What To Expect If You Are An Outspoken Christian Public University Student

I'm going to start this off on a happy note, with some wise words by the 'Prince of Preachers':

“Discernment is not simply telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right." ~ C H Spurgeon

And end on a more somber note. I often tell myself, to ensure that I maintain a proper perspective, that I really have it good, here in America. I have never been at want for food, clothes, a place to live or enough money--thanks to my hardworking parents--to keep me in school until I've seen it finished. And as a Christian, I've never faced true persecution. Opposition, maybe. But I have lived my whole life without being treated unjustly by society-at-large, or someone in a position of great authority, because of my Christian faith.

That's why the email I received from a faculty member at my university made me pause and consider that maybe, in a small sense, I'd just gotten a tiny taste of what persecution is like. I say tiny, because I still have freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom to engage in the  economy (you don't have that if you're a Christian Dhimmi, or second-class citizen, in an Islamic country), and I don't fear for my life, like they do in Nigeria, for example.

It's weird, when you realize that you just got treated with disregard simply because of your beliefs. At least the first time it happens. You know to expect it, but it's strange nonetheless -- there's just something about it that feels like it isn't a "normal" sort of dislike...which I would of course chalk up to the spiritual nature of the war we're fighting.

I won't say what university, or what State I'm in, but I live in the region that I would consider the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States. My university has an online discussion-forum where students can debate things if they wish. It is non-anonymous--our names are attached to our posts. I was the only outspoken Christian, who consistently used Biblical arguments and logical reasoning to justify my positions on various political issues that would be brought up. I never considered -- and here I was naive to not do so -- that some students would seek to go after me personally in order to intimidate me out of sharing my beliefs. Well, they don't know me very well. I don't fear man. But what I didn't realize was that my enemies (it's fair to call them that) were engaging in a rumor campaign to poison public opinion against me. It sounds extreme, and a bit ridiculous -- but sinful men will stop at no lengths to justify their rebellion against their Creator, and as a consequence, they will stop at no length to attack that which reminds them that God is in authority over them. Namely, you. There's nothing they won't do to shut you up. Presently they will use intimidation and seek to use the justice system or public opinion to silence you; but if they had the motive and opportunity, they would gladly kill you for your witness. I don't know how long that day is from today, here in America. I won't speculate. But I will say that the hatred I've seen in college students toward God and toward those that preach Christ causes me to be utterly convinced that, given the right cultural climate, the God-haters will easily escalate angry words into murder. Christ said that he who hates his brother is a murderer. I believe it. Those who hate you secretly want you dead. All that prevents that from being a reality is the restraining ministry of the Holy Spirit that holds them back from acting on their sinful desires.

Okay, on to the conclusion of the story. I went to a professor that I had had, and asked him for a letter of recommendation so that I could apply to internships (which required you to turn in two recommendations for your application to be considered). He agreed, at first. Then he sent me an email saying that he had mentioned my name to someone else, and they had told him I'd said "inflammatory" things on the university discussion site. I explained myself to him in a second email. Here is an excerpt of his response:

        Much more significantly my unenthusiastic recommendation will be more readily apparent to any reader for its sterility because they will read between the lines.  I, and most recommenders, would strive to make supporting comments that the student would make a welcome addition to any lab and that their career in science is promising.  I can't offer that for you.  Homophobes and proselytes are not welcome in any lab, or any workplace that I know of, and strict believers in the bible are anti-science.

        "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." -Mark Twain

        I can write a recommendation letter, Hakam, but it's probably not one that would advance your chances.  Perhaps your true vocation is in the clergy or as a missionary?  You have faith ... that's great for you. But for those of us in science faith is not enough.

Are the universities tolerant of Christianity? This professor wasn't. A word of advice to Christian parents; think carefully about whether you send your child to a public university. If they go, they'll need to be more skilled than I was at not stirring up the hornets' nest. I would further recommend this online book, which gives advice for how to 'survive' college as a Christian: Fish Out of Water

This email is very real. It reveals the very real animosity that exists toward Christians in the scientific fields at public research universities in the United States.

This is far from open persecution. But it's a part of the cultural attitude that will eventually rationalize the "implementation" of oppressive legal restrictions on Christians unless a miraculous revival were to take place and turn back this country from the brink.

Not to sow fear or anything. 

~ Rak Chazak

Journal Entry: A Flashback to Middle School, Male Relationships, and Homosexuality

To explain why the title says "Journal Entry": I have kept a written Journal, fairly consistently, since 7th grade, with gaps during 9th grade and the first three years of college. In 2011, I started to keep a typed Journal on my computer, so now I have the option of writing with pen or writing with a keyboard. Consequently, my computer Journal has become a repository of copy-pasted information I've come across on the Internet that I deem valuable.

I'll start this entry with one such quote:

“Although slavery is not uniformly condemned in either the Old or New Testaments, the sincere application of New Testament truths has repeatedly led to the elimination of its abusive tendencies. Where Christ’s love is lived in the power of His Spirit, unjust barriers and relationships are inevitably broken down. As the Roman empire disintegrated and eventually collapsed, the brutal, abused system of slavery collapsed with it—due in great measure to the influence of Christianity. ... New Testament teaching does not focus on reforming and re structuring human systems, which are never the root cause of human problems. The issue is always the heart of man—which when wicked will corrupt the best of systems and when righteous will improve the worst. If men’s sinful hearts are not changed, they will find ways to oppress others regardless of whether or not there is actual slavery.”
~ John MacArthur


