Orthodoxy, or the Adventurous Heresy gone horribly right

"I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy." -G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

I feel as though I am a "spiritual descendant" of G.K. Chesterton. I question, I quibble, I am never satisfied until I get to the heart of the matter, and I end up affirming what thousands upon thousands of people have affirmed as true hundreds of years before me, and even end up learning from their tradition.
I've written about not being an Evangelical (or a Protestant), and thinking of the "New Humanity" as my religious alignment rather than Christianity.
To be honest with you, the closest thing to what I am is an orthodox Christian. It's unreasonable to call me anything else, and I will tell you why.
I believe first and foremost in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the incarnate Logos, the mystical "Word" proceeding from the mouth of God, the extension of Himself. I am a follower of Christ because I believe him to be a divine manifestation of the infinite Yhwh, whose true name we do not even know yet. The transcendent God, that somehow became personal and interacted with us. Because He just loves us that much.
I believe these things are true because I trust the Bible as a reliable source. That trust is somewhat blind, but it does not make sense for me not to believe in the Bible's reliability. Though my research in that area is lacking more than I'd like, I've ceased to look to a purely intellectual decision regarding the Bible.

Mr. Chesterton once again communicates my thoughts quite well:
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."

This is why my decision to believe in the Logos, the Trinity, and the Bible are not purely logical in nature. They're logically defendable under certain presuppositions, but those presuppositions, by their very nature, do not come from a logical construct.
It is this recognition that makes apologetics a useful tool to me less than 1% of the time. There is no need for me to logically defend my faith in the invisible. The small amount of the time I would use an apologetic argument, it would be with a purpose besides trying to convince someone I am right.
Because this is really about that. What people speak about on the surface is rarely what is in their heart. Their questions and hostility sometimes communicate fear, anger, curiosity, joy, rage, bliss, skepticism, cynicism or all of the above, no matter what they may tell you their goal is.
And so we come back to the Word. I've never doubted the Father's existence, as evidenced from the TaNaK, nor have I doubted the Spirit's existence, and his manifestation could be called a person just from his apparent purpose creating a drastically different personality from the Father.
The Son has been my struggle, as has the Bible. Who would have thought that those two sourced from the same thing?
The Word. What does it mean?
In the ancient near east, the Greeks referenced "the Word" as the primal meaning of the universe. Not just the logic, not just some kind of undercurrent...everything exists because of the Word. Where'd this "Word" come from? Who knows.
John takes this a step farther and says that in the beginning was the Word. He even goes so far as to equate that with Yhwh, the Hebrew God. The mystics looked in Genesis 1, and saw that God spoke the world into existence, and began to formulate the Logos as going forth from the "mouth" of God, and through it came creation. So God simultaneously spoke and "begat" His pre-existent "son," and through it came this universe. What a creative and glorious God this is!
And so it was, that people decided to break it. Literally or not, we ate from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and were cut off from the Tree of Life. Death entered the world, and we became subject to it, as did everything that proceeded from the mouth of God. Only God himself, including the Word, and his messengers that did not fall were not affected by this, and yet it seems that even the angels had something happen to them. A third of their number "fell from heaven" with Lucifer, the Devil.
Regardless, God, by his very nature, planned to redeem the things he had created. And so the Word took on flesh, and became the man we call Jesus. But was that the first way God communicated Himself to us since the corruption of His creation?
No. Creation did not just decay for God knows how long while He remained silent. He interacted with humanity, and after the Great Flood, He gave them the Law, choosing a people to be His own, to show His love for us.
And we still perverted that. The Jews were continually unfaithful, demonstrating what a mess we are. But, they preserved the way God communicated Himself in written form, and even began to worship it.
Then Jesus came. He told them that everything that is communicated regarding the Messiah was about him, and they tried to kill him for it, eventually succeeding. But there was a bigger plan at work. Jesus came, took on a broken state and bringing it to perfection all to tell us that there is more. The religious leaders, while having part of the "Word," didn't have it all together as they appeared to. Righteousness did not lie in merely being obedient, that was only the reductionism of where it came from, which is straight from God. He told us that when we saw him, we saw the Father. His love for us was so great that He came here, choosing to empty himself and be born of a woman, the one we call Theotokos, or Mother of God.
Jesus came and said there is more, and he was killed for it. But death could not hold him. Though the "people of God" killed him, he came back anyway, and the apostles bore witness to it, writing down some of what Jesus did. Luke even continued to write about what the people that knew him continued to do, and Paul was called to write even more. They wrote in human terms, in human language, and it was translated multiple times. There are apparent errors, language-made flaws, and we've put together the ancient documents from manuscripts, having never seen the originals. There are additions, subtractions, and we are merely guessing at what the books the Church has agreed are in the canon are even saying.
But alas, how I translate to modernity! What follows is a mess of conflict and misunderstood definitions. Some say that these reasons are enough to say that the Bible is not only not inspired, but invalid for every day living, having caused more harm than good.
Indeed, it has in a lot of cases. We've used it to justify whatever we want, from slavery to outright murder, and we've screwed things up. But since when is that a surprise to God? The religious have been screwing up the Law for a long time with their reductionism and/or complete disregard for it.
Some say that the Bible must simply be accepted, because they're too afraid to think of another option. It is the Word of God, and their self-interpreted theology that comes from the same book they are talking about is proof of that. It must be accepted, or there is no faith present.
But since when has there been faith present where people choose to avoid questioning and reduce a few portions of the Law to confirm their own way of living?
However, in light of this mess Modern criticism and reaction has created, is it possible that God still chose to communicate himself, and inspired by that communication, the Scriptures were written and preserved just enough to still contain God's character in it?
It is at least possible.
What is the Word? The Word proceeds from the mouth of God, and since the mouth is figurative (God is a spirit) so must be the Word. The Word is not a bunch of words, it is God's raw communication of Himself.
Does Christ fit the bill? Absolutely.
Does the Bible? It's a little shakier, but I think it does. What do we see, even in those portions where the author has decided to error? God communicating himself and humans not understanding. The prophet Daniel was told things he didn't get, and was disturbed to the point of being physically ill. Sure, not everything in the Bible are the words of God. But they do not have to be for inspiration to exist to the point of it being a manifestation of the Word.
In the case of both Christ and the Scriptures, God breathed Himself, and it combined with a human element. Like in the creation of man, the dust of the Earth is animated by God's breath.
The only difference is that human consciousness is involved in creation and the Bible, and only God's consciousness is involved in Christ. That's why Christ is the best answer for what the Word of God is. Because though he took on flesh and the corporeal plane with a mere 3 dimensions of space and half a dimension of time, though he emptied himself of power, his essence was and is still God. That's the joy of Christ in the incarnation. God chose to be one of us, because He loves us that much. His Word came and entered the world through the Blessed Virgin, and the world was never the same.
Is it possible that I too, in questioning and inventing my own heresies, have stumbled across orthodoxy? Is it possible that in discovering the Word, and how it transcends the Bible yet is present in it, I have found the answer to my struggle? And is it possible that I will still remain the same person because of it?
The answer, I think, is yes.
I don't know if I'm willing to say I affirm inerrancy yet, or in what way. I still am disturbed by the term "Word of God," because I hate Bibliolatry with a passion. I can't give anyone certainty of what I believe. Though I think I'd say the Bible is inerrant insomuch as it communicates who God is, and I think I'd call it the Word of God because of that, I'm still not sure, and it's still a struggle.
The only thing I know is that there's more.

