Orthodoxy vs. "It's Biblical!"

I really hate when people use “X is biblical”, during a debate. X is usually some long held belief, first said by some long ago dead dude, and espoused by a bunch of other long ago dead dudes. It seems to be the get out of debate free card.

“This debate has taken a turn for the worse. I don’t know how to respond to this criticism. What should I do? Oh I know…”

“Excuse me sir, but my long held belief that we are debating is Biblical! You can’t argue against Scripture! Check and mate!”

Do you know how annoying that is? Very. And you want to know something embarrassing? I have used that tactic in the past. I think that makes it even more hated in my book.

Anyway, this post is going to be about the difference between a belief being biblical, and a belief being orthodox.

First, however, some definitions:

• Biblical: of, relating to, or being in accord with the Bible
• Orthodox: from the Greek meaning “right belief”. (For the purpose of this post, I will switch between the term Orthodox and the phrase right belief)
  
  For the purpose of this post, Orthodox is not to be considered in relation to Eastern Orthodoxy, unless specified by the phrase "Eastern Orthodox". I realize I capitalize Orthodox quite a bit. I am too lazy to change it now. At the same time, I don't want any confusion.

All Orthodox beliefs are biblical, but not all beliefs classified as biblical are Orthodox. Most heresies (deviation from Orthodox belief) are biblical, but no heresy is Orthodox. In other words, one who has a heretical belief can find passages of scripture to back up their viewpoint. For example, I could string together a few verses to back up varying Gnostic beliefs. Maybe one has a view that the Jesus is different from Yahweh. We can look at some OT Scriptures point to Yahweh as being an evil god, while using the NT Scriptures to point to Jesus being a good god. This is a heresy, but one can twist Scripture (that is, cherry pick) to make their point.

One could also look at the religions of Mormonism, Islam, and Jehovah’s Witness (abbreviated to JW). Mormons and JWs are loosely Christian. In other words, they have some common elements to Orthodox Christianity. But most Christians would not recognize their beliefs as being right. Yet, the Mormon or JW will use various Scriptures from the Bible to back their beliefs. They have biblical beliefs, but not right beliefs. I have also seen a many dā‘ī (Muslim Missionary) use Christian Scripture to make a case for their beliefs (claiming that the Paraclete, or Helper, was Mohammed, for example). Certainly, not many Christians would say that a Muslim has the right belief. That would be completely contrary to the basis of Christianity. Yet, the Muslim can and will use the Bible to back up claims made by the Quran or Hadith.

Even within accepted Christian circles one will see opposing sides use the biblical card. Both the Arminian and the Calvinist, for example, use Scripture to back their beliefs. Are they both right? Can atonement be both universal and limited? Can Grace be prevenient, free, AND irresistible?

The Catholic, the Protestant, and the Eastern Orthodox can point to scripture to back up varying beliefs on a subject. Who is right? All have some sort of biblical viewpoint. Can the Eucharist be symbolic of Christ, and yet be the real blood and body of Christ? Is it both right and wrong to baptize infants? Of course not. Yet, all three dominant branches of Christian have biblical verses to back these views, along with many more.

What about the Pentecostal and Cessationalist? The Charismatic uses the Bible to support their view of the rather free usage of spiritual gifts, and the other uses the Bible to support the view that gifts have essentially ceased. Both have biblical support, but which is right?

Just because one’s view is claimed to be biblical does not make it a right belief.

What, then, does make a belief Orthodox? Well, that certainly is up for a lot of debate, I suppose. If we were to place an Eastern Orthodox, a Roman Catholic, and a Protestant in a room and ask this question, I am sure we would have 3 different answers. I certainly won’t claim to know more than the millions of priests, bishops, and theologians that have tried answering this question. Of course, that won’t prevent me from offering my opinion. This is my blog, after all. J

Before I give my opinion, I want to give a little background to how my opinion shaped. It is no secret to my friends that I have long had dissatisfaction with many Reformed beliefs. On the other hand, there are some that I feel are very reasonable and correct. That led to me consider varying Protestant doctrines. I was most familiar American Protestant traditions, such as Free Will Baptist, Church of Christ, and Assemblies of God.

So, I began to look at other Protestant churches, such as Lutheran and Anglican.

Again, I felt that some things were missing from these churches, so I moved on the Eastern Orthodoxy. There was, again, some things that I felt were right, and others that seemed wrong. Rinse and repeat with Roman Catholicism.