And now here's the Journal entry I wrote on Wednesday, January 23 of this year. Brackets are used to remove personal information.

~~~~~~~~

                        Flashback: back when mom, [my brother] and I visited the [Svensons](cousins to the [Smiths]) in Stockholm in either ’02 or ’04. We took a walk around their neighborhood, and one of the things I noticed was that there were stray rabbits living on the hillsides. That is, not normally wild animals, but ones that had been released. I remember seeing a small, cute, all-black bunny and [Johan] or [Gustav] explaining that to me. Later on that day, [Lisa], her brothers, [my brother] and I came across some other kids on a soccer field and played a match with them. We won. :) Oh, in the early part of our walk, [my brother] did some sort of air-skateboard (i.e. he didn’t have one; like air-guitar) jump off of a bench and cut up his knees. Which is classic [my brother], if you know about him as a kid. He was always getting scrapes. I have another memory, not because it’s particularly nostalgia-inducing, but because mom made a big deal of it and it stuck with me as a result. When we were walking up a hill to go back to their house, [Johan], I think, threw one of his arms around my shoulder and said something like ‘my gay brother.’ It was in the context of celebrating the soccer victory, so he was saying it not to mock. My reaction was to smile in a sort of grimace, but to shrug off his ‘hug.’ Mom and their mom was walking behind us, and she told me later that that was rude and shouldn’t have been so off-putting. But the reason why I (not very violently, but it was sort of a flinch (in Swedish, I would use the word “ryckning” to describe the motion)) pulled away was subconsciously ingrained, because in Middle School up to that point, kids had been very mean (also probably in Boy Scout Troop [###]) and had often used the word “gay” or “fag/faggot” or “queer” in a derogatory sense toward me. Also in an aggressive sense. The word for me was very closely associated with bad reputation, kids disliking me, and potential impending violence, so it didn’t strike me that [Johan] was intending to say something different; it came across differently to me. I think what he meant was something akin to ‘blood brother’ or just “bro” in general (that’s a term that, to my knowledge, has proliferated since that time, and wasn’t widely in use then). As in, to be so close friends with someone else that others might suspect you of being gay? Maybe that’s what he meant. Because he’s not gay himself, and there was no sexual innuendo or context in/to what he was saying. I just remember that particular moment as indicative of how pervasive the verbal bullying was among kids in middle school. It was, thankfully, much easier for me to deal with it because I’d gained immunity from being bullied back in 4^th grade. It still resulted in me having little to no friends, nonetheless. Not ‘til later in high school, maybe 10^th or 11^th grade, did people seem to indicate a sort of respect for me, or that they knew who I was in a positive sense, not as a result of negative rumors. It’s funny, I seem to be repeating the early years of middle school, socially, now, in that sense [this is a reference to ostracism among my peers at my university because of expressing my Christian beliefs]. Anyway, if I were to sum this up, this is just one of the many ways in which homosexuality, and the stigma surrounding male closeness as a result of the former’s prevalence in society, has hindered male bonding in youth of this generation, and resulted in millions of boys and men with broken emotions and a stunted capacity for empathy or gentleness. I’ve sort of overcome it, myself. Knowing what the problem is helps. But you can’t undo the developments you went through in your formative years.

~~~~~~~~

Commentary:

I recall reading something in an article a few years ago that explored that topic, and presented the idea that homosexual stigma has negatively impacted my generation, preventing us as boys from having the close sort of bonding relationships that we see displayed in antique American literature and film. When you see young boys be violent and aggressive, and when they grow older and can't form friendships with other men, then I hope you recognize that it's because they were taught from a young age--or pressured, rather--to avoid appearing to be effeminate, at all costs.

Far from leading to an endorsement of homosexuality, however, this is an important reason why it should not be mainstreamed. If mobbing from one's peers because you are timid or not inclined to be hyper-aggressive or assert yourself sexually is something that is already happening now, this would only increase when school systems attempt to encourage young boys to question their sexuality and to behave effeminately. Not to mention that the bullying from the aggressive ones would be stoked by resentment against punishment for violating the school rules on 'tolerance' towards anything that departs from what used to be heterosexual norms of behavior. I can't tell you how many times I've been told directly, or heard second-hand, a girl question a guy's sexuality for not behaving stereotypically masculine, which in today's world means that if an attractive woman is in your line of sight, you're expected to be sexually attracted, and, given the opportunity, to engage in sexual intercourse with her. Any deviation from this expected behavior earns you the sneering remark, "are you gay?" -- And much worse.

Here's something I recently wrote elsewhere on this topic, just to round out what I'm saying here:

Is accusing someone of being gay for not seeking heterosexual sex necessarily anti-gay or is it actually anti-straight? More to the point, is it more insulting to gays or to straight people who choose abstinence? Me being the latter, this is far more of an insult to straight people who hold to a moral standard of sexuality more strict than that of "most people," than it is an insult to someone who is homosexual. It implies that there is no legitimate reason to not want to have sex with someone except if you're gay. It objectifies men, declaring that so long as there's an attractive female in front of you, you're expected to want to have sex with her, and expected to actually follow through if given the opportunity. It's way more insensitive toward straight guys than gay guys.

Those who would mock you with suggestions that you are gay, merely for exercising restraint in saving yourself for marriage, are the same people who claim to be pro-gay-rights and who accuse you of homophobia for daring to hold the Biblical view that that which God calls perversion IS perversion.

If homosexuality continues to be mainstreamed, "anti-gay" language will not decrease, it will increase. But it will be directed toward straight males and Christians, primarily. The Biblical norm--the natural norm, even--has become the new deviancy. That which is outside the bounds of "typical" behavior (namely, abstinence and monogamy) is going to be viciously attacked until it vanishes from the public sphere.

It's already happening. What I'm saying here is hardly a prediction. Sometimes I wonder if there will be any virgins left, by the time I'm financially stable and ready to marry. I wonder if all the women will have given in to the pressure to adhere to the new normal. So I've had to seriously consider the possibility of a lifetime of singleness, though I long for marriage. I might not get what I want. Now isn't that a radical thought?

If you are a man with the power and position to influence young boys (8-16), I encourage you -- I speak from my heart, knowing my own experiences -- do your best to model male behavior and show them that being a man does not mean you can't be gentle, caring and loving. Show them that a real man is one who is slow to anger and honors women, and isn't afraid of what other men  say about him in public or private.

I don't know what else to say. But I hope that something I've said here has been of value to one of you. 

~ Rak Chazak

Single Takes

This one's more of a reflective journal entry.

There's a concept in attraction called "the double-take." Most of us know what this means. In the event that you don't, here's the explanation: when you look at something to perceive it, it can be said that you are "taking it in." This is usually said of beautiful landscapes, but applies equally well to beautiful things of any nature. When a person looks at someone, looks away, and feels compelled to look back at them a second time to get a better look, that's called a "double take." It usually is accompanied by funny facial gestures (if you happen to catch a person doing this) and a sudden snap of the neck, as the head swivels back in the direction of the person of interest.

Generally, the double-take happens because the impression you get of a person is ambiguous; you can't make up their mind if what you saw indicated that they are very attractive or very unattractive (and the irony is, consequently, that they're usually one or the other, not anything in between), and so, being naturally curious, you try to catch a better glimpse. This leaves you either unimpressed or pleasantly surprised, depending on which it was.

I've never noticed anyone 'do a double-take' while looking at me, however. But I've noticed something different, and that's what I call the "single take." Let me try to explain it to you:

Since the double take involves a person looking at (in the vernacular, one might say "checking out") another person once, and then doing it again after a pause, doing a single take would consist of only looking at a person once. So what makes it distinct from just your regular ol' garden-variety "looking?" 

