?

Bell argues that when Jesus talks about "hell," he uses the word "gehenna," which refers, basically, to the town garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where there was an ongoing fire that consumed the city's trash. He also tells us that when Matthew writes about the sheep and the goats, and that the goats will "go away to eternal punishment" (Matt. 25:46), the Greek words there would more accurately be translated "go away to an intense period of pruning." This allows Bell to argue that punishment in hell is only meant to bring people around to Jesus, and that it won't last forever. I'll leave it to other experts to explain to you why Bell must not have done very well in his exegesis classes in seminary, but if you'd like, just read a few good commentaries on these verses and you'll find out that Bell's version just doesn't work. None of the major English translations in existence supports his theory. Is there a Western-world conspiracy that wants everyone to believe Hell is forever, Rob? Or is it possible that your lone voice is the one that's mistaken?

Kevin DeYoung's review of Bell's book goes into much more detail about this point, but I did notice that sin, for Rob, seems to be almost exclusively about horizontal injustices. He regularly talks about rape and war and oppression and abuse and other things people to do other people. Flowing from this is Rob's insistence that "hell" is what we experience here on earth because of these sins. "Hell" is finding out your daughter has been repeatedly sexually abused over the years by a relative. "Hell" is the teenagers in Africa who have had their limbs cut off in the midst of civil unrest.  Missing from his theology seems to be any notion of the idea that sin is also against God. It's vertical. And it must be atoned for. That is what Jesus' death did. Bell's theologies of sin, hell, and especially his Christology are sorely lacking.

When the Love Wins promo video was released, the big controversial question was, "Is Rob Bell a universalist?" After reading this book, I would say that although Bell tends to be as slippery as an eel, and does his best to avoid any single label, "universalist" in any meaningful sense of the term seems fairly accurate. Bell does emphatically say that Jesus is THE ONLY way, but then he says that anywhere people find hope and forgiveness - that's Jesus. No matter your beliefs, Bell seems to think that if you have some bit of joy, hope, forgiveness (or any other touchy-feely abstract noun) in your life, that's Jesus, and so even though you didn't know that's what its name was, you've been saved by Jesus. Some might call this inclusivism instead of universalism. Perhaps that's more accurate, but it seems like a semantic battle now. For all practical purposes, Bell is quite a few paces down Universalist Road. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but calling my bike a rose won't make it so.

Sometimes I wonder if Bell understands syntax when it comes to sentences. He LOVES John 3:16. I guess I should say, he LOVES John 3:16a: "For God so loved the world that he gave is only begotten son..." but that's where the love stops. Bell even describes that part as "beautiful." But, he argues, "millions have been taught that if they don't believe..." and then he launches into a rant about how God instantly becomes a vindictive monster to people who don't believe. I wonder if Bell has read the rest of the verse and chooses to ignore it, of if he just never got that far. To help him out, it goes like this: "...that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." The inverse of the argument isn't true, Rob? Maybe he thinks there's an omitted part that says, "...and whoever does NOT believe in Him will also not perish, but have eternal life -- because we here at Bible Writers, Incorporated are very open and loving and affirming, and it'd be unloving of us to deny anyone eternal life."

In Bell's paradigm, I honestly see very little need for evangelism and missions within the Christian faith. In fact, the one time I remember Bell mentioning missions, it's only say that he hears stories all the time about missionaries who tell the stories of Jesus, and the native peoples say, "That's Jesus? But we've been telling those stories for years" (again confirming my "pretty close to universalism" beliefs about Bell). Bell talks about the importance of following God in this life, but the reasons for it seem to be mostly, "because it's just better, and you'll feel more fulfilled." It feels like someone trying to convince me to cheer for the Steelers, because they win a lot of Super Bowls, and they're a well-run franchise that doesn't disappoint nearly as often as other teams, so I'll just enjoy football more if I convert. Unfortunately, I enjoy being a Cowboys fan, and since, in the end, it doesn't really matter what I choose (I'll always be able to change my mind after I die when I realize that the Steelers really were the better team), I'll stick with my 'Boys. I'm enjoying it just fine. It reads to me like Bell basically says, "Jesus is NOT the mean judgmental guy you hear about from the Westboro Baptist Church weirdos. Now that you are aware of that, I can't really give you a solid reason why you need to follow him right now. Just keep him in the back of your mind so that when you die and it comes time for you to change your mind, you won't have to be 'pruned' for very long before you realize Jesus is the right way."

