W.W.J.D.?

Who Would Jesus Drone?

I'd like to think that, if American Christians actually knew how we conduct our drone wars, there would be national outrage, but I honestly don't have that much confidence in our national conscience.  I hope to be completely mistaken about that, but it's unlikely we'll ever find out, because it's not a topic that gets a lot of time on the evening news, and a lot of us don't watch the evening news anyway.

I don't claim our pilots in Missouri or Nevada just want to kill people, and I think it's great that we can keep our troops out of harm's way, to a much greater extent, with drones than more invasions (for the most part; at the same time, I worry that for most Americans, only concern over American casualties keeps us from being more war-prone than we already are).

My problem is with how the decisions to fire are made. I find it dangerous and Orwellian to call any male in the area of a drone strike a military combatant: "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." (http://goo.gl/WVDzb)

My problem is with our own self-assured dishonesty of how few civilians we've killed (None this year - high five! Except that's been thoroughly shown not to be true, even with very conservative methods). http://goo.gl/ojg3e

My problem is that we've used drones to kill a U.S. citizen, without trial (http://goo.gl/fM7bV), for nothing more than exercising his constitutionally enshrined right to free speech (to say reprehensible things, but the Supreme Court established, without question, that we have the right to do that, even to the point of advocating violence, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://goo.gl/T9hU2). Then, just two weeks later, we killed his 16 year old son (who, of course, we described as a military combatant - after all, he was killed in a drone strike), also a US citizen, which Obama's press secretary had the audacity to justify by saying, "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they're truly concerned about the well-being of their children" - that's right, it's his fault for not choosing a more responsible father (http://goo.gl/c0KW2).

I have a big problem with us using drones, strategically, to kill those who show up to help the wounded or come to attend a funeral - no risk of civilian deaths there (at least not if they're male - those are enemy combatants!) (http://goo.gl/6ZZsb). This swells the ranks of our enemies, because God has given all of us a desire to see injustice against our loved ones avenged. If a far away, faceless foreign government killed your wife, father, son or daughter, in a group, because there might be bad guys there too, are you going to tell me, with a straight face, that you wouldn't consider (or want to consider, for the cowardly or principled pacifists) joining the side that's fighting that? (Lots more details here: http://goo.gl/Ir2tt)

I'm not a pacifist, I'm not opposed to the United States as a country defending herself. But I do think, ultimately, as citizens of heaven and aliens and strangers in the United States, what we do to stay alive is an important moral question with a lot of repercussions, perhaps more important than whether we stay alive. Some may say it's dangerous for me, just a civilian, who's not privy to any classified intelligence on our drone program, to be asking these questions and making moral judgments about what we're doing; I believe it's more dangerous not to. I believe, when government demands the power to kill, it's our job to call for strict care and oversight, and while I don't think any of our military leaders, or President Obama, or President Bush, want to see civilian deaths, I don't think we're trying hard enough to avoid them.

As Christians, when we talk about these things, I think we need to consider the words of Scripture, and especially those of Christ. So I'll leave off with two verses that I think we could benefit from giving more consideration. First, Proverbs 20:7 "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God." Second, Jesus said to Peter, on the night he was betrayed, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

A few honest thoughts about dishonesty

Let's have a little conversation here about the 9th commandment, "You shall not bear false withness against your neighbor". Because Christians are *really* bad at this one sometimes. Some of us, anyway. And, it's easy to slip-up, frankly, without even realizing it. When we *do* slip up, it's easy to justify to ourselves.

When I was a kid, I assumed, because of the word "witness", that this really only applied to what you said in court. It *does* apply to that, but it's a lot bigger than that. "Bearing false witness" is saying something untrue. But it's really something bigger than that, even. A true witness only says what they *know* is true. They don't pass on things that might have happened, speculations about a person, or what they heard from someone else. This has all kinds of implications for what we do and don't say, and really tends to cut down on gossip, but in my opinion, this is the biggest: We look on the outward appearance, God looks at the heart. Therefore, we have no business making definitive statements about a person's belief/unbelief, a person's motive, or the intentions behind an action unless that person has told us those things. Anyway, what we know so far is that if we're obeying this commandment, we won't say things we know are false *or* things we don't *know* are true. And there's a corollary here: Nothing you read in an e-mail forward is true. EVER. Obviously, that's an exaggeration, but I'm firmly convinced that there is *zero* correlation between e-mail forwards and what is true, *especially* if they relate to politics or religion. So unless you've looked up those things on snopes, wikipedia, or some other real source of information, don't pass them on.