It is my belief that girls have caught a glimpse of me out of the corner of their eye, causing them to wonder whether the shape moving about in the periphery of their vision is something worth seeing, and so they look to get a better view. But when they look away, they never look back. Whether this is because they determined I was attractive or repulsive is something that I toss around in my mind nearly every time it happens, and I think it will remain unresolved for the rest of my life, or at least until I'm engaged, when I won't care about what people in public think about me, and when I'll have no doubt what my beloved thinks of me.

So there you have it. Single takes are when someone sees you out of the corner of their eye and feels compelled to turn their head to get a better look at you. 

~~~~~~~~~

Pardon me if this entry comes off as self-indulgent! That's not my intention at all. I simply figured that, since the purpose of this blog is to give insights into what your early-20-something male thinks about, that would naturally include mundane thoughts about women, romance and flirting, since these are things that I actually do think about. Now, I won't toot my own horn, because I recognize the pervasive nature of pride, but for the benefit of my readers, it might help you to know that I'm moderately attractive. (I know this empirically, having been told by a number of females in my age group.) This makes life more interesting and confusing for me, in my opinion, than it would if I was hideously repulsive or outrageously handsome, since there would be less confusion about what girls who make various facial gestures while looking at me might be thinking about. In fact, that's a great topic for another entry.

For older readers, this might be boring and I understand if you skip posts where I spill my naive musings about relationships. But I figured I would post it, all the same, for people to choose to read what interests them.


~ Rak Chazak

Persecution Timeline Update

This is a little bit late, and I've got encroaching assignments I need to get started on, so I'll keep my commentary minimal.

There's good news and bad news:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/gays-attack-19-kids-and-counting-show-star/
http://mynorthwest.com/646/2232101/No-fine-for-Oregon-baker-who-refused-service-to-gay-couple

At the first link, we find that the eldest son of the famous Duggars, Josh, has applied to the Family Research Council to work within "FRC Action, the organization's lobbying arm."

What's the news? Oh, just that GLAAD, a homosexual activist organization, has made intimidating (threatening?) remarks toward TLC, the cable channel network on which the Duggars' reality show is hosted.

“We also demand that TLC refrain from giving a platform to FRC’s hate speech. GLAAD is watching, and we will be prepared to take action.”

So that's bad news.

The second link follows up on a similar situation, where a small business-owner of a cupcake company in Gresham, Oregon, Sweet Cakes by Melissa (not to be confused with "Melissa's Sweet Cakes," a different business), recently received a massive amount of publicity when a couple of homosexual-activist facebook pages popped up to promote a public protest of the company, after a report that the owners had denied service to a homosexual couple who ordered a cake for their wedding. The refusal was on Biblical grounds, and the owners made clear that they did not refuse service to homosexual customers, but they would not promote homosexual marriage.

A firestorm ensued. Most of the large left-leaning websites like Salon and Huffington Post carried the story and within a short amount of time, there was both a massive outpouring of support for the business-owners and a slew of online mobbing -- Yelp is apparently a website where you can write reviews for businesses (I don't know much about that, not owning one), and after this notoriety, their business went from having about a dozen or so to having over 300 reviews, most extremely negative. 

Business skyrocketed, and they couldn't keep up with the orders made by conservative supporters who made cross-country orders after getting the news through social media. Now it appears that their business may have evaded punishment by legal authorities, although the underlying issue is unresolved. From the second link:

"The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 expressly prohibits businesses from discriminating against customers on the basis of their sexual orientation."

However, "We do not have a complaint filed against Sweet Cakes by Melissa so there's not an investigation into the issue," says Charlie Burr, a bureau spokesman.

This is good news, because it means that they won't be hounded any longer...for now.

But this is worrisome all the same, because it means they got off on a technicality.

This reminds me of a separate case that was "resolved" earlier last year, when Lars Hedegaard, a public Danish personality, was acquitted of the charge of hate speech for making a criticism -- a factual claim borne out by statistics, nevertheless -- of Islam that was later leaked. 

He wasn't acquitted because he wasn't guilty of hate speech under Danish law. Oh, no. He was acquitted because it was proven that he didn't intend for his remarks to become public. So the law still stands, and it's officially illegal to criticize Islam in Denmark lest you be brought up on charges of hate speech, fined and imprisoned. In Lars's case, it took a lengthy two-year court-battle just to result in his acquittal.

That information can be found here.

My closing thoughts:

That's what troubles me. Even though both of these latter two cases involve people getting away with free speech, it was largely by accident, and no victory has been won in the arena of civil rights when it comes to preserving the freedom of speech.

When you are left with having to consider "draws" as victories, you're not in a good position. What I fear is that all we're managing to do is to stall the encroachment against our freedoms, but we're not pushing back enough to do more than delay the inevitable.

Shall I say "fight harder?" Or shall I mope, feeling fatalistic, as if there's no use trying? I think everyone who thinks about these issues goes back and forth between both emotions. For now, I'll leave the question hanging in the air...

~ Rak Chazak

A Parable: History Channel Does a Reagan Documentary

Imagine that I'm a movie producer.

I really love president Ronald Reagan. I want to honor his contribution to American politics and to the world by filming a dramatic documentary featuring him. It's going to cover his personal life, his journey to the White House, the events of his presidency, and finally end with his death and funeral.

So I set about doing research so that I'll do my best job representing Reagan as who he was. First, I need to consult historical experts. I decide to ask the governments of Russia and Iran for their historical analysis of his contributions. Furthermore, I interview Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, for their insight into the presidency. I go to other famous documentary filmmakers such as Michael Moore and Oliver Stone to see what I can learn from them. Naturally, I consult with Matt Damon, Ricky Gervais and George Clooney, whom I might consider inviting to play a key acting role in the film.

Now that I'm ready to film, I decide that the best location would be Johannesburg, South Africa. I film exclusively there. While there, one of our crewmembers gets shot in the butt, since South Africa has the world's highest violent crime rate--2,000 per 100,000. We interpret this as a miraculous occasion, since Reagan was also shot by someone but survived.

While filming, we present Reagan as a transgendered Japanese orphan growing up in a cardboard-and-sheet-metal "house" in the slums outside the city. He was forced to become a member of an underground boxing ring to earn money to feed his family. One day he meets the King of France, Genghis Khan, who takes him back to Brazil in his rocket ship to be his personal servant. Reagan grows and learns to maneuver through Brazilian politics, and eventually becomes a successful leader of a drug cartel. This is how he eventually gets to America. Reagan then becomes elected to the White House, and while president, invades Russia and nukes Iran. Minor details, it's called artistic license. Get over it. Eventually Reagan leaves the white house and dies by getting shot by a Tea Party maniac wielding an AR-15 while he was attending a pro-Obama rally during the 2012 election campaign.