The New Humanity

All good discourses seem to start with a story. Here's some of mine.
I had grand plans for this semester, and they were simply to make sure I graduate on time. Unfortunately, that is probably not going to happen. And I'm okay with that. I'm alright with a GPA that doesn't reflect my intelligence, a reputation that doesn't reflect who I am, and with being a big screwup. Because people that have it all together must live some pretty boring lives.
In the big picture, what really matters is how I live. And I can't live a lie any longer. I can not be a person I am not, even if that means that I don't necessarily fit with very many things. I'm okay with having a niche, and I'm very much okay with not really knowing where my life is going and eventually not being the best at what I do. It doesn't really matter, because what matters is who I am.
I'm supposed to be a person that loves everyone for who they are, including myself. I fail at doing that a lot in all cases, including in loving God how He deserves. But perfection isn't my life. Living in death is. Giving up and letting God's strength shine through in my weakness is. Being a modernist, postmodernist, existentialist, Christian, philosopher, theologian, psychologist, intellectual, emergent, liberal, conservative, "goth," Dark Boy...
I just don't care what I am anymore. It does not matter. The chips will fall where they may, and I will keep being who I am, which is a person made just as I am that screws up a lot and doesn't show the love he believes so strongly in how he's supposed to. I'll keep creating categories, systematizing the things I know and trying to find out more, and I'll keep trying to exist in a way that is right and true, even if I fail at it so many times. I'll keep thinking about the things of God, and I'll keep writing my thoughts down, because they burst from me forcibly if I don't write them. Maybe those thoughts will get published one day and a lot of people can read what I think.
That would be funny, frankly. But I would hope it would be filled with the hope I am given, the hope that has nothing at all to do with my turbulent and messed up emotions, the hope that has nothing to do with my intellectual doubts, skepticism, system of beliefs, or lack thereof. That hope is that Love exists, and its' nature is one of Truth.
If I can live for that, it doesn't matter what category I go in, whether I can make a difference in any way anyone can discern, or what exactly my beliefs are. Jesus did not spend years trying to put himself in a category of rabbi (which is what he was). He lived. He existed true to himself. He was plain about who he was, but he never tried to create a reputation. A good name is not what Jesus was after. He was called a drunkard, a glutton, a blasphemer, a liar, insane, and the public at large didn't know who he really was, just a bunch of rumors. He kept living rather than tried to correct them. I don't think he ever once regretted the incarnation or laying down his power. He lived in peace and love, and was killed for it by the religious establishment, which chose to hate him for not fitting in their paradigm. He didn't care, he conquered death and forgave them all for wronging him.
How am I supposed to be like that? Truly, only God himself could have such love as to go through all of that and still pursue us endlessly and relentlessly. I can not think of a single person that can love that relentlessly, least of all myself. Jesus the Messiah is the Prince of Peace indeed.
I've struggled with many things at TFC. Reputation, misconception, negative attitudes, insults, gossip, disapproval, disagreement, argument, unfair situations, rumors...name it. In the end, those things don't matter in light of the New Humanity. Not even my chronic depression and my life that is seemingly becoming a huge mess matters in the light of who Jesus is. This is me forgiving and forgetting for as long as my fickle heart will allow, because I honestly don't care anymore. I don't have the strength to care, and I no longer have the will.
I care more about being the person I am supposed to be than making sure everyone knows who that is. I care more about friendships and treating people with love, as their intrinsic worth demands, than with trying to correct ways I've been wronged and/or get revenge. I care more about making sure people know I am listening to them than trying to communicate some "truth" I supposedly have. I care more about understanding God better than trying to make sure my philosophy and theology are right on. I care more that I've made someone's day better than what I get out of that. I care more about love than my selfish desires, which are still very much there, and will continue to hold sway on many days.
Surely, I am still the person you all know. But that's not the person you knew yesterday, and it's definitely not the person you knew last year or when I first came to TFC. Almost everything about me has changed, and it is continuing to do so.
If there is one constant about me, it's that nothing ever is constant. If there can possibly be another, it's that I try very hard to be a person like Christ, and I fail spectacularly and frequently. You can all cite at least one example, I am sure.
Jesus lived a certain way. It's not like he thought about a set of rules and obeyed them. He was himself, and being God incarnate, that was good and true. Since them, people slurred "Christians" have tried to do the same thing, because something about how Jesus lived got to them. It might have been the love that would make him leave wherever he was and come here just to see us, hang out with us, and promise us, the bride, that he'd come for us. It might have been the way Jesus spoke and used story after story to communicate something he just couldn't put plainly because our heads would explode, but we keep seeing glimpses of, and how that resonates with who we know we were created to be. It might be how Jesus chose death over power, Love over safety, and Truth over mediocrity, and then took death, the constant of mortality and humanity's folly, and broke it beyond repair with a new life.
The early Christians, far before the word "Christian," called this "The New Humanity." A new way to be human. Existing for something more. Power in weakness, strength in humility, honor in all things, truth in spirit, love in existence, and a whole lot of messing everything up and profaning anything and everything sacred with our foolishness.
A rejection of reductionistic religion, the radical idea that reality can't be just what everyone says it is.
And people are still reductionists. Somehow, after all of the glimpses of ultimate reality, all of the confusion and astonishment and wonder of pondering what Jesus says, after being unable to understand how Kenosis or Resurrection or the Trinity works, we still create and zealously, bloodily, and hatefully defend systems that have taken the place of "Truth." And, dare I say it, "Biblical Truth?"
Regardless of the religious establishments of today, the New Humanity still lives, because Jesus still lives.
I have no monopoly on Truth or on Love, I merely try my hardest to find them everywhere and in every way I possibly can. Join me?