So where did this lead me? Well, it made me begin to read Church history a lot more, as well as the writings of the early Church fathers (ECF). I haven’t read all of the ECF’s writings, as I wanted to keep with the earliest of them (the first 200 years or so), but I’ve read enough to begin to form a strategy for qualifying beliefs as Orthodox.

Below, I will outline the strategy that I have developed. It is a little lengthy, so I suggest taking a break before continuing on.

Done with your break? Good. Let's continue.

First, the belief must be in Scripture.  I think that most Christians would agree that the Bible is indeed where we can find doctrine. But, as shown in the examples above, it is not enough to simply say that finding support in Scripture makes a belief right. If we stop at this step, we can make up any set of doctrine and claim it to be right because it is in the Bible. On the other hand, if the belief is found nowhere in Scripture, it can be automatically dismissed. If we are able to determine there is indeed Scriptural basis, we’ll need move on to the next step, which ties in right along with Scripture.

Second, context matters. The saying goes something like “context is king”. Believe it or not, context can make or break a belief. For example, let’s say a conservative Baptist church believes that women should be silent during service. They are not allowed to pray out loud, sing, preach, or even give announcements. This belief seems valid because there is scripture that says “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says” (1 Cor 14:34). Boom goes the dynamite. That verse proves that women should shut up in Church! How can you argue with me? It is biblical.

Well hold on cowboy, let’s look at the context of this verse. Now, this is not a cop out. Seriously. You really need to examine context. I don’t know if there is a right method to looking at context, but here are some tips:

• Are there any verses or passages that would seem to indicate the opposite of what I think a verse says?
• What do the verses around this verse say? Do they hold up my belief 100%?
• What is the theme of the chapter? Does it jive with my belief?
• Who was the author of this passage? Do they have other writings that line up with this belief?
• What was the situation for which the scripture was written?
• Who is the audience?
• What is the time period?
• What does the original language indicate?
• What is the style of writing?

For aforementioned belief, if I use context, I can put quite a bit of doubt into my belief by doing a little research. For starters, I know that this passage is attributed to Paul. He wrote a letter to a specific church  located in the city of Corinth. This specific church came with specific issues. One of these issues was that there were some scandalous women in this church that caused a lot of problems. From this, I might start imagining that he was specifically talking about these women.

Let's dig a little deeper.

 I also know that there are other writings from Paul that indicate there were women active in the early Church as deaconesses, among other things.  Further, I can find only one other passage from Paul that says that women need to be silent. In that verse, he is speaking to his protege about best practices in church leadership. And even then, he only states that he did not allow women to teach men.

If this were to be a right belief for all Churches and believers, I would imagine it would be included in all of his letters to the various churches. In fact, this doesn’t even come up again in his next letter to the Corinthians. That tells me that this verse was a solution to an issue with the particular church, for a particular period of time. Then the situation was handled, and didn’t need to be addressed again. The latter verse in 1st Timothy (women not permitted to teach) was not an absolute command, but seems to be a preference of one man. That hardly constitutes rigid Orthodox doctrine.

I would personally discredit the belief of the Baptist preacher after this step.  But for the purpose of this blog post, we will continue to go through my method.

So, if we are able to find support in scripture, and the belief stands up to contextual criticism, the next step would be to take a look at Tradition. This is a tricky one to deal with.  Before we continue, let me first clarify what I mean by tradition. I define tradition as the collective writings, beliefs, and actions of the early church. To avoid possible tainting, I try to limit tradition to the first 200 or 300 years of Christianity. Once we get to Nicene Council, the church becomes a little too cozy with the State for my liking. To avoid any possible corruption, I simply shy away from that post-Nicene period. That is not to say that Nicaea and beyond is corrupt. I do hold to the creeds, the canon, and most of the writings, after all. I just feel that the closer the tradition is to Jesus and the 12 Apostles, the less likely it is to have outside influences creeping in.

All of the being said, let’s get back to tradition and doctrine.

Do you remember how I said “All Orthodox beliefs are biblical, but not all beliefs classified as biblical are Orthodox”? Well, the same can be said of the relationship of orthodoxy and tradition. All orthodox beliefs can be found in Church tradition, but not all claimed tradition can be classified as orthodoxy/orthopraxy (right action).  In other word, if the belief is correct, one should be able to find it in the actions, writings, and beliefs of the earliest Christians.

Example time: Say there was an unknown, isolated tribe that converted to Christ after meeting St. Andrew. He teaches them the basics of the faith and then moves on to another tribe, only later to be martyred. This isolated tribe no longer has a connection to the early church and its leadership to teach it more practical matters.  So, let’s say they develop a tradition that mixes their former pagan beliefs and their new Christian beliefs. To celebrate the birth of Christ, they hold a ceremony where they kill a newborn child, to symbolize the pure atoning blood of Jesus. Imagine 1500 years later, this tribe is found by the outside world. They have this long standing tradition. Some of their holiest leaders have even written about the sacredness of this event. Would we consider this as right belief or action? Of course not! In fact, it wouldn’t even line up with Scripture!