Wait, wait, wait, you say. You've got all the details wrong. This isn't the real Reagan. Sure, he was president of the US, but all the facts are wrong. Who he is, where he came from, what he did and why he did it. Everything is changed in your movie.

But my supporters respond by saying, well, shouldn't you be happy that at least someone had the nerve to do a documentary about Reagan in the first place? Think of all the people that could become Republicans as a result!


It's like that with History Channel's The Bible.  It's the Bible in name only, but all the details are wrong. Which Jesus do you follow? The one who came to "change the world," or the one who came to SAVE the world?

~ Rak Chazak

Woman Is Not the Adventure, Guys!

Here's a short blurb from a conversation I had with a girl on facebook recently. The background for it is a principle I encountered while reading the book Wild At Heart, by John Eldredge.

[Parenthesis: I don't remember much of the book, only a few take-aways in terms of themes that I interpreted from it. When I read it, I was in the beginning of my, let's say, Spiritual (meaning the Holy Spirit, not some vague mystical nonsense) reawakening, and was still in the process of learning key doctrines and becoming better skilled at discerning good theology. So I should note that there are a number of critiques of his book(s) out there, but my intent here is not to promote the book, but to exposit a theme, which is certainly Biblical, that I got out of it, and I'm merely attributing the source. If you choose to read it for yourself, do check out a number of book reviews, pray and exercise discernment.]

“Many boys make this mistake, to idolize the woman and treat HER as the adventure but this is a mistake. No girl wants, on the inside, for her relationship with another to be all about her. She knows herself and it gets boring when a guy treats you as a goddess. Women want a relationship to be about something more than just them; they want an adventure to be taken ON. Woman is not the adventure. She is the partner to be taken on the adventure. In the rush to honor woman, many men mistakenly worship her, in effect. But no mere man is worthy of worship; it's not what we're made for. We're made to realize that there's something GREATER than us, and to pursue it. Making woman the object of your life pursuit is an easy fallacy to fall into and it leads to many aching relationships and frustrated women"

Falling for this mistaken view makes woman the GOAL in herself, which she is not. She has a purpose too, and it is not to be self-fulfilled. That’s the false gospel of hedonism that leads so many people to do destructive things these days. You find your fulfillment outside yourself. And the only true fulfillment is in Christ.

~Rak Chazak

Private Letter: Falling in and out of Love and the Transformative Power of the Holy Spirit

This is a recent email conversation that transpired between me and a young woman I know, who recently ended a long-term relationship. Removing her name, there's no personal information included in it, and my "treatise," if you will, may serve to be of interest to others, both guys and girls, who may have asked, or been toying with, the same question.

I'm not going to italicize this one, however, because that would remove the emphases on some parts, since I'd already italicized and bolded parts of the letter before I sent it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey [Hakam], I thought of a question I wanted to ask you.

Does God change our hearts so that we find certain people amiable, strongly dislike others, and fall in or out of love with someone?

Hi [friend],

There's a lot of different individual questions wrapped up in this big one, so I'll do my best to answer them all.

The Question of whether God changes our hearts.

Certainly (and I’m just taking this step by step, not dumbing it down to insult your intelligence. I just don’t want to miss anything). As believers, God has ‘taken out our heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh,’ and through the ongoing transformative power of the Holy Spirit (sanctification), does indeed change our desires. Specifically, our desires will change to more align with God’s desires—we’ll love the things God loves, and hate the things God hates. As we grow in the Spirit, we’ll find ourselves taking joy in such things as seeing God glorified by another Christian in some other part of the country, and we’ll find ourselves anguished by deception and murder, to the point where we might even feel physically ill contemplating such things as lies told in school, from the pulpit or from the press chamber, and much more besides that I won’t belabor here. Now, none of these are a prooftext, since you can’t fully trust your emotions, but sustained growth and change in one direction over time is a sign that serves to encourage us that we are developing the fruit of the Spirit. While the phrase “the heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it?” might technically only refer to unregenerate hearts (I haven’t studied this to be sure), I think it means that the heart in its natural state is susceptible to desiring things which are wicked. Left to itself, the heart will desire to sin. Believers can be “filled” with the Holy Spirit, or they can “grieve” the Holy Spirit, by resisting His influence, and I think in this latter case, you are more likely to fall into sin, because as believers we have two natures—that of sin, and that of the Spirit. We don’t actually lose our sin nature until we become glorified upon death/rapture—otherwise, it would be possible for us to be sinlessly perfect, and that’s certainly not true, when you survey the evidence! So to summarize my view on the heart, I think that we have two contrary natures, Spirit and flesh (I looked up the reference and it’s in Galatians 5 that Paul talks about it), which “war against each other,” and the one we give in to the most is the one that has the most influence; the one that controls us and directs our desires and our actions. To briefly recap the concept of being filled with the Spirit, I was given two parables to understand this. See, all believers have the Holy Spirit. He is in us at all times, but we can either be “filled” with Him, or not. And the first analogy is to consider chocolate syrup/powder in a glass of milk or water. When it’s settled in the bottom, it is not effecting the rest of the mixture. To make chocolate milk, you need to stir up the chocolate so it can fill the glass and spread its flavor evenly throughout, ‘taking control’ of the milk, if you will. The second analogy is that of a steady wind blowing on the ocean. If you are on a sailboat but have the sails furled up, you will drift and go nowhere in particular. To be driven by the wind, you need to let down your sails so that the wind can fill them, and allow you to move with purpose. Hopefully these two analogies have been helpful to you, too. In summary, God does change our hearts—at least believers (as far as speaking about guarantees, here), but out of His respect for our personal autonomy, He will rarely override our decision-making process, instead allowing us the freedom to submit to His influence or to suppress it by indulging in our heart’s natural (sinful) desires, so that by willingly allowing Him to rule our hearts, we may experience the difference between trying to do things our way vs His way, and thus He gradually cultivates an attitude in us over time whereby we want to give Him control, and freely submit it with the full knowledge that His way is better than ours.

     TL;DR God changes our hearts, but we have the ability to suppress the effect by indulging in sin. The choice is ours, and the effects will vary.

The Question of whether liking or disliking people is okay.

