Excerpted from THE TIMES ROMAN, circa A.D. 60.

* “In a shocking series of events this week, a Jew and former member of the religious sect known as the Pharisees, laid into Caesarea’s most esteemed overseer, Felix of Arcadia, with a diatribe about ‘justice, self-control and the supposed ‘coming judgement”, causing the governor great consternation.

As has been provided to us through his transcriptions of all the goings on with respect to the movement known as ‘The Way’, Luke – a Jewish doctor – recorded that Paul, who is also a Roman citizen, has been accused of causing a disturbance in Jerusalem for both Romans and Jews in the area. Though Paul was to stand on trial in Jerusalem before authorities there, an assassination plot was uncovered to take out the Nazarene cult-leader and it was then he was secretly escorted by no less than 270 members of the Roman guard to Caesarea, where he would appear before Antonius Felix, the area governor.

Governor Felix, apparently well acquainted with ‘The Way’, a new religion that combines Jewish beliefs with the understanding that Jesus, a putative healer, self-proclaimed king and saviour of all of mankind, would also have known about the alleged resurrection of this ‘Christ’. (Members of ‘The Way’ continue to claim this resurrection event as being true despite the fact that their Christ was crucified under Roman decree for crimes of insurrection.)

In the Caesarean court at Paul’s preliminary hearing, a representative of the Pharisees, Tertullus, stated that in Jerusalem, Paul had been causing a disturbance. “He agitates trouble in Jewish communities throughout our empire as a ringleader of the heretical sect known as the Nazarenes. He even tried to desecrate the temple!”

Paul, a weary looking man with poor eyesight – hardly an imposing figure – was then brought before the respected governor and allowed to represent himself in his own defence.

The Tarsus native proceeded to detail his account of events: that he went to ‘worship’ in Jerusalem just twelve days before and while in Jerusalem did not argue publically, stir up crowds or cause civil disorder within the city. He then summarized what he believed was the reason his accusers became aggressive toward him:

“I have a hope in God that there will be a resurrection of both the just and unjust, which my opponents also share. … Perhaps my crime is that I spoke this one sentence in my testimony before them: “I am on trial here today because I have hope that the dead are raised.””

After hearing this, the most noble governor dismissed the hearing, promising a decision on the issue when the commandant of Jerusalem arrived to provide his evidence on the matter.

But it was a few days later, when Paul was graciously allowed to enjoy the company of the felicitous governor Felix, that things went south for the radical preacher.

Given an opportunity to speak freely of his faith in the Christ and possibly persuade the governor of the supposed ‘Good News’ message being taught by members of the infant religion, he made a grave error in judgment. Rather than pay homage to the esteemed Felix by complimenting him on his education and knowledge of The Way, Paul expanded on his beliefs by addressing the extreme importance of ‘justice, self-control and the coming judgment’.

Our revered governor was made to feel extremely uncomfortable – fearful, in fact! – due to Paul’s choice of subject matter. How dare this Jew turned Nazarene-follower address a most noble judge and Roman overseer in such a manner! It would have been far more prudent to secure the governor’s interest in (or possible conversion to) the new faith by stating how forgiving of sins the Christ was. Or that if one were to just believe in the Christ, pray a particular set of prayers or provide a specific type of offering, they would be guaranteed a place of honour in the afterlife.

Had Paul remained somewhat reserved with respect to his more incendiary beliefs, he very likely could have secured a shorter stint in Roman custody; the estimable Felix would surely have responded favourably toward him had the more positive aspects of the Nazarene faith been furnished during their time together and if Paul had thought to offer a generous donation to Rome’s interests via the fiduciarily responsible governor.

But such was not to be. Paul remains in prison and most likely will remain there until the esteemed governor Felix steps down and retires with his family to his beautiful summer home in Pompeii, near Herculaneum, in two short years.”

Correspondent for The Times Roman, Martinus Chrestus

© Flagrant Regard, 2015

*Acts of the Apostles, Chapters 23 thru 24

Categories: Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Creative Writing, Didactic, Humor, Humour, Integrity, Liberalism, Spiritual, Spirituality, Theology | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

‘Through A Glass Darkly’ – A Lesson On Spiritual Renewal



“We are all messed up like a person compromised with impurity; even all our right efforts are like soiled rags. We’re drying up like a leaf in autumn …”
Book of the prophet Isaiah, Chapter 64, verse 6

Sometime after I turned 40, I found myself in need of reading glasses. The long-distance vision is still great, but everything from computer screens to the micro-print on your everyday vitamin bottle is now the epitome of low-definition vision as far as my eyes are concerned.

High quality polishing cloths rarely come with drug-store readers but are always supplied with prescription glasses, and it’s a good thing too. They most definitely return HD clarity to your outlook when things are starting to appear kinda greasy and opaque.

Some time ago I noticed that regardless of how much lens polishing I engaged in, my lenses didn’t fare any better than before my cleaning them. I’d give the glasses a good going over, put them on, try to read something and nope – still looked like I was viewing the world about me through a layer of olive oil. So I’d spritz a tad more lens cleaning solution on the cloth and figure that’ll do the trick, and proceed to wipe them over again. Still no joy. And then it hits me, “Oh, I get it … I gotta clean the cleaning cloths!”