So, a false witness says or repeats things that are untrue, or things they don't know to be true. There's two ways falsehood can be "against your neighbor". The obvious one is false accusations, but the other is just lying to your neighbor - if someone asks you for directions, you don't know the way for sure, and you give them directions, they may get lost or worse, because of you. Both types of false witness are wrong, and there's no exception clause for "I thought I was right". Don't bear false witness.

This means it's our responsibility to know *what* we know, and it's our job to humbly tell people when we *don't* know. We Christians frequently fall into the trap, however, of believing that since we've found the truth about Christ (even though we didn't find it, but He found us), we have some kind of uncanny, magical ability to measure how true something is with our gut, our feelings, or our instinct. But God hasn't given us that ability, an unfortunate fact that shows up in several disappointing ways. It shows up when we tell people evolution is a lie, even though we don't have a science degree, and our hobby is watching sports, not reading biology. It shows up when we say President Obama doesn't believe in the same God we do, even though we don't know the man, he claims to follow Christ, and we can't see inside his heart. It shows up when we tell someone we know *why* they did or didn't do something - whether or not we turn out to be correct (and usually, we aren't).

If you've seen the movie Bambi, you may remember Thumper repeatedly needing to be reminded, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." I think we as Christian need to take that statement, adapt it to, "If you can't clearly explain how you *know* something, don't say anything at all." Because right now there's a lot of Christians being poor witnesses by saying things that either aren't right, or that they don't know are right. And part of what that means is we need to recognize that being "sure something is true" doesn't mean it is true. It's complicated, but we should aspire to know enough about the world to know where we do and don't know about the world. And then, if we're going to be good, godly, and honest witnesses, we won't speak with certainty on things we don't or can't know. Like Paul, let's keep the emphasis on what we know.

Affinity for Inequality

Usually, I can understand where people are coming from, or why they hold their ideas, even if I don't agree - and that's especially true of people I'm closely involved or affiliated with (evangelicals, men, nerds, you get the idea). But what I'm about to write about, I simply don't understand, even though I'm a lifelong evangelical who has been constantly surrounded by and interacting with other evangelicals. For some reason, evangelicals have an affection for inequality - they want to live in a society where a few have far more than some others. Why? I'm not sure, but I (genuinely; seriously) think the thinking goes like this: Communists deny God, and communism aims for economic equality for all, therefore economic equality is a bad thing, therefore economic inequality is a good thing.

Why do I say evangelicals are in favor of inequality? It's a feeling I get - I've never seen research done, or a study commissioned, but here's some evidence from my personal experience. 1) I've heard significantly more in sermons about the evil of high taxes than I have about government not doing enough to help the poor (Some might say, "But that's the church's job!" - I agree, it is! Cancel your youth ski trip, and give the homeless your winter coats! But, where in the Bible does it say that only churches, not governments, are allowed to help the poor? I'll give you a hint: It's in "Imadeituptations".) 2) When I put something on Facebook about helping those in need, it's my evangelical friends who disagree and come after me. My atheist/agnostic friends agree that we should help the poor (See, that communism reasoning was correct! Concern for the poor leads to godlessness!!! So, by the way, do my Christian friends who are theologically liberal). 3) I can count on the number "one" the number of times I've heard it said, from a pulpit, that those who have two houses should give to those who have none (Luke 3:11 - and those weren't the exact words that were used, but I did hear Chip Ingram say, "People who have two houses are going to have to do some explaining, when they get to heaven") and Jesus' advice to the rich young ruler to "sell his possessions, give to the poor, and come, follow me"... well, Jesus is just saying that to illustrate that being perfect is impossible. He doesn't actually expect anyone to do anything like that. And 4) I've heard, as most people have, a whole lot about what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, and that it was because they practiced homosexuality (and I believe that played a role in their judgment). But I've heard very little - and I've never heard it in a church, about why God says they were judged: "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

I have heard of some Christian leaders saying, however, that if God doesn't judge America soon, he's going to owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology. That's absolutely right (Well, except that it's theologically wrong, because in Christ, we are forgiven for our shortcomings and not, generally, fire and brimestoned). But we are doing the same thing Sodom was judged for, even down to being overfed. Most of all, we "did not help the poor and needy". We've allowed cheered on our society's transformation from the land of opportunity, where anyone willing to study, work hard, and not waste their money could afford a decent life, to the land of inequality, with 93% of income growth in 2010 going to the top 1% of Americans, while the income of households making less than $101,000 annually (and that's 80% of us) fell by 1.7%. We've been slipping for years, so that now we are less equal than Uganda and Kazakhstan. Those aren't places I want my country competing with, on anything, and losing.