      I see no inherent reason why having affinity for (liking) someone or aversion to (disliking) someone else would be wrong. Now, following Jesus’ teachings about how it’s the thoughts and intents of our hearts that matter, it ultimately comes down to a question of whether you have the right motivations. Sometimes it’s unclear why you like someone; you just do. But it’s typically easier to determine what your reasons are for disliking someone – we naturally rationalize our behavior so that we can justify that we are in the right and they are in the wrong. Nothing’s wrong with that as long as we’re actually in the right. So the important thing is to carefully analyze your motivations, introspect, and determine whether what you actually feel, and why, is in fact what you’re telling yourself that you feel, and why. As for liking someone, having a “good reason” is less pressing, because there is no restriction on kindness, gentleness, compassion, etc. Only things that can be abused are restricted. Hence the fact that slavery, for example, is restricted heavily in the OT strongly implies that it’s not inherently good. But love is inherently good (most people fail to understand what love is, sadly), and so it is not restricted. We are encouraged – no, commanded – to love everyone, without limit, without regard for who they are or what they’ve done. This is agape love, though, mind you. Not romantic (eros) or sentimental (philias) or familial (storge) love. Greek is a lot more nuanced than English. So the analysis necessary is not so much to question your motivations for liking someone, so much as the importance is to verify that it is in fact a pure desire you have toward them, and not a selfish one, for example. I’m being a bit technical, here. You might say that, well, if you like someone because you think you can get some satisfaction from them but don’t actually regard their person highly, then you like them for the wrong reasons. I’d agree if we’re talking on “normal language”-level English, but on a philosophical level, I’ll rebut that such a desire toward a person is not authentic ‘like.’ And so it wasn’t the motivation that was the problem, it’s that the desire was the wrong desire in the first place. But on a pragmatic level, the effects are essentially the same, so I’m pretty much splitting hairs, here. Just offering something for you to think about. (If I haven’t made it too complicated).

The Question of whether God makes you like or dislike people.

       I suppose He can, if what you’re asking is whether God will perform “divine intervention” and flip a switch that makes you irresistibly drawn toward a person – or irrevocably turned off. To what extent He involves Himself in human affairs in this way is impossible to ascertain, since we’re given no actual examples (that I’m aware of), in the Bible, of God micro-managing the human heart in terms of loving another person. On the other hand, there are numerous insights into occasions where God either hardens an evil man’s heart, or softens the heart of someone so that they may freely accept salvation, unhindered by their natural sinful tendency to rebel and refuse God. There is a case of one of the minor prophets being told to marry a prostitute, that his experience of her waywardness would cause him to emotionally identify with God’s grief over Israel’s repeated dives into idolatry, that this would infuse his ministry with a personal desperation. However, it seems that this was more of a simple divine command, rather than a Greek-mythos-esque scenario where he was made to fall in love by a divine act. From what I can tell, the Bible is silent on whether God ‘destines’ humans for each other by making them desire one another. On some level He must, obviously, since whatever actually happens in reality is what God sovereignly willed to happen, but this is not very informative to us, since His sovereign will incorporates human “free will” (better termed autonomy, or personal responsibility/choice) into its consideration. And on another note, there’s evidence that love is not necessarily something that is expected in marriage to come naturally, or to come before the union. I just checked Ephesians 5 in the interlinear and it is the word “agape” that is used when it says, “husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church” (http://biblos.com/ephesians/5-25.htm ), which is fascinating. I had guessed that this was intimate love, but it makes more sense that agape would be commanded, since you can’t force yourself to have romantic love for someone. Agape, on the other hand, transcends feelings and manifests itself as a pure intention of the conscious mind, a continual attitude of the heart toward seeking the best interest and welfare of the object of that love. From my readings on the subject of romantic relationships as hinted at in the Bible, (and see the other email I sent earlier today), it seems that romantic love, far from being a prerequisite for marriage, is instead something that is expected to naturally blossom out of the commitment that the two partners have with/for each other. This is flowing into the next point,

The Question of ‘falling in love.’

       Summarizing what I’ve already said, since I’ve essentially answered this topic already, it seems that love is not merely a feeling, in the Bible. It seems to be a desire, but this also seems to be separate from what we today consider to be emotions. Far from being a fleeting affection, love is a sustained urge that persists even when you strongly dislike the target of your love. Again, this is agape, what one might consider ‘divine love,’ or ‘perfect love,’ or ‘ideal love.’ You can’t manufacture affection, be it romantic, or a sort of friendship (philias), or the sort of love that is fostered between close family relationships, such as parent and child. And it’s not implied that agape can be, or should be attempted to be, manufactured, either. However, you can express agape toward someone without feeling anything particularly positive toward them, in the way of feelings/emotions. That’s why God can command men to love their wives, because this command holds whether the man is feeling extremely ‘in love’ with his wife, or if he is distant, or even if there is strife between them. Love is not optional in marriage. It does not depend on your feelings. Here’s the key: rather than being a creation of your feelings, true love is the foundation for all of those feelings. The attitude of agape and the act of loving the other person comes first, and the ‘feel-good’ affections normally associated with the term “love” in our culture, comes afterwards. Agape cultivates what we normally consider ‘love,’ it is not caused by it, nor dependent on it for its continued existence or expression.

As a final note, don’t feel guilty if you find that you don’t like a particular person who is Christian. This is not necessarily a sin on your part (make sure to self-analyze). After all, even Christians are sinners, in that we have a sin nature, and so we still do things that are, let’s just say ‘not good.’ We are still rotten on the inside, in part. Each of us in different ways. The challenge is to – while not minimizing or enabling sin, if that’s the issue – continue to love our Christian brethren even when they let us down (as they inevitably will, even those we like very much—it’s good to constantly remind oneself of that), and to not let our faith in God be shaken because of the actions of His Children – because we all are hypocrites, who make God look bad. This should come as no surprise, and it should be even more evident to those within the Faith than those without, since we have a window into the lives of other believers (especially if we’ve chosen to confess sins to one another) that lets us see the dark reality. What we must remember is that this is (one of the things that) what makes God so glorious – that He condescends to save wretched little sinners, and use people who are inherently broken inside, to accomplish His goals. When we inevitably fail – when other Christians inevitably hurt us and cause us pain – that’s a reminder of how loving God is, that He would save us anyway. So the fact that we might dislike some Christians is a bittersweet reality – we shouldn’t be surprised by it, and we should be careful that it doesn’t lead us to cause division in the Church if our differences are not theologically significant. Higher than our own personal vindication is the goal of the vindication of the Gospel, and we will be allied with many people who at some point or other have—or will—bring us grief or harm, as we serve a higher purpose than our interpersonal conflicts. It hurts. I can sympathize with this pain, because I’ve been hurt by Christians, too. What the hurt should do for us is to remind us that this world is not perfect, but that perfection is coming. One day we’ll live in a new universe where there is no opportunity for us to be hurt or to hurt other believers. Our strifes will seem as nothing by comparison. So I encourage you to soldier on. Sometimes we take friendly fire. Sometimes we dole it out. But it will all work out in the end. “God works all things (incl. bad things) together for the good of those that love Him.” Far from meaning that everything that happens to us will be good, it means that all the bad things and good things will ultimately result in something much greater than what our limited perspective allows us to see.