Though that was a very extreme example, there are some seemingly harmless traditions that have no root in Scripture. This includes doctrines such as the ever Virginity of Mary. There is no scripture that says Mary was forever a Virgin (in fact, one even implies that she had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born).

It falls apart further when you examine historical context. The area that this belief took place was pagan, where there were many known virgin goddesses. We know that some of these beliefs mixed with Christianity sometime after the first few centuries of Christianity. It is not unreasonable to think that this was one of them.

Also, in terms of historicity, as a Jewish woman, Mary had a minor obligation to have sex with her husband. She could not withhold sex, else it would be grounds for divorce in some cases. Of course, a Catholic would retort that Mary was an extraordinary case. If that is true, then there should be some sort of proof for that claim.

Anyway, I said all of that to make a point. One needs to be careful with tradition. You cannot just take a tradition with no basis and try to use it to justify a belief.

Let’s look back to the example of our very conservative Baptist preacher that believes women should be silent in church. We already debunked it pretty thoroughly, but he wants to keep debating. He brings up Roman Catholic tradition of allowing only men to be Priests and Bishops. He wrongly interprets this as meaning that the Church has a history of women being silent. “Heck, even the Catholics got that one right”, he boasts. But, he didn’t do much studying. Well, it is time to school him on tradition. Remember, tradition is the collective writings, beliefs, and actions of the early church. If we look at writings of the ECFs (Polycarp, Clemente, Tertullian, etc), we’ll see automatically that there are women who are mentioned as having leading roles in the early church. Granted, none of them are considered priests or bishops. However, they do have roles which would indicate they spoke during the gathering of believers. This preacher doesn’t seem to have much to work on with his belief that women are to remain silent in service.

1. For most, it would seem that these three steps would be all you need to figure out if a belief is orthodox. However, there is one last step that I think is important. 

For the last step, I believe that one must go to the Holy Spirit for truth. As with tradition, this step has a great possibility for misuse and abuse. I have seen many people have really whacked beliefs because they were ‘led by the Spirit’.  The reason I list this as last is because of the potential for abuse. Anyone can claim the Holy Spirit gave them a special revelation. Remember, I said that almost all heresies are partially rooted in scripture. They are also partially rooted in this idea of “being led by the Spirit”.  Take Joseph Smith, for example. He claimed that he had a special revelation (although his was supposedly given by an angel). To back up this special revelation, he could cherry pick certain parts of the Bible to back him up. To further his claim, he created his own history, or tradition.

Many men and women who desire to fulfill their own beliefs will claim the Spirit led them to that point. How can we judge what the Spirit tells them? Are we God?  Well of course not. But God has told us to have a little judgment when it comes to these matters. If there it doesn’t pass the other three tests, why should I believe that your special revelation is anything other than a self -fulfilling fantasy aimed at fueling your pride?

Please don’t think I am diminishing the role of the Spirit in seeking out truth. May I die before do such an act! I simply wish to urge caution. Falsely attributing words or deeds to the Holy Spirit borders on being Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is the unforgivable sin.

I should also mention that the Holy Spirit is the bookends of Orthodoxy. He inspired the hands of men to write the Scriptures, and He guides us to truth in our time of prayer and contemplation. He is at the beginning of this process and at the end.

One last note on this subject: I cannot stress enough the importance of meeting with a person, or group of people who are in the same spirit of seeking truth. You can do this in a formal church, with family,   or with friends. I think one is less likely to fall for a false belief, if they are with other people who can go through these steps with them. After all, iron sharpens iron. If two or more people gather to discuss beliefs, and are united in the Holy Spirit, He will lead them to truth. It might be a long and dirty trip, but I believe He is faithful to this purpose.

I know I went into too much detail, like I normally do.  Whoops, I’m doing it again… Anyway, here is a brief recap of the steps.


1. Can the belief be backed up Scripture?

2. Does the belief stand up to contextual criticism?

•  Criticisms include: Verses that seem to oppose, context within the chapter and book, tone of the author, audience, history, situation, literary techniques, etc. 