The inequality in our country is wrong. Immoral. Unjust. This isn't about "greedy, entitled poor people", it's not about "class warfare against the job creators", it's about whether the "American dream" will be a real thing anymore, or if we're going to become, for the steadily growing poor of our population, a land of nightmares. And that just doesn't match the message Jesus brought for them.

But whenever I try to bring this issue of inequality up, each time I try to discuss it with Christian people who should have a Christlike approach to helping the poor, I'm told that communism doesn't work (I agree, but it's dishonest to act as though anyone is suggesting that), that poor people are just looking for handouts (I'm sure some are, but what did Jesus say about handouts?), or that if we raise taxes, the economy will crash (all sorts of data prove that tax rates have little correlation with the health of the economy - there's no consistent correlation between the two). Yes, there are Christians who agree with me, but the trend I notice is Christians who somehow don't believe the rich have enough, while often suggesting we need to cut back on food stamps and aid to the poor. It's as though we've never read the book of James, and we really should. Or if we read Proverbs, we might come away with a better perspective.

Teach the Controversy

In recent years, Christians have had some success in different parts of the country calling for schools to "teach the controversy", referring to the controversy between two competing theories of origins, intelligent design and evolution. Most young people currently only learn about evolution in schools, and some Christians argue, what could be the harm of presenting opposing views and letting the students decide for themselves? (Some people might argue that this pedagogical philosophy is difficult to square with conservative calls for
abstinence-only sex education and disdain for comprehensive sex ed, which presents abstinence and other views and lets students decide for themselves. Speaking candidly, "some people" would have a heck of a point. But that pedagogical incongruence sits outside the scope of this blog post, so we shan't go there. Just to be clear, though, I'm a big believer in abstinence prior to marriage.)

What's the harm, people argue, of presenting someone with an informed viewpoint, so they can make their own fully-informed decision? Generally, this is a good idea, and incidentally, this is why it's important that the internet be kept fully free of government or service provider content control. In a classroom, I suppose one could argue that the "harms" might be that taking time to teach intelligent design takes away from the content students are intended to learn, or that intelligent design is not a testable, verifiable scientific theory, that teaching religious ideas is not the role of secular government, or that our science classrooms do not have sufficient time to do both sides justice. But I'm not here to argue any of those things. I'd rather teach the controversy. I'd rather introduce people to things they'll find controversial, so they can make their own fully-informed decision. Here goes.

There is no controversy, disagreement, or doubt about the theory of evolution. There's also not an anti-God conspiracy pushing scientists away from either creationism or intelligent design and toward evolution. There are facts. Ironclad, irrefutable, mountains of facts. For the longest time, I believed, even knew the opposite to be true. If scientists could kick off their anti-God blinders, forget what they know, and objectively consider the evidence for a young, designed earth, they would see immediately that they were mistaken. But gradually, over the last few years, my creationist/intelligent design blinders have been taken away, until at one point I saw immediately that I was mistaken. Evolution is true the same way gravity is true or Newton's laws of motion are true, and everywhere scientists are looking they find more strong evidence supporting it. Most likely over the next 100 years, scientists will refine and improve the details of evolutionary theory, but there is absolutely zero chance that they will experience the instant "fact-based" conversion I once thought they would.

Creationism is just not the direction the evidence points; not only that, it's not the direction the "weight of evidence" is moving. That is to say, when I was a creationist, I had the impression that evolution was full of problems, more problems were cropping up all the time, and the theory was in a state of crisis. What science actually shows, across disciplines and types of evidence (biology, paleontology, genomics, geology, and astronomy, to name a few), is vast evidence matching evolutionary expectations, and new things being discovered all the time that further support and confirm the common descent of living things. If you'd like to learn more about this evidence, from like-minded, conservative Christians, spend some time here.

So, if evolution is true, and it is, what does that mean? Does it mean that God doesn't exist or the Bible has been disproven? Does it invalidate our faith? No. This doesn't mean that the Bible is mistaken, or that inerrancy is untenable. It simply means that Genesis 1 was not written to give a pre-scientific culture a leg up, thousands of years later, in understanding physics, astronomy and biology. The Bible is not a science book, it's a truth book. And it doesn't set out to teach science, it reveals to us, and judges, the "thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). That's not to say the Bible is scientifically wrong; I don't believe there's a single error, of any kind, between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21. It just means that the topic of Genesis 1 is not science, in the same way the topic of Matthew 5:29-30 is not the proper care and maintenance of our bodies. Both teach us about man and his relationship to God.