My last point: None of this would be that big of a deal if Rob Bell were truly just seeking answers and trying to provoke thought, but he's teaching this stuff to millions of followers. He preaches at a megachurch, he writes very popular books, and he speaks at conferences and gives interviews around the world. His influence is huge, and that's why this is important to combat. Bell loves to play the "I'm just a pastor" card, but when we're talking about millions who look to you as a spiritual advisor in their lives, false teaching carries some dire consequences.

I understand that this post reads largely as some rant against a guy I don't like, and I'm sorry for that. But, honestly, I've never had a real problem with Bell before I read this book (I thought he might be slightly "out there" regarding a few things he's said and written, but I didn't have a problem for the most part with what he and his church has been teaching to tons of people). Now that's changed.

Read Kevin DeYoung's lengthy review for the most thorough exposition of the flaws in Bell's book.

Nearing the End

In case you've been hiding under a rock for a few weeks, I will likely never see any of you again because the end of the world is Saturday.

I don't know how you plan to spend your last few days before the apocalypse, but I plan to spend mine reading stuff on the internet. Therefore, I thought you might appreciate checking out a 5-part series from W. Robert Godfrey of Westminster Seminary in California on some of the history and development of Harold Camping, the man behind the "May 21st is Judgment Day" campaign. It's really 1 decent-sized blog post split up into five entries. It won't take you long.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Are any of you going to stock up on bottled water and a CB radio in preparation?

Sin is DOOMED

"Look at [Romans] chapter eight, verses one through four. Paul says, 'Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do, in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemns sin in sinful man in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.' What the law couldn't do God did. Through Christ, sin is doomed. God sent Christ to this earth not just as a revolutionary, he did not send Christ to this earth just as some sort of a religious leader, God did not send Christ to this earth as a great man or as an example for us or to answer the question WWJD - What Would Jesus Do - no, that's not why Christ came to this earth. Christ came to this earth as a sacrifice for sin and when my savior died - when my savior died - when he was crushed, when he was cursed, when he was beaten, when he was bleeding, in that darkest hour at Calvary, sin was doomed, sin was condemned, and at that very moment when it seemed like Satan had his foot on Christ's neck and was in control, it was at that very moment that the back of sin was broken."

Pastor Dan Schoepf

Teach us

Sam Storms, from the foreword to Note to Self: The Discipline of Preaching to Yourself

The inspiration and authority of the Scriptures are of value to us only so far as we change our beliefs to conform to its principles and alter our behavior to coincide with its imperatives. The Bible is meant to govern our lives, to fashion our choices, to challenge our cherished traditions, and ultimately to make us look more like Jesus. The question for each of us, then, is whether the Bible actually functions in this way. Do we submit to its dictates? Do we put our confidence in its promises? Do we stop living a certain way in response to its counsel? Do we embrace particular truths on its authority? Do we set aside traditional practices that conflict with its instruction? In other words, for the Bible to be of value to us it mustactually function to shape how we think, feel, and act, as well as what we believe, value, and teach.

Elizabeth and I are following the Read the Bible for Life plan, which will take us through the entire Bible by the end of 2011. This reading plan is somewhat different than most in that it covers the bible chronologically rather than canonically - which I have so far found to be quite enjoyable.

I appreciate the above excerpt from Sam Storms, and I pray that I allow both my heart and my behavior to be molded by God's Holy Word. Otherwise our reading is just a waste of time.

a little silliness

This is the epitome of seminary nerdiness, but I find New Testament Scholar Mike Bird to be very funny, and this is a funny little nerd-themed rip-off of the Old Spice commercials. Enjoy.

What does the Bible say about Social Justice?

I recently began to write a post on social justice and young evangelicals. Instead I'll summarize my point and save you some time. I think it's great that Christians of my generation have taken huge steps toward helping and caring for the poor and the oppressed in our world. On the other hand, it seems to me that too many of these Christians have turned helping the poor into the gospel itself. Many have come to believe (though they may not say it this way) that alleviating suffering by feeding the hungry is the end goal of Christianity, and I think that's a huge mistake.

Rather than writing a long post on this topic (which, as I said, I originally began to do), I've decided that it will be much more worth your while to read a much better writer and thinker than me. Kevin DeYoung recently finished up an 8-part series on poverty and social justice. In each post he focused on a single passage of Scripture that is commonly used in the social justice discussion (except the last post, which is a summary/wrap-up/conclusion).

I've linked to all 8 posts below and would strongly encourage you to check them out if you're at all interested in this topic (none of them is too long).

