Hey Kids

Yeah I haven't posted in a while. I have quite a few unfinished posts, but i have lots of other projects that i'm working on. Including trying to plan a wedding. I just wanted to post this site i found. I have a Napster subscription, but there are a few albums that are buy-only. A dollar a track was still a little high, so i did some shopping around and found this site that costs ten cents a track! So turn from your iTunes ways and convert today! You have to deposit a minimum of $19.99 into your account to download (if you buy more, there are bonuses) but when you do, i'll get money in mine, so it's a win-win situation really.

Don't delay, sign up today! (please)

I do still regularly add posts of note from my blogroll. See the sidebar at left.

Homeschooling

The current appeals ruling that deems homeschooling illegal in the state of California is ridiculous. However, I am impressed that people such as the govenator and the superintendent of public education are opposed to this. Maybe "the right to homeschool" isn't in the constitution in those words exactly, but I think it falls unders the categories of our freedoms. Such as freedom of religion. The government only has a right to intervene when a religion directly breaks another law (the woman who tried to be a legal prostitute by claiming the title of pastor in a new, but wildly popular, church). We have already seen that the government doesn't care about the human rights of unborn children, so it's not surprising it didn't end there.

To add insult to injury, columnists at the LA Times stated

There has always been something decidedly elitist and anti-democratic in home schooling. It smacks of a belief that privileged children should not have to associate with the other kids in the neighborhood and that by staying home, they would not be subjected to the leavening effect of democracy.

Now, this is absurd because what is more democratic than having parents have the say in what their own children learn? Things like this should be in the people's hands, not the governement! It also is not elitist because people who homeschool their children work hard to be able to do so. My mom had to work sometimes, and we were in and out of public school, but when i was old enough to watch my siblings, she gave us lessons before going to work. That probably isn't the best way, but she did teach us after. It's just kind of flipped: do the homework in the morning instead of in the afternoon. Homeschooling is so much more efficient because when the teacher to student ratio is lower, more work can get done. Both my brother and I skipped a grade. However, I digress. Parents who have worked hard so that one can stay home and teach the kids should not be punished for rare cases of using homeschooling to hide abuse. They might as well make abortion mandatory past a certain quota for the year and have all the children born become wards of the state, because no parents are fit to raise their own childern, right? Abuse of something should not lead to its rejection, even though that seems to be a popular theme with our government. There are parents out there who don't work and just live off the government's (OUR) dollar. They could teach their kids. I'm not endorsing welfare. I'm just saying, the way things are, it's possible. For the same reason they don't want to work, it's the same reason they wouldn't homeschool their kids. Parents who aren't lazy shouldn't have their rights taken away.

I was planning on homeschooling the children I have someday. I really hope things change, because I don't want to be run out of California. I wouldn't mind leaving somewhere else, as much as I love it here, but I despise the idea of being forced to go. Al Mohler said to watch out for witch hunts, and it does seem like that could be the case. The liberals are just afraid of more people with views that oppose theirs. They want to suppress our freedom so that the future generation will be compiled only of people whose idealogy matches their own. They aren't for liberty and justice for all. They want a socialist country. I don't see evangelicals trying to push a theocracy on the country. That would make me want to leave state as well: it would be Rome all over again! I guess at this point we just have to wait and see, but you know that if something regarding this shows up on the ballots, I'll be first in line, protecting my future children's education.

Up on the Hilltop

(Sung to the tune of Up on the Housetop)

Up on the hilltop, people pause
Telling Congress "change our laws!"
Christians refuse, making lots of noise
You can't take away our Christmas joys.
No, no, no! We will not go.
No, no, no! We will not go.
Up on the hilltops, sound the drum:
Down in the streets proclaim Christ is come.

First comes the Scripture, the Word of God
Oh dear it's our firing squad
Man's natural law can't survive the shot
With the Truth we'll conquer the whole lot
No, no, no! We will not go.
No, no, no! We will not go.
Up the mountaintop, raise your sword.
Down in the valley scream "praise the Lord!"

Next they're telling us to keep quiet
Oh they can't kill this glorious riot
With heart and mind we preach Jesus Christ
Their reality resembles Kleist.
No, no, no! We will not go.
No, no, no! We will not go.
Your celebration will end soon, but
We praise Messiah the whole year long!

What is Worship? Part 1a

For a leadership group I am in, I am going to be studying hymnology, but as a precursor it has been requested that I start with what worship is. So, what is worship? That is a broad question not answered easily. However, I have compiled five basic answers from the texts I have been reading to answer this question.