Now, in Christian circles, that's controversial, and I hope for most Christians, that's because they believe the facts support creationism or intelligent design. But they don't. I certainly believed they did before I found out that evolution is based on evidence, not bias, group-think  or an atheistic vendetta. But the more I learn about evolution, the more I learn about how life actually came to be, the more I believe something bigger about God. I don't believe he sat down at his workbench for six days, and carefully crafted every living thing. That wouldn't be so impressive, for God. Rather, I see him as so omniscient, so far above us, that he came up with a mechanism which he knew would craft for him every living thing. It's the difference between making toast in the toaster, and making a toaster. It's the difference between being intelligent enough to vacuum the floor well, and being intelligent enough to invent a Roomba. The error of the creationist or intelligent design proponent is not one of believing too much of God, but too little. When God told us, in the book of Isaiah, that his thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and his ways are higher than our ways, he wasn't kidding around.

So if you've ever looked at creation and marveled, as I have, at how great our God is, just keep right on doing it. But bump it up a whole lot. Because while it might take a lot of intelligence to design a flying squirrel, a person, or a hummingbird, it takes supernatural omniscience to design, from scratch, an unthinking tool that will design them for you. Of course, no Christian would deny God's omniscience, but evolution shows us that his omniscience is even bigger than we knew. Teaching the "controversy" undermines truth, and it sells short the greatness of God. You see, the world and its creatures aren't intelligently designed, evolution is intelligently designed, by a God whose thoughts are so high above our own, we cannot understand or comprehend them. Which makes it all the greater and more amazing that he cares for us.

Credentials

Some people might be inclined to question my credentials, or to wonder if I have ulterior motives. Am I writing this blog because I'm a liberal Christian who hates the evangelical church? Do I believe in evolution because I'm a godless atheist who hates the guilt I feel because of Christianity? And do I so fiercely criticize the Republican party because I hate business owners and love abortion? No, no, and no. None of the above. Those questions are ridiculous, and intentionally so, but I have been asked by several people recently if my faith is slipping, if I no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, or if I'm going to vote for Obama (somehow, those things have become linked in people's minds, which is a problem in itself). But I thought it might be helpful to the skeptics and the suspicious to give a bit of detail about my life or the sincerity of my so-called "evangelical" belief in Christ. So, here's some of that:

I trusted Christ as my savior when I was eight years old, after seven years of wild living, at least for an elementary school kid in the 80's (basically, I cussed a lot). The church I spent the first part of my life in proudly called itself fundamentalist, as did I, (at least through the late 90's) but what we really meant was that we held to the fundamentals of Christianity, not that we hated gay people, required women to wear dresses, or were super-legalists (although sometimes we might have been medium-legalists). We believed in the innerancy of God's word, we believed in the pre-tribulation rapture, and I'm sure the vast majority of us were young earth creationists (I actually was involved in a newspaper editorial page argument in my city about creation and evolution, in the mid 90's, and that led to my being invited to participate in the founding of an "Origin Science" organization, which never quite came to fruition, but I did go to the meetings). But that's getting ahead of myself.

I attended Christian school from 2nd-8th grade, then homeschooled with Christian curriculum through high school. I went on a lot of mission trips, beginning in junior high. The summer after my junior year, I started a Bible study among my friends, where we read the Bible and talked about how we needed to change our lives. I was on the leadership team of Campus Crusade for Christ at my community college, and I minored in philosophy because I'd found no better venue to argue for the truth of Christ, and the rightness of his principles. Then I went to a large, well-known evangelical seminary in Texas. I served on the student council and worked for the school in multiple capacities. When I graduated, I was in complete agreement with their doctrinal statement and still am. Then I got a pastoral job at an evangelical church, where I served for about 5 years. The reasons I'm no longer there have nothing to do with theology or politics (well, maybe local church politics). And now, I attend an evangelical church in Austin, Texas, which I really enjoy and appreciate. I even applied for a job there, but they had the good sense not to hire me. I'm thoroughly evangelical, and plan to stay that way, because evangelicalism is right, it just has some glitches.