3. Does it align with the tradition of the Early Church?

• Remember, not all traditions are equal. If there is no basis for a tradition, don’t consider it. 
• Also remember that it might be better to consider the earliest traditions, as to avoid possible outside influences or corruption

4. Does the Holy Spirit affirm this belief?

• Remember that revelations not in line with Scripture and tradition are subject to intense scrutiny. Our sinful nature will try to deceive us into accepting falsehoods as truth.
• It is strongly recommended that you seek community with others who are fellowship with you in the Holy Spirit. There will be times you will need to them to smack you around, and there are times that you need to smack them around. Do this in love, of course. J

I am open to criticisms of this technique. I always look for ways to make my methods and beliefs stronger. I want to be rooted in truth. I do not want to be one of those who simply use Scripture as a weapon to fight against others and defend my own biases. I want to use it as a detective’s kit to find out more about God’s will for my life, for my family, and for my culture.

Blessings,

Thomas

A walk down memory lane...

Years ago, there was a commercial by Pepperidge Farms, reminiscing about the old days. It was later mocked on the TV show Family Guy, just a few years ago. That animated version later turned into a popular meme, seen all across the interwebs. An example:




I was reading some old Christian writings earlier, when I came across a passage about the nature of Christians. I immediately thought of this meme. So in honor of that, I lead into the passage with this:

Remember when Christians were described in such a positive light?

Pepperidge Farm Remembers...

And now, the passage, from The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (c.130 CE):

The Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity.

The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life.

They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners.

Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers.

They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring.

They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh.

 They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven.

They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives.

They love all men, and are persecuted by all.

They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life.

They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified.

They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers.

When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

Just thought I would share this, because I loved reading it so much. Hopefully it gives you a little to think about. If people were to describe you as a Christian, would they use such language? Does your life stand out from the others? It  is so easy to be called a Christian, but it is infinitely harder to be Christ like. But, the difficult is what we are called to do!

Remember that the world is always watching. Are they going to see the selfish, prideful, and hypocritical behaviors that are attributed to modern Christians? Or are they going to see a life transformed by and surrendered to Christ?

Columbus sucks (and so do you).

We all know how terrible Mr Columbus, the Genoese sailor hired by the Spanish crown, was when he came to the Caribbean Islands. But do you know the people he encountered were also, at times, very terrible people?

The funny thing about humans is that we often see so much in black and white. There is always good and bad. Never is there a gray area! Except, you know, when there is, which is usually all the time. However, we seem to be programmed to look past gray and see only black and white.

This black and white world view exists now, just as it did way back when. For example, it was reported by the Spanish that the Carib were savage cannibals. This is a very black and white world view.  Some historians later dismissed it as Spanish propaganda to justify the wars against the Carib, and therefore the Spanish are horrible people and liars. This, too, is black and white, as there is evidence that show there was limited amounts of cannibalism in the Carib society, among the warriors. Evidently, there was a practice of eating some meat of dead enemy warriors. If you ask me, this is a pretty terrible thing to do. However, we don't mention this when we talk about Mr. Columbus and his encounters with the indigenous islanders.

The Spanish are also criticized for taking native slaves, including many native women to be wives. This, of course, is really bad by our standards. But did you know that the Carib invaders from South America did the same thing? They raped, pillaged, conquered and took wives from the Taino. Why is this never discussed? Why don't we write long posts to discuss how bad the Carib were?

The Carib are just ONE example of the gray area that exists in history of the New World. It is not black and white as the Spaniards told. The Carib were not all cannibals who feasted on the flesh of the living. HOWEVER, it is also not  the black and white revisionism told in modern times (that the Natives on the Islands were all peace loving people).

There is a middle ground. There is a gray area that we neglect to see. And this is an issue that bothers me greatly when discussing the history of the New World.

 So many people used to believe only the European narratives about savages, and so forth. As we got into more modern times, many people switched completely to the other side and started telling tales about how savage the Europeans were. In reality, the truth lies in the middle.

By modern standards, the Europeans did some pretty terrible things. Slavery, war, and conquest are not admirable things. But we cannot distort history and make it seem as if the Europeans were the only people to do these things. There are countless examples in both the New World and the Old World.

Europeans brought 14 million slaves to the Americas in a horrible slave trade. That is really bad, right? Of course it is!! But, what about the slavery that existed in the Americas pre-European colonization? Or the Arab slave trade that took about as many slaves as the Europeans did (including 1 – 1.5 million Europeans)? Is this not terrible as well? Why don’t we talk about it?