If you don't want to check them out, I'll give you my own SUPER brief summary of his 2 main conclusions in the final post:
1. Don't undersell what the Bible says about the poor and social justice (In other words, helping the poor is a very important thing for Christians to do).
2. Don't oversell what the Bible says about the poor and social justice (In other words, "the alleviation of poverty is simply not the main storyline of Scripture").

Passage #1 (Isaiah 1)
Passage #2 (Isaiah 58)
Passage #3 (Jeremiah 22)
Passage #4 (Matthew 25:31-46)
Passage #5 (Amos 5)
Passage #6 (Micah 6:8)
Passage #7 (Luke 4:16-21)
A Brief Wrap-up

(For those who just can't get enough, below are four more related posts that Kevin had written earlier and are not part of this series but deal with the same theme.)

Moral Proximity
Leviticus 19
Leviticus 25
The term "social justice"

Chandler on homosexuality

The videos below are from a seminar that pastor Matt Chandler gave at his church, The Village Church in Dallas, on the topic of homosexuality. The first 1.5 hours is Chandler's teaching, and the last video (a little over 35 minutes) is Chandler taking questions from his audience via text message. I've referenced this pastor before because I think he's one of the best speakers/preachers I've ever heard, and he's engaging and entertaining, and more full of grace and love than just about anyone else as well.

Even though it's about two hours' worth of videos, I would strongly encourage you to take the time some evening (instead of watching a movie?). His teaching goes far deeper than just addressing the issue of homosexuality. It left me more convicted of my own sin and my need for repentance than any sermon I've heard in a while.


Culture and Theology: Homosexuality - Part 1 from The Village Church on Vimeo.


Culture and Theology: Homosexuality - Part 2 from The Village Church on Vimeo.


Culture and Theology: Homosexuality - Q&A from The Village Church on Vimeo.

baffling

Kevin DeYoung has a fabulous post on What to Do When the Bible Baffles. As someone who is working on a Master's degree in Biblical studies, let me be the first to say that the Bible does indeed baffle quite a bit!

It's well worth the read, though.

The Prodigal Son

The Prodigal Son is my favorite of Jesus’ parables. It always has been. I think it’s the picture of the father disgracing himself as he runs down the road to meet his bonehead of a son while he’s still “a long way off” that I love.

Even though that’s the part of the story that I love so much, I think if I was a character in the story I’d be the older brother. You know, the one who gets all upset because his bonehead of a brother is getting a party thrown for him even though he’s been a complete jerk. I’m just like the older brother in a lot of troubling ways. I’ve never gone through a real rebellion of any kind in which I acted out against God or my family. In fact, I’ve pretty much followed the rules my whole life and never really gotten myself into too much trouble at all. That’s not the troubling part, though.

What I don’t like is that I think the older brother in the story has a valid point. I totally identify with him. He’s been good and obedient his whole life. He didn’t defy his father, waste his wealth, or make any super stupid choices. He just worked hard and wanted to know why he didn’t get a party every once in awhile. “C’mon, dad,” he’s saying, “This brother of mine treated you like dirt and now we’re having our very own Mardi Gras for him. I’ve treated you with nothing but loyalty and respect and I get nothing.” (New Revised Jake Version)

Then dad says, “Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.”

The father’s response stirs two things in me: First, the father is pleased that the older brother has stayed with him. He even reminds the brother that everything the father has is also his. Second, the older brother seems to have forgotten (or never fully realized) how magnificent it is when one who is lost comes home. In fact, it’s even more than being lost and found; it’s that one was dead and is now alive.

In a lot of ways I completely take for granted the blessings that the Father has given to me. Somewhere in my subconscious it’s like I’m waiting for the really obvious blessings (like winning the lottery [an extra-special blessing since I don't play], getting a good job, getting to see my family more often, etc.) and I forget that I’m living them. Also, like the older brother I have come to minimize the excitement and importance that surrounds the acceptance of the Lord into the life of a non-believer.

I hope that if Jesus’ story kept going it would end like this: “The older brother then understood the importance of his brother’s homecoming. He went into the house to get his freak on with the rest of the party guests. Who knew fattened calf tasted so good!”

iBible

I don't know why I haven't seen more of these being used in churches.

Bart Ehrman

I don't know how he does it.

Ben Witherington, a prominent New Testament scholar, has a blog that I (try to) read regularly. He often writes reviews for books and movies which I often find very helpful. Lately he's been writing a review of Bart Ehrman's newest book, Jesus, Interrupted. For those of you who don't know, Ehrman is a textual critic who went to seminary and was once bound for ministry, but his studies led him to the decision that the Bible really is not trustworthy. He's now a skeptic, not a believer, and he writes prolifically about all the problems with the Bible specifically, and Christianity more generally. Think of him as a sort of Dan Brown, only with an education.