I threw the cloths in a regular wash cycle along with shirts and underwear and whatever else a guy mixes together in the washing machine (that he probably shouldn’t) and along with my clothes, I extracted clean, ready-for-polishing cloths to wipe down my lenses.

Anyway, this got me thinking the other day about the nature of our spiritual perspective – our vision – and how we are in our relationship with the creator, the Lord of our souls.


At the point of our conversion (or in my case, my reconversion), we’re given a new perspective by God which allows us to see more clearly the world around us and how broken it is. At the same time (and maybe more importantly) we are given much needed insight with respect to our own soul and moral character and how poorly developed they truly are. We become aware of God’s unmerited love for us but receive along with that a glimpse of how distant our goodness is from the goodness and purity of God. And because of our new, clearer perspective, we find ourselves humbly asking God for strength and the ability to live our salvaged-by-Grace lives for Him with a sincere determination.

But at some point, after this ‘great awakening’, we lapse back into familiar ways – well I believe most of us do – and find that the things of the Spirit become less important or engrossing compared to the urgent issues and distractions that make up our day-to-day existence. Still having the Spirit of God within us, we may become aware of this lapse, but often feel helpless to deal with it. And then guilt sets in – the biggest nail in the coffin for a once spiritually inspired, enthusiastic mindset. So we pray, “God get me out of this funk.” Or, “Make me better than I am.” Or, “Fix me (or things) again so I can feel connected to You!” But these repeated requests or prayers often come across as an ostensibly useless endeavour. It’s like trying to repair or clean things with broken and dirty implements.

And that’s exactly what we’re doing.

As our spiritual energy and connection to God appears to diminish, we feel caught in a loop and a dryness of the soul begins to overwhelm us. This is a dangerous ‘tipping point’ for some believers. If they don’t feel or see enough of God’s power in their lives, they walk away from the faith and give up ‘trying’.


Here’s the thing: you can’t. As your spiritual life continues, you will lose connection with God frequently and all your efforts to rekindle the excitement or ‘vision’ you had the day you knew God had entered your life will, in your mind, amount to a hill of beans. You’ll feel adrift in stagnant water and those living waters Jesus promised his followers are somehwere on the other side of dark mountains that have seemingly hemmed you in. Welcome to the valley of the shadow of death. You have now joined the ranks of every single believer who’s ever asked God to change them! This might come as a shocker, but you were meant to arrive here.

“Why?”, you ask.

kitten distressed

Because it is at this time, God is about to reveal to you that everything you think you have done or have attempted to do to put things right between you and Him is not unlike your trying to clean a pair of glasses with dirty rags. And as long as you continue to assume you’re the one who has to clean up your spiritual lenses to restore clarity, perspective and objectivity to your own soul-view you will fail miserably because God has set it up that way.

Again, you ask, “Why? Why would God allow me fall so hard if I am doing my best to put things right?”

He does this so that He can reveal within us His power, His strength and what His vision for you truly is. It’s only when every light you’ve tried to keep going has gone out that it’s His time to shine! When your knees have hit the floor it’s then He eagerly shows you how strong His arms are by pulling you back up. He takes your worn-down perceptions – all the methods that you thought were going to keep you connected to Him or ‘spiritual’ – and tosses them into His washing machine. Then He hands you back those things that are really needed to really make a difference in your world, your outlook and life-experiences.

God likes to show off – the Scriptures evidence this repeatedly with respect to His character and/or his modus operandi. Deep in our personal valleys, if/when we continue to walk by faith (what little there may be of it at times) He will restore our spiritual sight by showing us who He really is by answering our prayers from an unexpected angle or entering our world in ways we never would have anticipated.


“Humility is the mother of giants. One sees great things from the valley; only small things from the peak.”
~ G.K. Chesterton

This kind of thing – beautiful and powerful spiritual renewal – happens frequently over one’s lifetime in the hearts of those who humbly walk with God. Admittedly, it takes a lot of patience and waiting for it to happen. But God helps with that too … just hang … on … a little … longer!

Wash, rinse, repeat.

This is God’s style of restoration and it’s so welcomed, especially when we’re spent from our trying so hard. With respect to our dealing with ourselves and God, preacher and author, John Ortberg, instructs us to ‘try softer’:

“Often the people in the Gospels who got in the most trouble with Jesus were the ones who thought they were working hardest on their spiritual life. They were trying so hard to be good that they could not stop thinking about how hard they were trying. It got in the way of them loving people. … there is an alternative: Try softer. Try better. Try different. A river of living water is now available, but the river is the Spirit. It is not you. … Don’t push the river.”
~ John Ortberg, from the book, ‘The Me I Want To Be’


I cannot emphasize this enough: the Bible and its guiding principles as presented to us through the many colourful characters who authored it is like having a legal representative with you when you are in your darkest trial and at your lowest ebb. It stands beside you to instruct you when direction is seemingly absent. It is there to remove (not add to) your guilt when you may be completely bereft of feelings, spiritual enthusiasm or at the tail end of your faith. There is NOTHING you are experiencing (including the dryness of soul or even the disdain for all things spiritual) that has not been experienced by those who went before us – from Adam to Amos, Joseph to Jesus, Paul to Peter.