Do you hate the fact that Europeans brought diseases to the New World that killed off millions of people? Yeah, I do too. But what about a disease that worked in reverse? Europeans were afflicted by a New World disease, called syphilis. It spread through Europe, all the way to India and China, killing off millions of people along the way. Europeans get trashed for unknowingly spreading small pox in the early days of exploration, but no one ever trashes the people of the New World for unknowingly spreading Syphilis to the Europeans.  And do we hate on the Chinese for unknowingly spreading the Black Plague that killed (in some estimates) 200 million people in just TWO years?

We hate on the Europeans for causing environmental damage and exploiting natural resources. Ever heard of the North American Pleistocene extinction? At the same time that people were migrating to the Americas, the large fauna went extinct.  We know that slash and burn has destroyed millions of acres of rain forest, and we blame European introduction. The only problem is that this technique existed hundreds of years before Europeans came to the Amazon. We also know that Native Americans in North America deforested the areas surrounding where they lived. Cahokia, in modern southern Illinois, was once a large capital city of an empire. Archaeological evidence has shown how the nearby Mississippi river drastically swallowed land due to massive deforestation. This was one of many factors that led to the decline of the city, which was at its peak about several hundred years before Europeans.

Indigenous people have been in the Americas for somewhere between 15-40k years. It took them thousands of years to master the craft of ecological balance, and that wasn't always the case. The image of the “Noble Savage” who cries at the destruction of the environment is an entirely misleading image. The Americas were teeming with people, who used resources as needed. The reason we have this view is for three reasons:

 1) It is propaganda (much like the Spaniards had) created by the Pan Indian movement to garner support for their cause
2) Disease struck the people of the Americas killing off millions. After they died, nature regained the land, making it look as if there was never anyone there.
3) After the mass death of the Natives, the major empire broke up into smaller tribal areas. This had already taken place in the North, after the fall of the Mississippian culture some years before Europeans came. It is similar to the fall of the Roman Empire in the 400s. The lands under the control fell into many smaller kingdoms and principalities.

Essentially what you have is a land that once had hundreds of millions of people when the Europeans first came (and wrote about it), and was reduced greatly due to disease. When more waves of Europeans came, they did not see the vast Empires that once existed. Instead, they saw small bands of people, living in simple communities. The rest of the land was reconquered by nature. It appeared to these later Europeans that Native Americans were incapable of building the type of cities that Europe had. Therefore, the Noble Savage was created. It was carried on in the 1900s by the Pan Indian movement, by people who were trying to get support for their cause. They wanted to get more autonomy and retribution from the US government. They used this image for that cause. As I have mentioned, this is totally inaccurate, but the majority of people believe it.


So why did I write all of these? Believe me, I am not a Euro apologist. I find what Europeans did to be disgusting. I find it even more disgusting because they used Christianity to promote what they were doing. That is the ugliest lie of all time. Christ would never approve of such actions.

So, if I am not being an apologist for Europeans, why did I choose to write this? I choose to do so because I want to be a responsible historian. History must be looked at with all facts present, and in the context of the time. In our modern standards, Columbus and company were terrible people. In the context of the time, they acted like every other single group of humans out there at the time. They practiced slavery, but so did the Arabs, Africans, and Native Americans of the time. They engaged in warfare, but the very reason Europe was going west was because of the constant war threat from the East (from the Mongols to the Ottomans, the latter who has seized Constantinople and were constantly attacking Vienna and other European cities at the time). Yes Columbus’ crew took native wives, but this was NO different than what they saw happen between the Native groups on the islands.

In short, humans suck. It doesn't matter if you are looking at ancient Rome, the Song Dynasty of China, the Mali Empire in Africa, or the many Empires of North and South America. Humans really are broken. This is history. When you try to revise history to make one group look innocent and one group look evil, you are distorting history. There is rarely (if ever, to be honest) black and white situations in history. There is only gray.

So, on this Columbus Day, instead of just mindlessly spewing out about how evil Columbus was and how innocent the poor indigenous people were (like everyone else on Facebook), I suggest you pick up a book and read about the world around 1492. It is a dark, scary place. It is a world full of chaos. It is a world that mirrors the world that existed hundreds of years before that time period. It is a world that mirrors now.


I hope no one thinks I am supporting or approving of Mr. Columbus and the Europeans. My faith and my human decency prevents this. I just want people to look at history with a clear view, which shows the truth about the human condition.

15 Babies That Have More Hair Than Me

I thought I would post something light hearted for once. Just an FYI, none of these pictures are my own. I believe most have a watermark, so they belong to those people. Also, if for some reason someone wants me to take a picture down, please leave me a message and I will do so promptly.

Now, on to the adorable babies (and me).

To start off, we have moi. Nothing special, no hair.