Postmodernism/Emerging Church FAQ (Version 2.0)

In keeping with the general tone of this board, I have decided that upon the death of the previous “Postmodernism/Emerging Church FAQ,” I would rewrite the FAQ to make it as informative as possible with as little persuasive material and/or ranting and raving as I can possibly muster.
I have taken one definition from wikipedia and created one definition from my pool of knowledge for the purposes of this FAQ, and I'd like to ask you all to understand these in the light of current cultural shifts and the world today. This is not an academic article, and it should not be taken as such. If anything, take the entirety of this with a grain of salt and read up on it yourself. This is a different take on the Emerging Church and Postmodernism than what you are likely to hear from 99% of TFC, possibly because I am attempting to correct a general bias against Postmodernism based on faulty information that has become widespread in the Evangelical community.
I feel a connection to this movement called Postmodernism, and I am voicing that here in a way I hope you will at least consider. This is another perspective on a big issue today, and I hope you at least consider it.
The objective of this composition is not to make you Postmodern or Emergent, but to inform you of just what those things are so that if you do object to anything, you can do so after becoming informed about it. Hopefully you will do so in a loving way, but that's up to you.

The first thing that must be understood before trying to understand the Emerging Church are Modernism and Postmodernism, because the clashing of these methods of thought are where the majority of problems are encountered.

Modernism - a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation.

Some characteristics of modern thought are logic, critical analysis, scientific methodology, and empiricism. In general, the modern man relies on their five senses and their logical capability to discern truth, and believes this to be not only possible, but something that people have been doing all along, and should continue to do to make progress.
The secular modernist believes this circularly. I think therefore I am...and can think more. The spiritual modernist believes that this capability came from a divine source, and the Christian modernist believes this to be a part of the Image of God. Regardless, modernism is characterized by an optimism regarding man's analytical and logical ability to discern truth.
There are some (like Dr. Williams) that prefer to call this Western thought, and designate Modernism to Secular Modernists in order to make a separation. That is their prerogative, but for the purposes of this composition, I will be referring to Modern and Western thought as Modernism.
Regardless, Biblical Exegesis and Systematic Theology are products of a Modern mode of thought within the Christian faith, and are what characterize the Conservative branch of Modern Christianity, as opposed to the Liberal branch, with their higher textual criticism and lack of belief in miracles. Of course, not all are strict Conservatives or Liberals, and these are simply stereotypical examples.
Anyway, the branch of Conservative Modern Christianity you are all probably the most familiar with is Evangelicalism. Evangelicals principally believe in Scripture's inerrancy as a doctrine because of its' necessity in conversation with secular Modernists or liberal Modern Christians, to give them a logical base from which to argue.
Hence, Modern Christians are characterized by a logical defense of their faith based on their presuppositions, which they defend as coming from the Bible, the inerrant source of truth. Modern Christianity has been a good thing, and still is where applicable.

But something happened in the course of Modernity, something that made many people question its' validity. This was the second World War, and it lead to a critical and negative change in Modern thought, which some now term “Post Modernism.” Modern thinkers began to realize after WW2 that Modern thought could not explain or help the disillusionment they felt, and Modern Christianity hence had no real answers for them, since it was operating within the cultural realm it was used to: Modernism.
Though it is still in its' defining phase, one can make a working definition of just what Postmodernism is, mainly by highlighting what it is not.

Postmodernism – A skepticism toward absolute truth claims including metanarratives, stemming from a recognition of human subjectivity leading to a skepticism toward our ability to come to understand truth.

In the Postmodern (or late and current Modern) mode of thought, people have become skeptical of just how capable man is of comprehending truth through simple logic and the scientific method of experimentation. Though progress is still emphasized, postmodernists are generally skeptical of whether modern progress has been good or not, especially if it lead to something like World War 2. People began to seek answers beyond what can be offered from critical analysis and purely logical thought, or a “glimpse of the divine.” Because of the failure of man to improve themselves, people have begun to turn toward the spiritual for hope, as they are desperately lacking it in themselves. Additionally, many Modern Christians have also lost their hope, and questioned the existence of God in the Postmodern world, wondering why they can not logically find His work or scientifically test His existence. This has led to many “just have faith” reactions and movements such as Creation Science, seeking to make God's existence as creator reasonable to the disillusioned Modern world.
Unfortunately, most definitions of Postmodernism in Christian circles are a result of a very Modern analysis of Postmodern writing, and so we come up with a definition of Postmodernism such as “absolute truth does not exist, and God is nowhere in those that call themselves Postmodern, because they're unreachable with the truth.” This definition completely ignores the reason behind why the Postmodern world is questioning truth claims in the first place, lumping it in with simple relativism. Naturally, in a secular Postmodern world, absolute truth does not exist, because there's no place to anchor it without man's ability to comprehend it.
The point of this overview is to point out that both modes of thought have good things to contribute to society. Indeed, man is capable of grasping truth as Modernism would tend to say, but he is also subjective as Postmodernism posits, and his anchoring point for truth is Jesus Christ. They both are also not things that should be fully and blindly devoted to, because of their limitations. Modernism relies on the scientific method and logic almost exclusively for a grasp on the truth, while Postmodernism as a mostly reactionary view comes with the danger of being too cynical regarding those things, while blindly grasping at any mystical experience of God, sometimes without thinking it through.
The point is: a movement of thought is just what it is: a movement of thought. Neither Modernism or Postmodernism are intrinsically good or evil things. What matters is how they are applied. Enter the Church, and the point of this composition.

The aim of the rest of this composition is to help you understand the Emerging Church as a way of relating to the Postmodern world, and why it is even necessary. To do that, first we must understand why Modern Christianity has become insufficient, in its current form, at relating to the Postmodern world, especially in the light of those that come to know Christ that still think in a Postmodern fashion.
The Church has always gone through movements. The one you are probably the most familiar with is the Reformation, but there have been many. Indeed, the Church did not start off as the Institution (or Institutions) it is today, it started out as “The Way,” or what we term the Early Church. There were many movements that gradually progressed the Church to where it is today, split between Eastern and Western modes of thought, and further between the Modern Church and more Medieval variants. The Catholic Church in recent history has had Vatican II as a sort of redefining, and Protestantism has been full of them, including things such as early Fundamentalism, the Jesus Movement, and now includes the Emerging Church. These movements have been fundamental in shaping and reshaping the Institutions of the Church, and whether their success spawned an institution or not, they have invariably been a positive thing, even if it shows the Church what NOT to do.