I was the most fervent Republican I have ever known (wait, 2nd - I forgot someone). I planned when I was young to run for president, and fix everything we were doing wrong (read, "undo what Clinton had done"). In 1994, I read Newt Gingrich's book, To Renew America. Somewhere in there I read Dan Quayle's autobiography, Standing Firm, and I can tell you all about how the potato(e) incident was not really his fault. In college, I spent about an hour each day reading Republican political commentators - it was the best thing about the internet, which Al Gore certainly did not invent (though I later found he actually had a somewhat significant role in its development, for a Senator) When Bush Jr. was elected, I decided to do something else with my life, instead of run for President, as there were plenty of capable and competent Republican leaders, when we really only needed one. I only say all that because improving evangelicalism is going to require pointing out some issues with the Republican party and our blind allegiance to them, and when I say those things, it isn't because I don't understand or appreciate conservative principles.

I'm thoroughly convinced of the truth of Christianity, not because I've never considered other perspectives, but because I read everything I can find online by famous atheists like Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (poor guy) and Ben Stiller Sam Harris (I honestly can't tell the difference). If Christianity isn't true, I want to know it - I don't just want to blindly cling to my faith because I like the stories or the songs. I always find they don't have more evidence that God doesn't exist than atheists did when I took Intro to Philosophy. Now, I do appreciate Richard Dawkins for getting us something to call those pictures of cats that we send to our friends (memes). But Christianity is true. Their main arguments don't actually go against Christianity, so much as they say, "There isn't enough evidence to believe such amazing claims." Anyway, I've heard it all, and can beat atheists to the punch in reciting "Russell's teapot" or claims of "no true Scotsman". But their arguments against Christianity are neither strong nor theologically informed. All that just goes to say, none of this criticism comes from doubt.

So, just to sum up and be clear, I believe every word of the Bible is completely true, I'm quite theologically conservative, and I'm not doubting or drifting in my faith. Any questions? Put 'em in the comments.

Scary Election?

I got an e-mail forward recently calling on people to pray for their country, for at least one minute per day, at 9:00 pm EST, or 8:00 CST, 7:00 Mountain, 6:00 Pacific. God, apparently, can create a universe, but still can't sort out the time zone thing. I'm all for praying for our country, and I'll be trying to do that, but probably at 8:05, simply because I'm a nonconformist. But one line of the e-mail really caught my eye: "This election is the scariest I remember in my lifetime." That made me stop and wonder, "What are they scared of?" 

Are they scared that large banks & other corporations are taking over the country, and buying out the politicians? Are they scared that we're approaching a tipping point, past which it will be nearly impossible to halt climate change? Are they scared one party might start an unnecessary war with the 80 million people of Iran, to "keep us safe"? Are they scared about efforts to disenfranchise voters in many states, or scared that Medicare might be replaced with a voucher system, or that food stamps will no longer be available to the hungry and destitute? Scared, perhaps, that at a time of record deficits and unconscionable debt being left to our children and grandchildren, we're going to cut taxes yet again for the richest among us? Maybe they're scared that we're going to "teach the controversy" in public schools, and tell our young aspiring scientists that "God did it" is an acceptable alternative to working hard to find out *how* he did it, or go further down the road of teaching students to take tests instead of teaching students to think. 

Personally, I'm a little worried about the fear and hatred we have toward Muslims, America's rapidly vanishing middle class, and the risk that we could become the second country in modern history to build a fence across our border, following Berlin. I'm concerned that the political discourse in our nation, can revolve around dishonesty, claims of socialism, and demands to see a birth certificate instead of discussing the issues that face us. And I'm frankly disconcerted that our country holds 25% of the world's prisoners, that the best predictor of whether a murderer receives the death penalty is the race of the victim, and that many of the people most likely to pray for our country are going to cast their vote, not based on these issues, but based on a 40 year old debate about abortion that shows no signs of being settled. 

But I wouldn't say that I'm scared. Why? Because God is in control. In Job 42:2, after all the horrible things that befell him, Job said, "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted." Isaiah 41:10 clearly says we don't need to be afraid: "So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God." God is with us, and because of that, we don't need to be afraid. He's with us today, and He'll be with us the day after the election. He's God today, He'll be God the day after the election. He can do all things today, and He can do all things the day after the election. 

So, even though politics in our country is really screwed up, and even if you believe it's really screwed up *completely differently* than I do, there's no reason for elections to be scary. If you find yourself scared about the future, about what can happen if the "other side" wins, remember Psalm 46:1-2 "God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea". It could be a lot worse; mountains could be falling into the sea, but we still wouldn't need to fear. We can be still (46:10) because we know He is God.