 1) To start off for the babies, we have this adorable little one:

2) Just look how cute! And look at all that hair!

3) Sleeping beauty.

4) What a little stud muffin!

5) Another sleeper.

6) D'aww

7) You may have to go punch a wall after this, just to feel like a man again.

8) Oh. My. Gosh

9) =D

10) Even with a bad hair day, this cutie has better hair than me!

11) I wonder why all of these babies are sleeping? Maybe it is the sheer exhaustion from all that hair?

12)Mohawk! Nice

13) That's a lot of hair!

14) I love the little flower in that lovely little hair.

15) Why so grumpy, little baby? You still have your hair. I say that is a reason to smile!

Testimony of God's Great Love and Peace.

Have you ever felt that everything is working against you, even though you put in all your effort to do excellent? I feel as if that sentiment could sum up my entire life, from day one until now. For the majority of my life (outside of two years of University), I've done my best and still things go wrong. This isn't me playing the victim; it is a simple observation of my life. I try hard, things go bad, and I feel inadequate. It is as simple as that.

This past week was no different, when I traveled with 21 kids and 4 leaders to Lake Champion, in New York. I thought everything was going real well, at first. We got almost all of the payments and forms done before we met. We had everything packed and ready to go. The students arrived on time for the bus. We even left a little earlier than I expected. In fact, we were slated to be the first area to arrive at camp. It was so perfect.

That is, until our bus broke down in rural Pennsylvania.

For no apparent reason, the bus lost power and we were forced to the side of the interstate. After some time, the driver informed us that we would have to wait about 3 ½ hours for another bus to come for us. Eduardo and I walked to the nearest town to find help. After talking to a church to secure a location for our students, we went back to figure a way to get them there. When we got back the police finally arrived. They told us at first they would be able to give our kids transport. However, a state trooper arrived and said that he ‘didn't have time to drive kids around’. I guess it wasn't worth his time to take kids off of a broken down bus on the side of a very busy interstate, even though it was hot and there was limited water. Perhaps that was his way of showing his commitment to ‘protect and serve’ people?

Fast forward to around 4:30, and another bus finally came from Virginia. We were finally back on the road. We arrived at camp around 6 pm. We were originally scheduled to arrive at camp at 1:30.  I was a little upset, to say the least. Still though, we were there.

After a couple days of cuts, bruises, and a rash that I believe is poison ivy, we came to a night of pillow fighting. Believe it or not, guys really enjoy beating the tar out of each other with pillows.  And in typical fashion for Thomas, I was hit hard in the eye (ouch!) and fell back and hit my head on a bed (double ouch). I was actually knocked out by hitting the bed.  A major headache ensued, and I had to retire for the night.

The next day, we were up for the ropes course. Ropes course is always fun to do with the guys. I get to push them to their limits and do things they never thought they could do. However, due to my injury from the night before, I was not in a good place to do the ropes course.  About half way through, I began to sweat quite a bit, followed by a splitting headache. Following this was nausea, black spots appearing in my sight, and dizziness.   Instead of risking an accident, I turned around and came down from the trees. After the medic came to see me, I laid on a bench, listening to my guys finish the ropes course in triumph. They didn't see me, but I was fighting back tears. Never have I felt like such a loser in my life. I hate not being able to complete things, especially when it comes doing things with the guys.

A day later, around Tuesday, I was recovered from the headaches and nausea. We had a great day, minus a little rain in the morning. That night, I used Eduardo’s phone to call my sweetie. Throughout the week I was unable to make calls on my phone, due to signal. This was a bummer, because I am so used to talking to her every night before bed. On top of that, I was a little anxious because I knew parents would want to talk to their kids, and without my phone it would be hard for that connection to happen.

As I was talking with Paola, she informed me that I needed to call my mom. Evidently on the same day we left, someone found my mom’s sister (my Aunt Rachel) dead in a bathroom. From what I understand, she overdosed on something, though I am not sure what substance that might be. I was never particularly close to her, because she lived in Florida. Still, hearing my mom sound so sad about the loss of another sibling left me feeling empty inside. I wanted to be able to say the right words to give her peace. I left the cabin that night to walk around camp. I cried out to God “Lord, I wanted you to shake up my life, but did you have to do it like this”.

 After some more crying and praying, I looked out at the lake. I saw the stars reflecting on it. Then I looked up. I saw all the stars in that night sky. It was the most vast night sky that I have seen in ages. I felt so insignificant. Does anything really matter? Is this camp worth it? Should I just give up now because I am a terrible leader?