It is from this backdrop that Emergent Leaders are seeing changes in society and the world, and moving to understand the Gospel in light of the Postmodern world and beyond.
The concept of an “Emerging Church” is a way of interpreting history and Christianity in such a way that God has always been progressing the Church through different levels and modes of thought, through historical events, and bringing them closer to all things true and right via a “memory” of sorts, that shapes the Church not to repeat past mistakes, and to always be relevant to culture without compromising the core of the Gospel. The Biblical model for this is Paul, who was “all things to all people,” the intellectual to the Greeks, the Roman to the Romans, the Jew of Jews to those of Judaism, and anything else he could be. He challenged the status queue, and saw the core issue of the Gospel to be God's Love and desire to redeem mankind, like the Early Church did when adapting the Way of Jesus for the Gentiles, a movement initiated by the Holy Spirit.
So, we have a Postmodern world, a world that has been torn up by World War II and various other cultural changes. A world that no longer believes that Christ and the Bible are the most logical choices for living, and doesn't care if they are, because it has ceased to work for them in their despair and lack of direction. Christianity, in its' Modern, traditional and pragmatic form, is no longer an option for them.
There are two reactions to all of this. The first is to label the Postmodernists as relativistic and completely unreasonable, condemning them because they won't accept the most “reasonable” faith. The second is to try to understand the Postmodern world and relate to them where they are, understanding that there is nothing new to God, and the Gospel, being true to all, is infinitely adaptable, because God's Grace that meets mankind where they are is also this way. There are, of course, reactions in between these extremes, and one need not be Postmodern to talk to those that are about God. But it sure helps, especially when there are Christians that have begun to see their own pragmatic and traditional faith as lacking something that they desperately need. The conclusion is the same: we're missing something, and the world is experiencing a crisis because of it.

There has arisen a distinction in the Emerging Church, perhaps one of the first that it actually has as a movement. The distinction comes between the Emerging and Emergent.
Emerging is a wide category meant to encompass all who believe the Gospel to be amorphous and adaptable to culture, and powerful enough to withstand the things present there, because God wishes to meet all people where they are. In this way, the only movements that really threaten the Gospel are those that are explicitly contrary to it, or movements that destroy and cause hatred, deception, and selfishness. The Emerging Church does not believe Postmodernism to be one of these movements, and though some embrace it fully, the dominant reaction is to carefully and openly engage the culture, understanding this movement of disillusionment with Modern thought and bringing Christ to them in a Missional way, even if it's service that does not involve explicitly sharing ones' beliefs.
Emergent is the name of the organization that first brought forth the idea of an “Emerging Church,” but it also refers to those who are Postmodern in their thinking regarding Theology. This is a smaller percentage, because not all who share the burden for the Postmodern world are Postmodern themselves (or even of the Emerging Church), but those that are are beginning to think of Jesus and the Church in new (yet old) ways, and trying to understand the Church as a whole rather than focusing purely on evangelism or doing Church the right way. Because of the inherent skepticism in Postmodernism, all of Christianity has begun to be questioned, and logical answers have stopped cutting it. Logic is inherently built upon presuppositions, and since we are not purely logical beings, it stands to reason that we can experience and understand God and His heart for humanity in ways that transcends that. The solution then, is not to abandon logical thought and a reasonable faith, but to balance it with forgotten ways of pursuing God, and understand it all in the light of Community, and what people need.

It is a forgone conclusion that not only is the Emerging Church not the end-all of the Christian faith, but it is not even for everybody. Indeed, those that believe Postmodernism is a bad thought process should disagree with the Emerging Church movement, and should do so respectfully, openly, and honestly. I believe that one of the strengths of the Emerging Church is a willingness to admit to being wrong, and an openness to conversation. So don't be afraid to express your opinion in love, but be informed about it when you do.
The Emerging Church may be based on a cultural shift that has already been dealt with in some areas of the world, but its' spirit hasn't died out, because a term that most people are using to describe the world today is “Post-Christian.” As the Church, it is my belief that whatever we do next, we should show the Love and compassion that Christ showed to all those around him, never mince words with the truth, just as Christ did, and always be humble, just like Christ. Unfortunately for us, we don't have nearly the pool of knowledge or wisdom that God Incarnate did, and so we must learn to accept that even though we are followers of Him, there may be those that do not claim to follow his teachings that have some very good ideas, and can point out our blind spots far better than we can. We also must admit that even though we may know things that are true, we do not necessarily understand their implications entirely, and even if we believe we can grasp truth in the Modern sense, we are not omniscient, and hence we could be missing something, especially since we are not only culturally influenced, but are all subjective. We can do this while remaining confident in our faith, because it's not a set of purely logical premises, but a way of life, one that seeks the God of Love and Truth that meets us in our world, as evidenced by the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
If the Gospel really is true, then let's hold onto the God we serve with everything we've got and dive into the Postmodern world as we are, asking Him to guide us to all things true, and to forgive us when we don't listen to Him.
It is my hope that despite my obvious biases and lack of complete clarity regarding this subject, you now have a better working knowledge of what Postmodernism and the Emerging Church are, and we can have discussions that address things that actually have to do with these movements, rather than spend a long time clarifying misunderstandings. Let's seek to intelligently dialogue about these things rather than being blindly reactionary.

Original Context: http://www.thephilosophyclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1048

Why I Am Not An Evangelical

I am struck with the same thing every time I return to Toccoa Falls College. I give them the benefit of the doubt when I am away, but I always foolishly get struck by it in full force when I come back.
They are extremely Evangelical, and I am not.
What does that mean? It means that my faith journey has taken me to a place where I am absolutely not of the Protestant, Evangelical, Modern, Western mode of existing.
Protestants are characterized by holding to the orthodox tenants of faith and to the teachings of the Reformation, which occurred when they broke off from the Catholic Church. The issue here is not orthodoxy, so let's move to the Reformation Solas, their self-created summation of their view. I'll attempt to save my worst disagreements for last.

Soli Deo gloria - Though originally intended to slam Catholic revering of saints, I like the premise. All glory is truly God's glory, and He is the ultimate reality, the one which humanity and all of the universe pales in comparison too. All glory is due to Him alone. Of course, I don't like the premise that He seeks glory, but that is not necessarily included in this.

Solus Christus - Not a lot to say here really. Basically means that the only mediator between God and man is Christ, that Salvation is available through him alone. Since Christ is God, it makes sense. Originally meant to oppose Roman Catholic sacerdotalism, which meant that Sacramental grace was only exercised through priests. Again, I agree that humanity comes to God because He comes to us, and we don't need to be part of the true Church to do so.