Even as I write this, I am a hypocrite. Because days have come, and days will come, when I won’t take my own advice. I’ll disregard something of what I’ve said in the above, and be bitter. The hope I have is that God will not let me continue in my sinful refusal to practically apply what I know to be true, and will lift me out of my depressions quicker each time, and equip me to carry on the cause of Christ. My personal failings do offer me one thing for certain, and that’s the ability to reflect on what I’ve done wrong and gain insight so that I can give advice to other Christians facing the same or similar situations. Sometimes all we need is for someone else to tell us what we should do or how we should think. Why we don’t trust our own advice or knowledge when we feel bad is a mystery to me, but it’s an experience I know well. That’s why I’m not hesitant to give you my advice. It’s not that I know much more than you or that I’m farther along in my Spiritual growth than you; this is not patronization in the least, but a willing attempt to serve by giving you everything I know and hoping that God will use it to bless you. He can accomplish this despite the fact that the message is coming via one who is much less perfect than the message implies. 

~ Rak Chazak

Journal Entry: Dialogue With a Muslim Girl

This is a Journal entry from earlier this month. I ran into an old acquaintance I hadn't seen for a while, and debated theology with her. Just the privilege of being able to witness was an enjoyment. Here's what transpired:

Friday, March 8th 

      After dinner, I discussed with [an acquaintance who is a muslim woman]. I did my best to present core aspects of the Gospel in a way that she would understand. She agreed with me that sin merited eternal punishment. I managed to explain to her so that it apparently made sense that God could not merely forgive such sin, or He would be unjust. But she then said that muslims could go to hell temporarily, say for 5000 years, to be punished for their sin – I pointed out the contradiction but she responded that her view was that Allah would forgive the muslims, and thus their sins would only merit a temporary punishment, whereas unbelievers and hypocrites (those trying to take advantage of believing in order to have a license to sin – basically the corollary to Christianity’s concept of false converts) would still be punished for eternity. I tried to express to her that whether you believe or not doesn’t affect the severity of one’s sin, because the punishment is based on God’s holiness, not on whether someone believes. We covered this point more than once or twice. 

I hope something I said sticks with her, because this was one of the “sticking points,” where if she could just follow my logic, it would lead to a significant change in viewpoint by necessity.  There were a few other points like this. 

One interesting thing was that she made several references to what I perceived to be indicative of the concept of an intercessor. She believes that muslim believers, or Muhammad himself, can save others by their faith or forgiveness. I pointed out that the concept of an intercessor is Biblical, but that only a perfect person could be an intercessor, since anyone else is sinful and needs an intercessor themselves. I hope this also planted a seed. She followed me to that point but was unwilling to accept the conclusion I draw from it. A final thing she said, that I remember (we said many things, but these are the ones I am most pleased with myself for how I responded to them), was more of an aside than a main point – she said that if we forgive others, Allah will be forgiving toward us. Remembering the clip from the bonus video episode of Wretched on the DVD “The Biggest Question” that I had acquired and watched, I pointed out that this makes a mere dispenser out of God. It is not the case that God is unwilling to give us things, insisting that we do good before He rewards us. No, we can’t bribe God. Instead, God is willing to and continually lavishes good on us even though we don’t deserve it. This is the essence of Christianity. And I hope that my correction of her gave her something to think about.

She was flatly unwilling to believe anything I said and is very opposed to even considering Christianity (her major stumbling blocks were that she thinks God cannot die, and that in Islam, the greatest—and only unforgivable—sin is the joining of partners with Allah . That’s a reference to the Trinity. One of the fundamental truths about God—His identity as three persons in one being—is made the gravest sin in Islam. This is why it’s very hard for muslims to accept Christianity). Oh, and a last thing I remember – I didn’t answer this one fantastically well, but anyway – she brought up the fact that Islam teaches that Jesus wasn’t sacrificed on the Cross. There was a mistake. The Romans got the wrong guy. This is ridiculous. But even more, this attributes a colossal blunder to Allah—that the biggest (false, according to muslims) religion in the world, with billions of followers, was directly caused by Allah because of his deception. To rationalize why Allah would do this, she tried saying that Allah could do this because life is a test (she asked me what the meaning of life was in Christianity: I said ‘to glorify God,’ she said: to pass the test of faith to prove yourselves worthy to Allah), so apparently Allah tricking people is just to make sure they can pass some sort of a test. I don’t need to explain why Biblically that’s horrendous, but I didn’t do much better than say that that was a ridiculous thing (the mix-up at the Cross) in person. Though I did try to protest at the idea that Allah would deceive people, and attempted to shake her faith by mentioning that Allah directly fumbled into creation the greatest false religion in the world. I’ve already told you her answer to that. 

And with that, I think I’ve managed to master a concise report of our theological discussion. As I said, she was very unwilling to accept anything I said, though I hope she saw the logic in it. And maybe down the road, God will maneuver something in her circumstances so that it ‘clicks.’ I gave my customary farewell, saying I might see her around, and she should email, but she said she didn’t want to, and would only meet me by chance but not by design. Then she left with a comment “don’t bash my muslims,” and I said I don’t – maybe I should’ve not spoken, because she presumably would think that I was lying, there, because she clearly already believes I’m a “muslim-basher,” so that might have unintentionally hurt my witness. 

All in all, I’m pleased with the conversation. Her lack of faith is not in itself discouraging. She actually engages in dialogue. This is a far cry from the context that would require “shaking the dust off one’s feet,” because she’s not utterly rejecting your preaching. She’s willing to listen, but not to accept. But what unbeliever is? Mere unbelief is not something that should discourage witnessing. In contrast to the behavior of people on the [university's online discussion board], her interaction with me, despite her apparent dislike and aversion to seeing me if she can help it, is a breath of fresh air.

     That was my night. And I feel good.

~ Rak Chazak 

Thought for the Day: Giving the Wrong Reason for Doing the Right Thing