 But God did as He often does. He spoke gentle words into me. But though they were gentle to hear, they pierced me to the very core. The words he spoke wiped away my tears of pain and doubt, and built into me a feeling of chaotic peace. I know that sounds oxymoronic, but it totally makes sense to me. I was so at peace that I was in a bit of chaos. I mean, everything in my life has been going bad lately. How can I be at peace with everything that is going on? I need to worry and make plans! I need to speak out about things. I need to do this and that. But God reminded me that the thises and the thats of this life are already taken care of.

I went to bed that night, feeling a peace again, that once escaped me a long time ago.

The next day, I had incredible joy in welcoming two young men into the Kingdom of Christ. Eduardo welcomed in another, and Elise and Melissa lead several ladies to that same point. One young man specifically moved me as he was wrestling with the decision. He had fear of relapsing into doing stupid things back home. After conversing for a good while, we decided to pray. He looked up to the sky, as if to look for an answer. It was mostly cloud while we talked, but when he looked up a beam of sunlight came down and hit him. It didn’t hit me, right next to him. It didn’t hit anywhere around him. It landed straight on his face. He said right away that he needed to make the decision there and then. So I prayed over him, and after about 5 mins of his own personal praying, he looked up and told us that he felt like a free man. Oh, to have the feeling of freedom!

I talked with him earlier today. His fear about relapsing was overcome after he and his other friend turned down the opportunity to smoke and drink when they got back home. I feel so proud of him for making this decision to let God’s love change his life.

After we wrapped up our good byes and packed our things on the bus, I began to feel a familiar friend come back to mind. When we made a stop, it was only reinforced. I am going to be vulnerable right now. For the last few months, I have struggled with income. I have a few jobs which give me semi-regular projects, but when I get paid it is usually only enough to cover my bills (rent and phone), and a little food. After checking my bank accounts and seeing them to be below the $20 mark, I began worrying. How am I going to get food? How am I going to provide for myself? I worried myself sick.

 But, once again, God delivers.

God silenced my worries when I came home to see a bunch of groceries lying on my bed. Evidently my wonderful, beautiful, amazing girlfriend came all the way from her house to my house to leave the groceries there. God has blessed me so much, that I can barely see (well, that is mostly because of the tears in my eyes, I guess).

When I look back at my life from the last few months, and I see the struggles I have endured over that time and especially over this last week, and then I feel the overwhelming peace of God in my life, I feel like my new brother in Christ, Roony. I feel free now. I mean, I was free beforehand, but God really reminded me this week at how free I am in Him.

Not only that, He reminded me nothing can stop His love and His glory from being known and shown. There are no bus break downs, scrapes, cuts, poison ivy rashes, concussions, or money issues that are so big as to stop God from showing His love.  Not even the death of a family member can stop the great Gospel of Jesus Christ from being revealed. Nothing can stop God from taking those on the path of death, and putting them on the path of Life.

I’ll end with this thought that I see on every email from my mentor, Carlos Dimas: “God is bigger than my problems”.

God is much bigger, indeed.

Did George Washington Really Exist?

I just don’t know if I believe that George Washington ever existed. I mean, how am I supposed to believe that a man was able to lead a ragtag group of individuals to fight against the top military in the world? On top of that, he become leader of a new country, which later became the most powerful institution on earth? I think people of the time needed a figure to rally around, during an unnerving time in world history.

I am open to the idea that maybe he was real, but not the commander or leader that people made him out to be. Maybe he was just a good person, who taught that freedom was a good thing. Then, over time, he was shaped to be something he was not. I mean, look at some supposed famous things that happened in his life:

• He started his military career early.
• He was called General.
• He led an insurrection against the most powerful country at the time.
• He famously crossed over a river to attack. 
• His military success led to a new kind of government coming forth. 
• After the war was over, he was offered a crown, but never took it. 

Now, look at Julius Caesar and see how he compares to the figure of ‘George Washington”:

• He started his military career early.
• He was called General.
• He led an insurrection against the most powerful country at the time. 
• He famously crossed over a river to attack the ruling government.
• His military success led to a new kind of government coming forth.
• After the war was over, he was offered a crown, but never took it. 

Isn’t a little too coincidental that ‘George Washington’ looks a lot like a very well-known historical figure?