Anyway, my point isn't to talk about boring New Testament scholarship per se. I just want to point out the ridiculously long review of his book Ben Witherington has written... and I'm not sure he's done yet. So far his review has come in the form of five different "parts" (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5), and each one is super long. I began to read the first one thinking, "I'd like to hear what he has to say about this book." I read for about twenty minutes and then realized I was about 1/4 of the way through... and that was just part 1. Over the next few days he wrote parts 2-5. I don't know if he's done yet, either. It's possible that Witherington's review of the book is longer than the book itself.

If you're bored, a nerd, and have lots of time on your hands, read it! Also, here's a hilarious interview that Stephen Colbert did with Ehrman.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Easter: Praise God

Happy Easter, everyone. Today we celebrate one of the two most spectacular events in all of human history: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The other of the two events, as you may have guessed, was his crucifixion. I hope that both of these events are preached regularly in your church. I write about the resurrection today not because I think it to be more important than the crucifixion, but because

1. I just spent a couple of weeks immersed in a passage of the Bible that deals primarily with the resurrection, so I've studied it and have become especially jazzed about it,

2. In my experience it seems that the church talks about the crucifixion year-round, because it's easily connected to just about every other topic. We often remember, in different ways, that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," and that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." and I guess I think we tend to leave resurrection talk for one very special Sunday per year: Easter. And

3. When we do talk about it on Easter we often relegate "the resurrection" to the single historical event of Jesus being brought back to life, which is cool because it means that his death really did accomplish what it was supposed to, and our sins really have been forgiven. And we also spend an awful lot of time explaining why the event is historically defensible (a topic, by the way, which I LOVE). There's obviously nothing wrong with that, except that I think there's more to "resurrection" than that.

Take a gander at 1 Corinthians 15. Especially verses 12-28. There are some in the church at Corinth who "say that there is no resurrection from the dead" (v. 12). Now, to clarify, it doesn't appear that they denied Christ's resurrection, only the future bodily resurrection of believers. But Paul doesn't think that logic holds any weight. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is inseparably linked to that of those who belong to him. Paul basically tells the Corinthians, "If there's no bodily resurrection of people, then Jesus wasn't bodily resurrected either. And if Jesus wasn't resurrected everything is very crappy indeed" (v. 13-18, New Revised Jake Version).

Seriously, read it. If there's no resurrection then the preaching of the apostles is worthless (v. 14). Faith is worthless (v. 14). The apostles are liars (v. 15) because they've proclaimed that God raised Christ from the dead, so they're not only lying but blaspheming. We are all still condemned in our sins (v. 17). Those who have believed in Jesus Christ as their savior who have already died are utterly lost (v. 18). Because of all of this, because of our devotion to an empty, worthless faith that has no power over death or sin, we as Christians are to be pitied more than all others (v. 19).

Don't stop reading.

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). As Mark Prior points out, "This But must rank with the great 'buts' of the Bible." Firstfruits is an agricultural term identifying the first installment of an entire harvest of the same kind which is to come. That means that Jesus is just the beginning. Just as he was raised from his death, so will all of those who call on him and trust him as their Lord.

See, Corinthians? A bodily resurrection! For you and me! Don't forget, the word "asleep" (v. 18, 20) holds the promise of an awakening.

Paul's argument started with a refutatio, or a refutation of the Corinthians' stance. He explains to them why denial of the resurrection leads to unacceptable consequences. Verse 20 begins the second half of his argument; the confirmatio, or a reaffirmation of the logical alternative. Just as we were all affected by the sin of one human being (Adam), we will be affected by the resurrection and defeat of death itself of one human being (Jesus). So, without the resurrection our solidarity would still be with Adam. Bummer.

So you see? The resurrection has eschatological (end times) implications. Jesus' resurrection inaugurated the ultimate defeat of the "last enemy" (v. 26), which is death. But the fullness of salvation is not yet realized. We still experience death. Some of you know that all too well. There's still the pain and the sorrow and the suffering. If the resurrection is not true then death is never a conquered enemy. Even when all is said and done it would still have power. But since it is true, God wins. Someday death will be thwarted permanently.