Sola gratia - Here we run into some problems. "Grace alone" asserts that unification with God is accomplished solely by His grace. Sounds good on the surface, but if that were so, would we not all dwell in His Kingdom forever, because He wishes all to be saved? Does God pick and choose? Negative to that one. Sure, we are saved and welcomed into God's Kingdom because of His grace, but it's not like we say a prayer and are in. We also don't have to continually do works and perfectly avoid sin to be saved, because that's impossible, and God obviously wishes for us to dwell with Him, not away from Him in disobedience. I'd say that it is not grace alone that saves us, but love alone. Accepting of God's love, and returning of it in the pale and incomplete way we can. Obedience of the heart rather than actions, which accounts for the change in existence that is the hallmark of our presence in the Kingdom of God. Those that are saved are saved because of God's love for them, and because of their love for God. They dwell with God now, and so they will forever.

Sola fide - By faith alone. Again, sounds good on the surface, but becomes problematic when we consider the implications. Luther's intent was to refute the Catholic Church's justification partially by works, saying that by faith the sinner is saved, and from that comes good works. The Catholic Church, in turn, says that faith and good works yield justification, putting justification down the timeline to eternity and the Last Judgment. The dispute here is where salvation occurs, not really what saves. If it occurs where the Catholics say it does (which I think makes more sense considering Christians continue to act like screw-ups), then of course we are saved by a combination, since faith without works is dead. I'd revise this one from faith alone to existence alone. If we exist in the Kingdom of God now, then faith and works flow directly out of it, and our eternal destiny, or Salvation, will occur in His eternal Kingdom.

Sola scriptura - This is where the real disagreement begins folks. Sola fide and Sola gratia are somewhat disagreements based on technicality, but "Scripture alone" is the real issue for me. The reformation asserted not only the inspiration of Scripture, but its' inerrancy, infallibility, perspicuity, and its' self-interpreting "alive" nature. This culminates in the term "Word of God." In my opinion, this is deification of a book, and idolatry. I have no doubt that a lot of Protestants do not do this. It is not my wish to attack anyone that calls themselves a Protestant as an idolater. However, there are exceptions when it comes to the more extreme Protestants, and this betrays a fundamental flaw in the assertion of the Bible as the "Word of God." It becomes alive and self-interpreting to any time and any place, and so we become radically devoted to it, spouting Scripture for anything and everything. I did it, and I exist in direct opposition to that tendency. The fact that Protestants, the ones that hold to this, are divided into thousands of denominations makes me question the validity of the Scriptures' self-interpreting perspicuity, and the fact that I can't even make a lot of it out without education in the culture of its' time tells me that the Bible does not stand alone.

My assertion is that it's possible for Christianity to stand on its' own without being "Biblical," by understanding itself historically and culturally, and by living by the words of Jesus in the inspired Scriptures: to exist in the nature of love, which is the nature of God. Sure, what Jesus said is Biblical in that it is contained in the Bible. It's still just a book, recording Jesus' inspired words. God is the one we worship, and the Bible is a history of and springboard into that faith.
I am not Protestant because I am not of the Reformation, and I also don't share their method of thinking, though I tend to on the surface. I am not Catholic or Orthodox because I can't agree that an institution is the one true catholic and apostolic Church, and I can't agree with their thinking either. I'll elaborate on thinking methodology later in this post, as it is what is truly at the heart of this composition.

So, we've covered Protestantism, let's move to Evangelicalism. Evangelicals are Protestants that have constructed a theology that places evangelism at the center of their goal, their Mission being to communicate their faith, this massive structure of beliefs, to all who they can convince, and then fit them into their religion so they can attain "salvation." While I have no doubt that a lot of converts to Christianity saved with this method know and follow God, I question its' effectiveness and its' overall correctness.
Evangelicals, for the most part, are Protestants who believe that the highest calling of the believer is evangelism, and heavily emphasize Heaven and Hell as a result. The way they bring people to God is through bringing them down (making them realize they are sinful) and then scaring them to God (tell them they're going to Hell and need God). As such, people say the Sinner's Prayer or something similar in order to attain this Salvation, which effectively makes them good with God. Oh yeah, and uh...discipleship.
Was Salvation ever intended to be this? Are we supposed to come to God because it is mutually beneficial, and we won't burn in a place of torment for eternity? That seems like a relationship of convenience, and explains why there is no real discipleship among Evangelicalism quite well. I constantly hear about how we need to care about people after they get saved and help them, but people do it out of obligation from the community. So the solution to this problem of a lack of community and discipleship becomes to create a subculture that does these things, because we are supposed to "obey God." Which only works because we are pressured to do it rather than it coming from who we are, in most cases.
Obviously, Evangelicalism doesn't seem to work very well, unless the goal is simply to convert people to the "right religion." But what if there is not a right religion? What if even our orthodox points don't capture all of who God is and all of what His calling is? Obviously, since God is infinite and calls us to a life beyond imagination, they can not. So it seems that even typical evangelism goes out the window.
What if the real issue isn't Heaven and Hell, but who we are as humans? What if humanity was simply made to exist in communion with God, and to not do so is what Hell really is? What if this relationship is not just a sinner's prayer that puts in "right standing" with God, but is a way of altering our own existence in a way that we become aware of God, and we interact with Him daily? His Furious Love can not be run from, it can only be rejected or accepted, a process which alters our consciousness.
I have no desire to communicate the entirety of my beliefs to anyone. I don't even have them all right, why should I try to convince other people of their validity or truth? I'd end up participating in foolishness like trying to convince myself of their truth while I am trying to convince others of it, something that I ironically find Evangelicals doing, panicking if I question their beliefs because their structure is falling, desperately trying to keep it standing.
What I do want to communicate though, is why I live how I do, and why I have hope. I have hope not in what I know, but in Who I know, and Who knows and loves me. His call is to love others as I love myself, and He's shown me how to love myself as well.
I fail at loving a lot, but I am learning.
To love others is to provide to them what they need. What do people need? They were created to need many things. God is one of them, as are food, provisions, shelter, love, and community. In fact, to provide for someone else is to show them the God that calls us to be like Him. That's evangelism.
Theological disagreements can come later, when they can be participated in in love and community. There is a place for constructing beliefs and defending them to others, but unfortunately Evangelicals seem to have let it inundate the entirety of their faith. They are not to blame, because the Evangelical movement came out of a reaction to Classical Liberalism, which tended to strip Christianity of its' beliefs. Indeed, if people believe something, they must fight for it if need be. If love is at the center of our disagreements as our motivation, it may not necessarily turn out right, but we can continue to have our goal be to show others our hope rather than our theology, and discuss beliefs secondarily.
"In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things unity."
So, I am not an Evangelical because I do not fit into a subculture of Christianity that wishes to take its' system of values, call them Christian, and make that the litmus test for anyone that claims to be one. My system of beliefs are not what defines my faith, and I have no desire to make other people believe what I do, especially not with Heaven and Hell as my motivation.
evangelical fervor? Sure, I'd love to tell people the reason why I live how I do. But not Evangelical fervor, because it makes no sense for me to convince people of things I don't even believe myself.
Even though I don't share their views, my real objection to Evangelicalism and Protestantism isn't that they're horrible and wrong systems, it's that they've become lost in BEING a system, and are hence stagnant. The real culprit here becomes what I will call Modernity.