Repudiations

Remember how after 9/11 people would say if Islam as a religion is peaceful and nonviolent, where are all the Muslims denouncing what the terrorists have done? I remember that. Well, unfortunately, followers of Christ do and say a lot of crazy things, though fortunately less of them are violent. I believe we should hold ourselves to the same standards we expect of others, and so I want to repudiate some things. These things are incompatible with the gospel of Christ, and when Christians do or say them, they dishonor the noble name of him to whom we belong (an idea from James 2:7).

Let's start with Fred Phelps (he's the pastor who runs a website about God hating homosexuals, and he and his family (nearly everyone in his church is related to him) protest at people's funerals that they deserved to die because America accepts homosexuality). I don't believe Fred Phelps is a good follower of Christ. I don't believe he honors Christ in his words or his actions. I don't believe God hates individual people, gay or straight; he hates sin - and we all sin. He hates sin so much, and loves us so much, that he sent his son Jesus to pay for that sin - even the sin Fred Phelps commits when he misrepresents God. I don't believe there is any sin can outweigh the love of God, shown on the cross. I don't believe that God focuses his discipline on unbelievers, but on people who claim to follow him.

How about this one. Jerry Falwell said, just after 9/11, "I really believe that the pagans, the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way... I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" I don't believe 9/11 was something God did to us, I believe it was something horrible, sinful people who don't distinguish between civilians and the military did to us. I believe God allowed 9/11, but I don't know what his purposes were. I believe if there's anyone God expects to hold to his standards, it's not pagans, gays, atheists, or the ACLU, but believers.

This one might be more controversial, with current events, but Terry Jones in no way demonstrates the spirit of Christ, who loved the world (John 3:16) and died for all (2 Corinthians 5:15). He's the fellow from Florida who leads a church of about 200 people, but has made a lot of national news by agitating Muslims. He held a trial in his church of the Koran, decided it was guilty, and then threatened to burn one. Personally, I don't think books are magic, and if you need to burn a Bible to keep warm or something, I don't mind, although there are certainly better books to burn first. But some people, including Christians, and presumably including Terry Jones, do think books are magic, and... thinks he can penalize a book for its ideas by burning it? Honestly, he's just doing this to incite Muslims and provoke a reaction. Terry Jones is a troll obsessed with being in the news, and he does it under the guise of being a Christian. But he's obviously forgotten some important words of Jesus... how did they go? Something about doing to others what you would want done to you, or something. He's also responsible for publicizing this film the Muslim world is rioting and killing over currently. Thanks, Terry - I'm sure God is pleased with what you've accomplished.

And I'll wrap up with "pro-life" people who think it's a good idea to threaten or kill doctors who perform abortions. I'm pro-life, with only two exceptions - I don't think abortion is wrong to protect the physical health of the mother, and I don't think it's wrong when the baby is greatly deformed and certain to die shortly after the umbilical cord is cut. I could be wrong about either one of those, but my point is I'm pretty strongly in favor of protecting the unborn. But there's nothing pro-life about killing people, even people who are really bad. There's particularly nothing pro-life about shooting an abortion doctor, through the eye, at his church where he serves as an usher. Who he is or what he did is irrelevant here; followers of the Lord of Life don't deal out death unless they do it as a member of the government, which the Bible teaches us is established by God (Romans 13:1-7). Outside of that, killing is murder, and "you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." (1 John 3:15) So don't claim to follow Christ, and kill people, regardless of your reasons.

Nope, I remembered one more category I need to cover: Christians who pray for the president to die. I never heard of anything like this before we had a black president, but out of deference, I'll assume these people would pray for God to kill any democratic president (though I'm not sure if that's better). For starters, there's this crazy guy. Fortunately, he's just one crazy guy pastoring a tiny independent baptist church in Arizona, but unfortunately, there's also this guy. Well, he's also crazy, but he's an officer in the Southern Baptist convention, was Alan Keyes' running mate, and is popular enough as a pastor to have a radio show. There are others, but that's enough to start a discussion. What's disgusting about these two Christian men is there are clear instructions in the New Testament telling us how to pray for our leaders. For example, 1 Timothy 2:1-2 says this, "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." Requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving are how each Christian should be praying for Obama, or Mitt Romney, should he win the election. Christians should not, under any circumstances, be praying for them to die.

That's probably an attention-span full. I don't pray for any of these people to die, but I do hope they become ignored and irrelevant, no longer make the news, and no longer misrepresent what Christ died to make us into. Feel free to leave me suggestions for future posts in the comments. Oh, and an afterthought: I'm not making theological claims based on 1 John 3:15, other than "Christianity is fully incompatible with murder." Thanks for reading!