• Gill: "Godliness is the ground work of internal worship, and without which there can be no worshipping(sic) God aright." (A Body of Practical Divinity: Book I, Chapter 2)
• Piper: "Worship is a way of gladly reflecting back to God the radiance of His worth." (p.84)
• Morey: "True worship is ministering to the Lord." (p.105) and "Worship is all of life." (p.14)
• Frame: "Worship is the work of acknowledging the greatness of our covenant Lord." (p.1)

You may ask which one is correct, but the point of this is to gain an understanding of what worship is, so I would argue that they all are correct. My study will incorporate all definitions, as they are not contrasting, but simply different perspectives from pastors with different personalities.

First, let's take some time to examine the word "worship" as used in the Bible, in the original languages. (For a more extensive study, see my friend Glenn's blog for starters.) There are two main groups of words that are most commonly translated "worship." The first is "Abodah" in Hebrew, and "latreia" in Greek, which means "service." From this, we can see that worship is an action. A person must actually participate in worship; it is not sufficient to be a mere spectator at some entertainment event. Also, it is a conscious act, not consequential. It is not something you end up doing while singing or clapping your hands. A person must set out with the intent to worship, and then anything else is consequence. This is because worship starts in the heart, which we will get to in a minute. The second set of words is "shachah" in Hebrew, and "proskuneo" in Greek, which means "to bow down." The first thing that this implies is that we are honoring someone superior to ourselves. This is the right mindset to get into, to remember that God is above you, and not your buddy or boyfriend. A person must have the highest reverence for God and understand WHY he is worshiping Him. He is superior in all things, bow to Him! To do otherwise is contradictory in the root of the very word worship itself. The second thing this means is that the purpose is to please Him first, and any benefits we receive are secondary. A person should not worship with the intent of cheering themselves up or reaching some sort of spiritual high. It is to please the Almighty, and then it just so happens that we obtain feelings of joy or bliss from that. Those secondary benefits don't even always come, even when a person is truly worshiping in his heart. It is in those times he presses on, because he has the hope that even if the LORD doesn't lighten his heart in this life, He will in the life to come. That joy is ever flowing. If a person worships to obtain spiritual highs, he will never be satisfied. His worship would be self-centered and one would doubt his salvation. There is no rock to stand on when the tide rises if worship is only a means to happiness. So from the origins of the word, we see that worship is a conscience act of service to a being greater than yourself for their benefit.

Having an understanding of the word worship is not sufficient to say we have an understanding of what it is. We know it is an act towards a being, but what is the act and who is the being? Stay tuned for the answers to these questions and more. Part 1 will continue in two more sections, with a Part 2 to follow, length undetermined as of yet.

The sources I am referencing for this study are as follows:

1. Frame, John - Worship in Spirit and Truth
2. Morey, Robert - Worship: It's Not Just Sunday Morning
3. Gill's Archive (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm)
4. Piper, John - Desiring God
5. Nave's Topical Dictionary

Sharing Time ^__^

I would just like to take a moment to direct your attention to the left column of my blog, to a content section entitled "Shared Items from Blogroll." These are my favorite posts from the blogs that i regularly read (list of these at left as well). There is, imho, some interesting things worth reading there. I share stuff ranging from new books, current events, hot moral topics, and more. Most recently, I added a post from Josh Harris' blog linking to an article by Al Mohler about the new movie The Golden Compass. I do think that this (and anything i share) is worth a read.

If you want to subscribe to my share feed (think of it as a reader's digest of the blogs i read) or see the posts in full, here is the link for that.

Al Mohler calls the attack via The Golden Compass new, but it seems to me that movies have slowly been desensitizing society's moral standards. Josh Harris made a good point about this in his blog. Attacks on our theology is not new, when you consider gnostic media such as The Da Vinci Code and V for Vendetta. I suppose the difference here is that is so much less subtle. The author of the book is not shy in stating his agenda, in the books and in interviews. I agree with him on one point, though, and that is wondering why Harry got so much more attention than his books. His Dark Materials (The Golden Compass is book 1 of a trilogy) is an obvious attack on Christianity as a way, while JK Rowling's Harry Potter series just uses fantasy witchcraft as a means to show the power of love. What's more, she set the epilogue the number of years after that she did to make sure that none of it suggested teen pregnancies.Note-If you haven't read The Deathly Hallows yet, don't worry, i haven't given anything away besides the fact that two people out of the entire world survived to the end. I don't think this is a movie to be ignored, but i hope people don't fight to the wrong proportions as they too often do when it comes to culture. Press on and Godspeed.