I know what some people might be saying:

• "Well, don't we have historical documents about him?"  Well, yes we do. But a lot of them are biased, as they were written by pro-American forces. As for the British sources, it could be that American spies intercepted messages and inserted writings about Washington to stir up paranoia. It seems like their propaganda machine worked just fine.
• "Didn't contemporaries make paintings of him?" People have made paintings about Zeus. Does he exist? How about if I made a painting of a Sasquatch, does it meant his mythical figure actually exists? Or does it mean I am creating an image based on what myth tellers have stated over the years?
• "Don't we have his body?" Well, maybe we do. Maybe we don't. Have you ever seen the body? Do you trust the pro-Washington supporters to tell you the truth regarding whether or not  that is really the body of a man named George Washington? But, let us say it is the body of a man named Washington. Does that mean that he was whoever we claim he is now? No. It just means that a man named Washington lived a long time ago, and died a long time ago. Nothing special about him.
• "Why is this country so devoted to the name of Washington, if he didn't exist?" Why are so many people devoted to Scientology? Isn't that based on Science-Fiction? If you promote a belief hard enough, there will people who believe it, especially uneducated masses (like the ones that existed in the 1700's & 1800's). Once you get a few people to believe something so much, it will snowball over time, until many people believe that something as the truth.

George Washington is a figure that the uneducated masses can look up to. He was humble, honest, and he supposedly willingly gave up power? Does that sound like any sort leader that you can think of today? No. Why? Perhaps Washington never existed. Or, if he did, he was never really the person we think of today.


Now, if you think the above is a bunch of steaming crap, imagine how I feel when the same exact arguments are used to try to discredit the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. And just as it easy to poke holes through what I wrote above, it is very easy to poke holes through the arguments of internet scholars who claim they know that Jesus never existed. Whether it is claims of Jesus-Mything (Jesus was a figure created by meshing together pagan myths), claims of exaggeration (Maybe there was a person named Jesus, but he was just a lowly teacher, nothing special), claims of bias (Early Christians forged documents by secular and opposing writings, so you can't trust those, nor can you trust the writings of early Christians), or claims of the masses being duped due to poor education (People want to believe the stories, because they are afraid of the truth of life and death and need comfort), all are easily countered with strong arguments that never get answered back.

These times are hard. Never have we had so much information available to us, yet never have there been so many people repeating misinformation. The internet is a wonderful tool for learning, but also for disseminating false claims. Don't believe everything you read. Read opposing arguments. If someone can't respond to opposing arguments, it might be safe to assume their initial claim doesn't hold much ground. Again, just because it is on the internet, and people repeat it, doesn't mean it is true. Check out the facts for yourself, or you might end up believing that George Washington was a fake character created by American propaganda machines.

-Thomas

Name and Tree

'What's in a name?' the oft asked question goes,
But for me, a name is meaningless.

I have removed the very mention of your name from mind
My heart
My very being.

It was a name I could repeat with ease
A name that made the heart skip and the butterflies flutter
It was a name I hoped to have beside mine,
'Until death do us part'.

But that time has come and gone.
As it was written:
'The wind blows, and we are gone— 
 as though we had never been here.'

And you are gone.
Your name is gone off my tongue.

Yet, a promise remains in my heart.

Young lovers make many an empty promise;
'I'll love you forever', 
'I'll never leave you', 
'You're the only one for me'.

We made many more.
Those, like your name, have passed from my mind.
Our love ran dry, long ago.

 But this one thing remains:
A promise made on the loneliest of roads, in the loneliest of times,
Yet life was content, with you at my side.

We drove, no cares in the world
Flipping through the radio stations,
Singing those silly songs.

Cracking the windows, you let the summer breeze flow
Your hair blowing in the wind,
Blue sweet summer sky sparkled in your eyes

You took my hand in yours
Soft, caressing, gentle

'Baby' you spoke softly 'pull over here'.

In the shade of a tree, we stopped.
And in the shade of a tree,we made a lasting connection

'When you pass this tree, in person or in thought' you said,
gesturing to the lonely tree in a sea of nothingness

'Remember me. Think of me. Pray for me'

I nodded with a smile.
'What a silly request' I thought, however, to myself.

'Baby, I'd do anything for you.' I assured you.

The latter faded, but the former stayed,
I cannot explain why.

I doubt I'll travel that lonely country highway in person again
But in my mind, my heart, my memories,
 I travel it often.

I traveled it today.

And I thought of you.
I remembered your face for a quick moment
And I prayed to God above, for you.

I never uttered your name,
 But I kept my promise.

And as your name further fades from my mind,
I'll still be reminded of you.
 I'll still pray for you,
Where ever you may be.

Your face will turn to a blur,
Your voice will be forgotten,
I will never, ever love you again

But I will keep this promise,
'til my breath and soul escape my body.

  What is in a name? This, I do not know.
Perhaps we should consider 'What is in a promise, under a tree?'

And perhaps we'll never know, this side of paradise.