Today we have "prosperity" churches all over the place (if you're not familiar with them, turn on your television on Sunday morning). They pretty much teach what the Corinthians apparently thought. "All we can expect is what we've got now, so live it up!" If some of these preachers and churches really understood the implications of the resurrection would that message change?

Other Christians of the more "liberal" sort deny the resurrection because it's too far-fetched. Christianity needs to be more palatable, so we'll do away with ridiculous notions like some dude came back to life. But they don't consider what that denial means. Without a resurrection you can't be a "Christian," because the entire faith is futile. Paul says so.

"The joy that characterizes the basic orientation of the Christian life is based on the confidence that Christ will return, the dead will be raised, and all wrongs will be made right. If that is not true, then joy is replaced by despair." -- David Garland

But it is true. So celebrate Easter, and keep trying, as I do, to fully understand what it means for us.

The point of the Gospel

If you ever want to subscribe to the podcast of a fantastic preacher, check out Matt Chandler.

Aside from that, though, this video clip is just penetrating. Watch it.

Win an ESV study bible!

David Porter is giving away a free calfskin version of the new ESV Study Bible (about $240 value)! Isn't that exciting? Well, if you like, you can enter to win it. I obviously won't encourage you to enter (as it diminishes my chances), but I will commend his blog to you for your perusal. Click here to find out how you can win (or just to read his blog).

The sad reality of seminary

I'm not trying to over-blog... but I just had to share this story.

A seminary friend of mine was sitting in a classroom about 10 minutes before class was to start. Another friend walked into the room and asked friend 1 what he was reading. Friend 1 said, "The Bible." Friend 2 replied, "For what class?"

I thought it was a funny story, but it's also a glimpse of seminary life. I would venture to guess that many, if not most, seminary students do a lot less "free reading" of the Bible while they're in seminary than when they're not.

Expulsion, comedy, and feminism

Tonight I translated a couple of verses from 2 Thessalonians from Greek into English.

It kind of wore me out, so I thought I'd write a little.  Also because it's been awhile.  Tomorrow there's a movie coming out called Expelled.  It's a documentary by Ben Stein that sounds pretty good.  From what I hear, it's connected to the Intelligent Design debate.  The movie's viewpoint, I guess, is that Intelligent Design proponents use the same science as evolutionists, but are still being shut out of scientific scholarship for their views... or something.  I plan to see it, but not tomorrow.  See, my wife and I are in the midst of what we've dubbed "No Fun April."  During the month of April, we have vowed to spend not a single dime on recreation of any kind (eating out, going to or renting movies, etc.).  We haven't really ever had the means to do a lot of those things anyway, but I just spent over a thousand dollars on a new computer last month, and there are only a few things in our budget that we have absolute control over... so we're hoping it helps us out a little.

There's a comedian I really like named Demetri Martin.  He says stuff like,

"Swimming is a confusing sport.  Because sometimes you do it for fun, but other times you do it to not die."

and

"I bet drowning is a horrible experience.  But I bet it's a little less horrible if right before, you're really thirsty.  It'd be like, 'Man, I'm thirsty.  Ok ok ok OK OK OK I'M GOOD I'M GOOD!'"

Anyway.  You should youtube him if you've got the time.

Oh!  I wanted to blow off some more steam about this too:  Today in my class on methods of New Testament study, we talked about feminist and queer (GLBT) interpretation of the Bible.  I left the class pretty mad, because we seemed to focus the whole time on all the positive things we can learn from these criticisms, and nobody stated what I thought was glaringly obvious:  They're wrong!  I'm not even saying that feminism or homosexuality are wrong (we can talk about that, though, if you'd like).  I'm saying that the agenda-driven interpretation of Holy Scripture by those practicing feminist or queer criticism is wrong.  It'd be equivalent to me deciding that I don't want to give money to the poor, because I really REALLY like all my cars and video games and my movie collection and my iPod, so when I read the Sermon on the Mount, I'm going to interpret it as though Jesus is saying, "God loves people who have lots of money and hoard it all for themselves."  It's just BAD interpretation, and it made me upset that no one in my class, including the professor, ever mentioned that.  K, I'm done.  Stepping down from my soap box (now there's a phrase I've never fully understood).

Peter

A friend of mine shared a "devotional thought" today that I found quite interesting.  Peter probably lived his whole life hearing the rooster crow in the morning.  After he denied knowing Christ for the third time, he heard it again, in a completely different way.  It wasn't just a random sound for Peter, but it's the first sound of the day.  For the rest of his life he probably asked himself each morning after he heard the rooster, "Will I serve him today, or will I say again, 'I never knew him'?"