I just finished The Vile Village from A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket. I am only progressing at such an excrutiatingly slow pace because i don't own the books. I borrow them from my brother and get a new one when i see him, and i am reading other things. Don't let that fool you! These books are some of the most entertaining things i have ever read. Such sadistic humor though, so while it's written at a kid's level, i'd suggest reading 'em first before giving them to your child. There really are no happy endings, as the back cover promises there won't be.

Caped Crusaders

Batman is one of the most famous and loved superheroes, and he doesn't even have any super powers. You can understand the appeal, as he is someone you can relate to. Anyone could be Batman, with enough money and the right tailor. Gotham city is reminiscent of New York or Los Angeles (which the majority of you are probably familiar with). He has the coolest nemeses, snazzy vehicles, and fights crime: who doesn't love Batman (except those crazy Superman purists)? However, too many people try to BE Batman. No, you may not see a bunch of people running around in masks or the bat signal in the sky, but an alarmingly large number of Christians attempt to live two lives. (Read the rest at biblical thought.com)

Halloween

I am reading a book called Halloween: What's A Christian To Do? by Steve Russo, and it's pretty bad. It is filled with exaggerations and rabbit trails. He actually talks about Halloween for a small percentage of the book. He covers other subjects such as the occult (his favorite), media, and education.

The first chapter is about the historical forerunners to Halloween. He gives a nonbias background of the festivities that influenced Halloween. He did include such facts as Halloween is the Catholic conversion name, that it is not as popular anywhere else as in America, and that what Halloween is today is not even recognizable as the holiday's predecessors. Then he ends the chapter with the question of what are concerned parents going to do. What are they supposed to do? I was surprised at the positive view he was giving of it, but then he turns and acts as if any of the information he gave was cause for concern. The logical conclusion to that chapter would be that Halloween is a harmless holiday fueled by American consumership. On multiple occasions he points out that it's not an official holiday. Look at Memorial Day and Labor Day. The government's decree of what makes an "official" holiday is nearly irrelevant. The popularity of a holiday is driven by consumership. Besides the obvious costumes and candy, large sums of money are spent on decorations, entertainment, party supplies and more by the American people.

After this, he spends many chapters discussing how the occult has crept into general society, the evils of the media, etc. He doesn't relate it to Halloween much; it is stuff that is relevant all year long. His arguments never flow and he gets sidetracked often. If i were to try to outline this book, there would be no rhyme or reason to it. He takes this as an opprotunity to say how everything is evil. What is amusing is that he ends with suggestions of what a Christian is to do with Halloween. He accepts all solutions, from turning off your lights and pretending no one is home (maybe even a sign on your door about why you don't celebrate) to "harvest festivals" to giving safety tips for parents who still want to take their child trick-or-treating.

The way i see it, people should have a valid reason for celebrating any holiday. I don't celebrate Halloween, but Reformation Day. Halloween is to All Saint's Day as Christmas Eve is to Christmas. I could care less about the Catholic saints, which ties back into celebrating Reformation Day. I am thankful that there were men in the past that stood up for the Truth. God used them to bring back grace and faith into mainstream Christianity. It's dwindling again, which is why we are in dire need of a modern-day reformation, but that's another story. The second half to my view on holidays is that a person should be free to celebrate however they want, granted it does not conflict with the Bible. I personally enjoy dressing up and free candy, so if i want to reenact Luther's nailing his 95 Theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenburg with my hand as a hammer on invisible nails and paper, why not? I don't celebrate St. Patrick's Day, but i might happen to wear green on March 17th because it's a nice color and i usually feel like reconnecting with my Irish roots on that day. I don't celebrate St. Valentine's Day/2nd Halloween, but i might wear all black on February 14th and thank God that he loves us and enabled us to love with true love, and that we don't need pink or hearts or cherubs to obtain a weak copy of that love, or what the world calls love. What romance and love means is also another post. As far as Christmas, Easter, and birthdays, i recognize that they all have their roots in early pagan feasts ans rituals as well, but i celebrate them because of the meaning they have to me. A celebration is defined as a joyful occasion for special festivities to mark some happy event. So what i don't get is when someone blindly "celebrates" a holiday. They make the celebration itself the happy event they are celebrating, but that just bring them around in circles.

If someone doesn't want to celebrate a certain holiday, that's fine, but if they try to convince others not to without having any solid scriptural backing to their reasoning, then they should just keep quiet and agree to disagree. So why am i butting in? I support people's freedom in Christ to live how they want when it doesn't conflict with God's Law. I can't stay quiet when i see people trying to opress others. Viva la refomacion!