Modernity is present in the thinking of the Reformation, and rightfully so since it was a progression from the Medieval beliefs of the Church of the day. But is that appropriate today, or do we need to continue to progress?
I am not going to try to speak for what is appropriate for the entirety of the world, because there are some who must follow their Western thinking into a Modernist type faith, and that's perfectly fine. If I can admit that my beliefs don't have the whole picture and I fall into corruption all the time and am still a part of God's Kingdom, then I can certainly extend that same generosity to all who share my faith or my hunger for God. I can only speak of myself.
What is completely inappropriate for me is a Modern faith in God and Christ my Lord. Though I can think systematically, it limits me if I hold to it. There are some things I can't explain, and there are some things I have found out about God by interacting with Him and by Him teaching me that are nowhere in the Bible. Paradox is a regular thing for me, and I live in tension where most Evangelicals would rather try to determine which system is "Biblical."
To be blunt, I don't care what is Biblical, because the Bible is a historical document that was inspired by God in the same way He continues to inspire believers today. Sure, God's Character is there, and that's what I care about. The rest of it is history or culture, which I care about for its' own sake, not because I want to pattern my life after Paul's Theology.
Naturally, I don't say most of this often, because it's really offensive to the Modernist thinker, and it's much better to relate to them on their level (intellectual and logical thought, good things) than it is to try and tell them they're close-minded. Really, there are a lot of Evangelicals that are not. This is why I am making the effort to cease attacking Evangelicalism, despite how broken I feel it is. The Evangelicals I know that are seeking more than just finding verses to tell them what to do have become the exceptions, because they break away from one thing the Reformation is about: reductionistic thought. People today commonly say they don't "put God in a box," and this is what I'd like to think they're referring to, whether they are right or wrong about their own beliefs.

This all leads me to one point: we need to redefine what a Christian is.
A lot of people tell me that they can't call certain people that don't hold to certain beliefs a Christian, but they can't speak for their heart. While I understand this distinction, I find it close to pointless, because by saying someone isn't a Christian, you are inferring things about them, mainly that they don't follow the Savior that has saved them if their heart is existent in the Kingdom of God.
This is why I don't think the qualifications to be a Christian should be orthodoxy. I say that as a Christian holding to the five orthodox beliefs (with quibbles over what is meant by Inspiration of Scripture, so maybe 4.5).
Is it possible to believe the orthodox tenants and not be a Christian? Yes. A person can believe in the Trinity, the Deity and Humanity of Christ, the Atonement of Christ, the Resurrection, and the Inspiration of Scripture and not be a follower of Christ, simply by refusing to follow Christ in word or deed.
Let's not discount orthodoxy though. God has brought me closer to being a completely orthodox Christian than ever, and my beliefs are evidence of His work in my life. It may be that those beliefs are right for me and wrong for someone else, because I can speak for myself. But I'd like to think that Christians can at least agree on something, and orthodoxy seems to be it.
But for those that don't or those that struggle, isn't there some other indicator of a person following Christ?
Therein lies the rub: it is in their heart. It is an existential change that no one else can know for sure. We can have indicators of this change (and indeed, they should flow out of it), but those indicators flow out of people that are not orthodox in any sense of the word.
Kinda hard to systematize, isn't it? Kind hard to wrap your mind around and define what a Christian is by what we can test, isn't it? I surely can't do it, and so I refuse to even try. If we must be Postmodern to grow, let's be Postmodern. I know that's my path.
I understand the desire to determine who is a Christian, but honestly I think the reasons we give for knowing that (who to let into institutional churches, who gets a say in what Christianity is), are a little too reactionary. But for those that need to do it, I advise only love.
As for me, I've come to a point where I follow God to be a more complete human, not to be a better Christian. I don't care how good of a Christian I am, and I don't care who thinks I am one or not. I care whether I really love those around me. I care whether I can truly say that God's Character flows through my actions. I care about who Jesus was as the archetypical human, and trying to be more like that, because I believe it's a reflection of God. These beliefs need no defense, because they're part of who I am, and what God has done in the light I shall not undo in darkness.
Evangelism as defined by Evangelicals (communicating right belief and a book to others) does not interest me, because people are different, and the fact that all of our faiths are different is evidence of that. The difference is not the problem, the splitting and schisming and divisive nature is. What does interest me is recognizing the God that is there wherever I go, and bringing that into the light as best as I possibly can. That's real evangelism, and is scandalous to the Evangelical, who relies so heavily on the Bible.
I don't mean to be scandalous or to tell Evangelicals they're wrong constantly, but when I am inundated with a subculture that does not work for me, I'm going to come across that way. It doesn't mean that we can't relate, and it doesn't mean that my faith is better than yours'. It means I'm different from you in a fundamental way, and we should learn from each other.
If that revolutionizes Christianity, then it will be God doing it, not I.