This is taken from my private Journal. When I post excerpts online, I'll change minor details to protect the privacy of individuals, and perhaps myself, but otherwise, it'll be raw, showing the same thought process I use when I think to myself.

I realized something, that happened on Thursday, that I didn't quite do right. A girl in my biology class asked if I would take her clicker to class on Friday for Physics. (for the uninitiated, clickers are remote devices assigned to each student that are used to answer multiple choice questions in a lecture hall setting; our responses are used to grade us for attendance and accuracy)

I made a dismissive comment about how chances are high I would sleep in, and it was probably best for her to ask someone else. That was the wrong answer. The right motivation—it’s cheating—but I gave the wrong justification. I didn't say that I wouldn't do it because it was cheating. I thought about this afterwards and realized this was a subtle way in which I don’t often glorify God the way I should. When people have tempted me with sin, I've made various excuses first, which usually serves to make them disinterested, and so I never get to say that it’s wrong because it violates God’s law, because I bore them so they don’t bother to press me on the issue. 

The problem is, even though I eventually would give the right answer, I give the wrong answer first. This would make no sense in any sort of examination. Why would you give the wrong answer as your first choice? Or the answer you think is least likely to be correct? Or the weakest reasoning rather than the strongest? I don’t know if this is something necessarily sinful, though on some level I suppose it must be. I’m ultimately acting in a way that’s no different than the way someone acts if they’re ashamed of the Gospel, and don’t want to be embarrassed by having to stand up for God… this has made me rethink my methods. At the risk of being awkward, I should seek to give the right answer at the beginning, in the future. At the very least, I should say “no, it’s wrong,” and if asked why, explain that it’s against God. No excuses about why it wouldn't work, without making mention of the fact that it’s wrong. 

This is a “small” example, but the principle applies in a broad manner to every thing. God should be foremost in my thinking, and not a ‘back-up’ reply when I’m cornered. He’s more important than that. He’s not merely the metaphorical cane that helps me walk, but the very ground on which I walk. Without standing on Him, I am in free fall. So I resolve, then, to not beat around the bush but to be bold the next time someone tempts me to sin, and say, at the very least, that no, that would be wrong. I want to be a good witness, after all, and this is a simple, everyday way that I can honor God.

And you can too. I hope this has been insightful. Much more material like this to come!

~ Rak Chazak

The Wretched Podcast

Once or twice weekly, I open up my computer and go to hit up my favorite websites to see what's been added in the past several days. One of these websites happens to be Wretched Radio, hosted by Todd Friel, a guy who used to be a pastor, discovered he was a false convert, and now is a true convert who spends his time combating various heresies through the medium of the air waves. Being an unemployed almost-grad, I don't have the privilege to watch his show on t.v. or to subscribe online, but that's okay, because there are free goodies to be found there anyway.

Specifically, the 15-minute excerpt of the 2-hour daily radio show is something I've made a habit of watching. Here's the link to this Tuesday's episode: 

The Wretched Segment of the Day -- March 12, 2013

Now I'm going to proceed to give my two main thoughts on this episode.

1. They start out by mocking (a valid method of correction if done right) what I guess could be labeled as "mainstream Christian pop," by playing sections of the lyrics of popular songs that don't hold up to theological scrutiny. I recognized one of them from my own music album, so this hit home a bit for myself as well.

I didn't recognize all the songs, though "we say yes lord, yes lord, yes yes lord" were the lyrics on one, "I am a friend of God (x3), He calls me friend" was another, and then there was the disturbingly-too-much-like-a-romance-song "I love the way you hold me, whoa oh oh oh oh oh" that I heard on the radio a year or so ago. Catchy tunes, no doubt. But they hardly compare to these examples:

"Because the sinless Savior died, my sinful soul is counted free; for God the Just is satisfied to look on Him and pardon me" -- The old worship hymn, Before the Throne of God Above

"I will not boast in any thing, not gifts nor power nor wisdom; but I will boast in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection." -- The hymn How Deep the Father's Love for Us

Notice a difference in terms of the theological 'meatiness' of the lyrics? Mmh hmm.

Mockery is supposed to be embarrassing when you realize that you or something you like is being mocked. That's how it motivates you to change your behavior if you're in the wrong. Assuming, of course, that the mockery is given in love and not intended to hurt more than your feelings. And I think Todd's mockery of these songs is well-intentioned, and effective.

That's why it was awkward for me to again notice that another one of the songs he mocked was the Newsboys rendition of "God's Not dead." Consider the lyrics: 

"My God's not dead He's surely alive
He's living on the inside
Roaring like a lion
He's roaring, roaring
Roaring like a lion (2x)"

Catchy tune, and it gets you pumped to blast it through your car speakers, but it doesn't have a solid theological message. At best, its message is emotional. So I acknowledge Todd's criticism, but I'll keep this one song in my album, and here's why:

I don't think Todd is saying that this music is evil or should not be listened to. I believe the concern is that when songs with watered-down lyrics like these make up the vast majority of music played over the radio, and when there are comparatively very few songs that exposit a Biblical truth, then those who are listening to this music are not being fed with good "soul food," if you will. They're getting candy for three meals a day and no vegetables. It can sure taste sweet to your ears to hear MercyMe sing "you're beautiful" to the tune of delightful guitar music, but if all you hear is about you and not about God, over time you'll develop a jaded impression. MercyMe's other song, "All of Creation" does more to exposit the change in the relationship we have with the Father because of the Cross. I have both in my music library. Some music just sounds good, and you're allowed to get your "fix" every once in a while. But our evaluation of whether Christian music is good Christian music should not be based on how it sounds, but on what it says. I think this is Todd's big push.

I happen to have a lot of "theologically meaty" songs in my collection, and hence I haven't been negatively affected by vague lyrics. It's a matter of balance, I believe. You can listen to "Draw Me Close To You" by Nicole Nordeman, which is a wonderful song and helps to emphasize that God should be all we want, and nothing else, but make sure to complement it with a song like "Children of God" by Third Day. Just like with real food, you've got to eat a balanced and healthy meal or you'll get sick to your stomach.

So ask yourself, is most of what I listen to wishy washy emotional music? Or do I listen to enough  solidly theological music ("Manifesto" by City Harmonic, for example) that I can listen to the other stuff without also washing down my own personal theology? 

As a general rule, consider: if a song can be sung by a muslim, mormon, catholic, Jew and jehovah's witness, as well as an 'Evangelical Christian,' then that music is not Christian music. It's far too vague to qualify. That doesn't mean Christians can't listen to it. But it's nothing special on its own.

I might suggest, too, that the more good theology you listen to, the less pleasant the wishy-washy stuff will become to you. I've found myself weighing the theological merits of a song before downloading it, more and more, recently. So I think Todd has a point. Surround yourself with "the good stuff" and it will improve your spiritual life.