Epistemology

It's been a while since I've thought about the nature of truth, but a conversation with Carson regarding it the other day got me thinking.
After my paradigm of the Bible being the perfect "handbook for life" was shattered, I began to scrabble for something, anything to be a standard of sorts for truth. Indeed, when I mention that I don't believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture to most people at school, I get funny looks and the same question every time: "what do you base your faith on?" I don't really think in those terms anymore, so I usually can't give much of an answer, at least not one to satisfy the Evangelical mind.
Most Evangelicals tend toward the other extreme to describe people that don't view the Bible as absolutely authoritative, saying that they just go with how they feel all the time. What does that even mean? That if you don't have something that can be seen, read and heard to tell you what you should do, then you'll just make emotional decisions? If that's so, then why is Christianity split into at least three major branches, one of which divides into thousands of denominations? Sounds like a bunch of "emotional" decision making to me.
Of course they all think what they believe is true. But why? If you go to any denomination, branch, or type of church (or any religious service really) and you get people that share a certain trait. Something about their beliefs resonates with who they are. In most Christian denominations, people say that their Church "just teaches the Bible." Do they really? I mean, if it's a Christian Church, it's pretty much assured that the Bible is there. But what does "just teaches the Bible" mean? What does it mean that their brand of Christianity is "Biblical?"
This extends into other religions as well. They all have writings. The Book of Mormon, the
Quran, the Watchtower. Some don't have a central writing, but many writings. One thing they all have in common though, is that they attempt to base their religion on their writings, most of which are accompanied by claims to divine inspiration.
Practically, nothing sets Christianity apart. And with people breathing down my throat telling me if I'm really a Christian I should believe the Bible is Inerrant, the question that Pilate asked Christ has become central in my quest for knowledge.
What is truth?
Christians usually try to make the claim that their religion, and thus their claim to truth, is superior to others. This usually begins with the Bible. Ignoring apparent contradictions, the claim is that the teachings never contradict, and that the Bible itself proves its' own Inerrancy with hermeneutical interpretations, based on the presuppositions that one must come to the Bible with. There's no getting away from presupposition really, we always suppose something without proving it. I'm a Christian based on things that I can't prove, except to myself based on subjective knowledge. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The point is, I don't buy proofs for inerrancy. If the Holy Spirit really does bring Christianity to consensus on major doctrines, then inerrancy is not a major doctrine. Many well-respected Christians do not affirm inerrancy, and the easiest example of this offhand is C.S. Lewis. The hermeneutics of inerrancy rely heavily upon believing that any reference in Scripture is equivalent to "God's word" or "the word of God." I don't buy this either, for reasons I will elaborate on momentarily.
The one thing that I have been convinced of is that the Bible is a historically reliable book, a product of the Early Apostolic Church, started by the Apostles who knew Christ. Based on this, we can presume that the four gospels give the most accurate picture of who Jesus was, and based on Jewish society, we can presume that the Old Testament is accurate, for the most part. I make no claims regarding epistles, and perspicuity (the Bible being clear on all essential doctrine) has thrown itself out of a 100th story window a long time ago. The real issue here is whether the Bible conveys the Character of God. My completely subjective answer is an emphatic yes, because I know God, and know that He's the same one written about in Scripture, which I believe is reliable enough to read and understand God better through.
The disturbing thing about all of this for most intellectually inclined people (like myself) is that knowing God, a completely experiential and subjective thing, precedes belief in Scripture, something that is supposedly objective, and a measure for truth.
But there's something else I've always relied on to distinguish what is true from what is not, and it is not the Bible. In light of the apparent inability of the church at large to agree on just what is Biblical and the ridiculous insistence of everyone upon their faith being the Biblical one, this makes me think that Truth itself is something far more abstract.
The question still remains: what is truth? And the further nagging one has now attached itself to the end, the central question to epistemology...how do we know what is true, or that which corresponds to reality? Further, how do we know we know?
With this in mind...let's look at John 1. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was then equated with God. What did this mean to the Jews that would be reading this, and what did it mean to John? The concept of God speaking creation into existence Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) wasn't a knew one, and the key here becomes that God spoke it into existence. To speak...you use words. In the beginning was the Word.
The Ancient Jews believed that the Word was more than just something uttered by God, but something through which all things were created. Furthermore, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Meaning that Jesus is the Word, or what God spoke creation into existence with. If truth is that which pertains to reality, and reality was created through Christ pre-incarnation, in essence, then Christ is Truth embodied, and reality is all something that has flowed and continually flows from him.
Yes, for all of this to work, I must presuppose that Jesus is an extension of God. A manifestation if you will, or as Christians love to call him, the second person of the Holy Trinity. To sum it up, Jesus is God. I have no way of proving that, it is a presupposition based on my personal experience with God.
So when we read of the word of the Lord in Scripture, what does it mean, when used abstractly? Does it mean a book that everyone interprets differently, and requires a ton of historical context to understand its' subjective and occasionally objective message, or does it mean the mystical concept of the Word, the Logos in Greek, or the thing from which the universe has flowed?
I'll go for the second one, and only the second one. The first simply makes no sense to me, especially since when it was written there was no Bible.
So what is truth? Truth is Christ, or the Word of God, and truth is that which corresponds to reality.
If we then conclude that truth is that which corresponds to Truth, the ultimate reality, then we're seeing the words of the Word everywhere, as creation was created through the Word, or Christ.
Confused yet?
How do I know I know something? I don't, but I believe, because someone greater has given me ways of perceiving it, and walks with me.
What do I base my faith on? I base it on my subjective experience with God. The God I believe in is so infinite, that I have no way of telling you what His Salvation is, other than the outpouring of His love.
What is truth, and how do I discern it? I discern it based on my relationship with Truth, while recognizing that because I am human, I cloud it a lot of times. I am subjective, but that doesn't keep my relationship with God from guiding me.
It's a tougher answer than the whole "I believe what is Biblical" answer, but it is honest, from my heart, and it's a faith in a God that is alive, like the faith of many that try to have a Biblical one.
It is also a faith that hopes that people of all religions, faiths, or beliefs can be saved, and can spend eternity with God. The God I believe in is big enough to do that, is present in this universe enough so that everyone knows of Him, and loves people enough to allow them to reject Him if they so choose.
I also admit that I may not have the whole picture. Due to my subjectivity, I must admit to something I've hated admitting ever since becoming a Christian: I am just a man, and one that doesn't know everything. Someone else may know more about Truth than I do. Hence, I want to learn as much as I can from everyone I meet.
After all, Truth is infinite.

The Voice of Change, the Darkhorse Doctor, the Woman of Experience, and the Crazy Preacher

I've gotten multiple comments regarding disappointment and loss of respect since I've decided to support Senator Barack Obama for the Presidential race publicly on Facebook. That irritates me. Not the difference of opinion, that's fine. People can and will disagree. But the implication that I am somehow ignorant or less intelligent for supporting this man is absurd and quite aggravating, considering the amount of thought I put into everything else.
It all started with hearing about Doctor Ron Paul from Beth. Though I was disappointed that he was running as a Republican since the "GOP" has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth, he seemed to have some pretty good policies. So I investigated a little. His policies are for reducing Government power and returning control now held by Federal programs to the states. This also means tax cuts. Sounds pretty good. Finally, after being a registered voter for 4 years, there was someone that I thought I could vote for.
Then I started asking my family and Republican friends about their opinions. I found that Republicans, by and large, do not support him. Mind you, this is in my limited social network, but the polls seem to agree. Those that support Dr. Paul are free thinkers, libertarians (which is Paul's political Philosophy anyway) and those whose opinion I generally respect. Most of the Republicans I've talked to happen to be Conservative Christians as well, so they support Mike Huckabee. I did a little investigation into his policies as well, and found several scandalous reports on his use of money. Let's just say his spending of government money has been, shall we say...not very ethical at some points.
Of course, politics has never been my thing. These reports could be true or false, and politicians all have their own things that the other side accuses them of. However, I quickly found that Mr. Huckabee supports continuing the war in Iraq. In fact, every Republican I've heard except for Ron Paul wants to continue the war until it is done, saying that we'll just be attacked again if we withdraw. Nevermind national security when there is fear I guess.
The Iraq War is the deciding factor for me. Add to that the fact that Huckabee is a Baptist preacher and the voice of the Evangelicals...no way.
So far it's looking like Ron Paul's my man. I still like him for the most part, though my opinion has changed. You see, I then looked at the Democrat's candidates. Hillary Clinton's focus on global warming is uninteresting to me, though I like most of her other credentials. She's not very big on the war though, and I am so far irritated by her political image. It's not because she's a woman or too liberal or anything, I just don't like how she's handling herself now that it is election year. She's so far acted infuriated that she's being knocked off the top in the polls, ruffled, and generally aggravated at Obama and Edwards for "ganging up on her." Underdog tactics, which lead to a narrow victory in New Hampshire. I am unimpressed.
It's not like I'll be angry or sad if she wins the Primary, I just have no desire to vote for her. And if it ends up being her and Mike Huckabee or any other Republican besides Ron Paul, I'll not be voting this year.
However, looking at Barack Obama's positions impressed me. On all of the major issues, I agree with both him and Hillary Clinton. They both support withdrawal from Iraq, they both want universal healthcare and energy independence, they're both pro-choice and pro-gay rights, which aren't huge issues for me, but I think they're better political positions than the alternatives. Hillary Clinton is for the death penalty which I don't like, but that's mostly a non-issue for me as well, at least politically. Still, it's a point against her. Neither of them are hard on the immigration situation.
But this is aside from who I could tell the candidates are. I've mentioned what I think of Hillary Clinton already. I looked over Barack Obama's website's section on faith, and was frankly impressed by what I read/watched.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
He claims to be a Christian, but his speech to a church full of Evangelicals was one of religious tolerance and universality of language when dialoguing with each other about matters of faith. He holds people of any faith in respect, as well as secularists, and points out the flaws in allowing an extreme of secularism or religion to dominate the climate very well.
Add to that, his reasoning on the major issues is solid. His Iraq policy outlined on his site is impressive and thought through, and his emphasis on diplomatic involvement rather than policing the world is a good one. I think people that say he's an imperialist are exaggerating the necessary caution that comes with a withdrawal from a country we have just pissed off a lot.
The main objection I've heard to every Democratic candidate thus far is taxes. Honestly, the system is a mess. You've got Huckabee's Fair Tax, Ron Paul's no tax, and everyone else's tax reforms. I have to wonder if Ron Paul is being realistic. I know he proposes to halt wasteful government spending, but is that really going to happen? Can radical change occur? I don't know, but I've always been a believer in it. Still, I wonder about him cutting support to so many government institutions and minimum wage at the same time...seems kinda crazy to me, especially with tax cuts. To be honest, taxes aren't that big of a deal to me. Everyone pays them, and we'll probably continue to do so, since cutting taxes and reducing the Federal Government is something the economy will be in shambles over, as well as probably not something anyone will vote for. But still, taxes are the only issue that Ron Paul would have my vote for, as well as being the only other respectable politician in the race I've seen so far.
However, I hold Senator Obama's ideas on a much higher level. Ron Paul's policies are about reforming America's programs within itself, which is important. Senator Obama has different ideas about America's inner workings, and it involves more government involvement. Personally, I am fine with that. If that means everyone gets healthcare, everyone gets education of some kind, and the government is ruled with compassion, good. From all indications right now, that's what seems to be happening in his camp. So far in the primaries, despite Hillary's spoiled attitude, he has done nothing but run a fair campaign with a minimum of mudslinging in return, with perhaps a few convenient things working out against his primary opponent. See: Hillary getting ganged up on. Obama's cool head is a great contrast to her attitude, which is unimpressive to say the least.
Add to that his ideas about Iraq, faith and spirituality, social justice and foreign policy, and I just have to support him. I'd rather have someone globally minded in office than someone purely concerned with holding to the Constitution in internal policy, however good that may be.
Every presidential candidate, regardless of what their supporters say, has flaws in their policy and in their character. I think the only thing that would disturb me would be if another Conservative takes office that is not Ron Paul, who is not a modern Republican in any sense. America does not need GW Bush the 2nd, and after reading Irresistible Revolution, I believe the killing in Iraq needs to stop, and we need to leave, now, which is something no GOP candidate endorses, except for Paul.
In my opinion, Senator Barack Obama would be the best choice for America's next president. Globally minded, freshly optimistic, and not obnoxiously preachy or secularist.
Above all, no matter who wins, I hope for a president that is honorable and will designate no more ridiculous labels like "Axis of Evil," preside over America with compassion for the citizens of America and the people of the world, and can do what needs to be done, with death on their hands being a last resort. I believe Senator Barack Obama is the man for the job.

Blogosphere...?

I now have yet another medium with which to interact with others on the internet, known as a "Blogspot." Really, I thought Xanga or Livejournal would be enough, or even Facebook or Myspace, which may be deleted at some point, since I still hate Myspace. But alas, I have found a use for having one of these, and so it has happened.
I sometimes desire to write without going to all of the trouble of publishing a Facebook note and tagging people, but in a place where everyone can read it. This is my home for that. If you are reading this on Facebook and are confused, that's because this post was imported. Here, you will likely find commentary on religion, politics, music, spirituality, gaming, anime, movies, and anything else of importance in my life. I try to make my thoughts significant, but they often are not, and they are often insignificant to everyone but me. In this case, I invite you to get over it. No one forces you to read this, but I do appreciate discussion about my thoughts, as that's why I've chosen to publish them more publicly than I usually do.
I have also found several people on Blogspot that I want to interact with in that forum. I don't need one to do so, but I chose to anyway, for aforementioned reasons.
I now leave you with the words of Friedrich Nietzsche's "Madman." Just how mad was he, really?
"God is dead, and we have killed Him."