If you want me to suggest further theologically sound music, beyond the tracks I've made mention of above, you can contact me through my email (or leave a comment below) and I'll be glad to offer you more suggestions if you want to spiff up your Christian music album.



2. Penn Jilette, in correcting Piers Morgan on what Catholics believe, gives glory to God

Towards the end of the Wretched podcast, Todd plays a clip of Penn Jilette, a famous atheist, on Piers Morgan's talk show. Piers is apparently Catholic (who knew?), but he questions many of the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Penn Jilette corrects him by pointing out that true Catholics have to believe everything the Pope says, because that is an article of the Catholic faith. Since Morgan wanted to question the Pope, Jilette pointed out to him that that was what Martin Luther started, when he said that he believed everyone had the right and ability to interpret the Bible themselves.

This reminds me of what Paul the apostle wrote in Philippians 1:

"¹⁵ Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: ¹⁶ The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; ¹⁷ but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. ¹⁸ What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."

I think we can rejoice that God saw fit to use a kindly atheist to correct a lapsed Roman Catholic and to point the entire viewing audience (in the hundreds of thousands?) to the fact that it is Protestant Christianity that asserts that everyone has the freedom to read the Bible on their own, to seek after truth.

There are many who are caught up in the false religious system of Roman Catholicism, which teaches many things that are contrary to the Bible. The fact that this exchange between Piers and Penn may give occasion for some Roman Catholics to question their supposed faith, and to read the Bible for themselves, is a cause for us all to rejoice.

~ Rak Chazak

In Lieu of Church, Online Sermons

Hello, Internet,

One of the things I've learned through my theological studies is the importance of being a member of a church. Here are the main reasons why we should 'go to church.'

Being joined together with other believers is important because:
1. It allows you to encourage one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11)
2. It allows you to build each other up (1 Thessalonians 5:11)
3. You can 'stir one another up to love' (Hebrews 10:24)
4. You can 'stir one another up to good works' (Hebrews 10:24)
5. For accountability, so that you do not fall into sin (Hebrews 3:13)
6. To serve each other (Galatians 5:13)
7. To instruct one another (Romans 15:14)

There are possibly other good reasons. I'm not making an exhaustive list.

Incidentally, Hebrews 10:25 directly states that we should "not neglect to meet together." So we should seek to be together with other believers when we can. Under what circumstances, then, is failure to do so excusable?

Here's what I think, since the Bible doesn't specifically itemize a list of reasons why you should 'skip church.' (Mainly because 'church' in the sense of a building we go to once a week was not a concept that the New Testament believers would have understood. 'Church' is essentially this: fellowship with other believers). I think that if you are prevented from going, you have a legitimate excuse for not attending. But are you seeking to participate in the purpose that church exists for? Namely, fellowship with other believers, coordinating with them to do good works, and to instruct each other through Bible study and to have interpersonal accountability. If you're avoiding going to church because you don't want to do this, then you're avoiding it for the wrong reasons. 

Personally, I have been unable to find a convenient church to attend regularly nearby, since I've been living on campus at my university over the past 4 years. But I didn't resist out of pure laziness. Instead, I am seeking to have accountability by making sure that I'm spending time with other believers. We've managed to get a small group together on my campus, of other Bible-believing Christians that I've met over the past few years, and our intent is to fulfill the purposes detailed in the list above. And in the mean time, while I have not been attending church, I have done much Bible study on line, typically by searching a passage and researching its meaning. The websites GotQuestions, Bible.cc, BibleGateway, and BlueLetterBible are very useful in different ways: The first, in investigating theological concepts; the second, in looking up commentary on verses, and on finding out the Strong's # of certain words; the third, in looking up Bible passages online if you don't have access to a paper Bible; and the fourth, in using the Strong's # to find the definition of the original Greek or Hebrew word, and the contexts in which the word is used elsewhere in Scripture. These are fantastic study tools and can help you perform private Bible study if you are unable to attend a church.

And lastly, in lieu of hearing a sermon at a church, I've managed to find sermons on youtube and elsewhere, which allow me to hear Biblical instruction from a pastor, even if I can't physically be present.

Here is one of the youtube sermons I listened to today. It is Voddie Baucham preaching on the topic "What is the Gospel?" I hope it blesses you as it did me.

~ Rak Chazak

Why Start Blogging My Personal Thoughts?

Hello, Internet!

Blogging has taken off in the last decade. One of the most fundamental things that the Internet has introduced to our culture is the opportunity for individuals to have an impact on the whole world through the numerous other individuals who may stumble across their written words online. The Internet is a big place, but it's filled with many many people, and so the chances that something you write will affect others is not diminished by the fact that there are so many people out there whom you don't have the ability to reach directly. But if just one hundred, or one thousand, people have an interaction with you, they in turn have the freedom to interact with others in their own spheres. That gives every micro-blogger a great deal of influence, far more than is measured by the number of hits their website gets. If your message is strong, it will 'grow wings' and be carried on through word of mouth and keyboard, allowing you to do much more, for good or ill, than you can ever truly know while you remain here on earth.

Realizing this, I want to add my voice to the many great voices out there who are impacting the global culture in the name of Jesus Christ. I've benefited much from reading, and I think it's time for me to turn and do likewise. What I finally realized is that by entering into this field, I am not competing with other Christian websites. I am increasing the total number of Christian websites, thus saturating the Internet and the search engines with such sites, so that there will be a higher likelihood that people will encounter a Christian site that will point them to the Gospel and salvation in and through Jesus Christ. What better thing is there to do with my spare time? There is none. This is the greatest purpose of every believer -- to perpetuate the message and reflect God's glory to the whole world, that the more may hear the words of life.

In wondering what the theme of my blog should be, I found that I couldn't sustain making it solely a news source, or about a single topic. Instead, I realized I could write it from a single perspective--my own. I'm a 23-year-old man living on the East Coast of the United States, and I think that I can fill a niche by writing about life as I experience it, and lend my observations to world events. If someone out there is surfing the Internet and wondering what a young man thinks, I want to provide the answer. It is my hope that my writing will provide compelling reading, and hopefully go beyond merely being about me and be about the things that really matter, that it may bless those who read this blog.

I'll be writing this in the same matter as a personal Journal. Ideally it will be daily. I hope that your interest has been piqued and that you'll stick around to see what can be accomplished here.

~ Rak Chazak