Read the Word and wait. Don’t read it, and you’ll feel utterly alone. I don’t care if you’re a literalist or a liberal – the Power of God is in that set of 66 books. You will find God in those words (try to resource a good translation like the New International Version or The Voice) and they will comfort you and set you up for that glorious moment of restoration – the big wash – that is coming to restore you to a fresh awareness of God’s will for your life and a clarity of vision that only He can provide.


In the medical field, visual clarity isn’t something that occurs by one’s trying to see better or by applying a plethora of home-remedies. It occurs via the efforts of a skilled outside agent who is able to alter the eye’s lens in order to enhance or correct poor vision. Similarly, we must await God’s agent – the Spirit – to restore to us the perspective, outlook and vision we are deeply in need of to get through this thing called life. We cannot experience these necessary renewals through any amount of redo’s that we embark on, no matter how sincere our effort.

Wait for God to show up and be the Saviour He truly is. You will not be disappointed.

© 2015 Flagrant Regard

“But those who trust in the Eternal One will regain their strength. They will soar on wings as eagles. They will run—never winded, never weary. They will walk—never tired, never faint.”
The book of the prophet Isaiah, chapter 40, verse 31 (The Voice Translation)

“The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.”
Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 10, verse 13 (New Living Translation)

“Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.”
Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth, chapter 7, verse 10 (N.I.V. Translation)

“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.”
Book of Revelation chapter 3, verse 19 – Jesus speaking through John the disciple to the church in Laodicea (N.I.V. Translation)

“For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases him.”
Paul’s letter to the Phillippians, Chapter 2, verse 13

“To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christhave received a faith as precious as ours: Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
Second letter of Peter, chapter 1, verses 1 thru 4 (N.I.V. Translation)

Categories: Apologetics, Christian Living, Didactic, Pain, Spirituality, Struggle, Suffering | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Are Pro ‘Traditional Marriage’ Christians Supposed To Say “Congrats” To A Newly-Wedded Gay Friend?

What to say, what to say ...

While Americans are still reeling from the landmark decision from their Supreme Court’s go-ahead to sanction gay relationships/unions via marriage licences, we here in Canada – watching the fallout going on down south – may be inclined to offer a big ‘yawn’.

“Yeah, welcome to our world. One morning we woke up 10 years ago and our man at the top had arbitrarily passed into law the same thing.”

But whatever our response to the whole legalization of gay marriage, pro or against, (something that is more often than not a disposition that is ‘faith/belief system’ influenced) we are, at some point, going to have to deal with that LGBTQ(xyz) person at work, in our family or even in our church when they announce, “I just got married!”

I never thought I’d be in the position to respond to such a declaration, but I have had a gay friend for years who just shared with me his relationship’s successful status re length-of-time (34 years) with his long-time boyfriend (right after I had shared a similar status/update with him re my wife and me).

34 years together. Huh. Whether you’re pro traditional marriage or not, you have to admit that is a long time for any two people to have a partnership whether or not a sexual component is part of their dynamic. Do I look at their relationship in that light and say, “that’s a long time man, congrats!”?

Or what about when that gay friend at your office proudly holds out their ring finger and announces their wedding vows were taken over the weekend and the happy newlyweds are planning to go to Cozumel for their honeymoon – how do you react as a pro traditional marriage Christian?

Here’s how I think you should NOT react, as a pro traditional marriage Christian.

1. Saying, “Congratulations on your nuptials!”

Dictionary.com states that the word ‘congratulate’ is to ‘express sympathetic joy or satisfaction at an event’ or even to ‘salute’ an event. Even if everyone at your lunch-table is saying the word, you can’t conscionably state the same and feel alright doing so. You DON’T support the union so why would you make a hypocrite of yourself by basically saying, “Yeah, good on ya, mate! Happy for you!”

Now at first, those of you who do support gay marriage are going to think me a jerk for encouraging traditional marriage supporters to not offer congrats. BIGOT! HATER! DISCRIMATOR! I can hear it all now. Get it out of your system – go ahead. But in choosing to paste labels on us in your vitriolic, media-inspired rants, you’ll be choosing to remain totally ignorant to the fact that pro traditional marriage folks (hereafter known as PTMF’s) often love quite deeply the friends and family that are about them who are homosexual. There is nothing they wouldn’t do for them in a pinch.

By not offering a statement that affirms their decision to be married in the eyes of the law (but not necessarily in the eyes of God), we are not hating on them but rather affirming our right to believe what we believe. Last I checked, believing differently about issues is called ‘freedom of religion’. Acting differently or discriminatorily (by withholding services) toward people who are not PTMF’s … now there’s a different issue that we’ve already covered in another blog-post.

2. Stating, “I’m sorry, I do not accept nor condone your recent marriage experience as it’s not God’s authentic plan for your life.”

I know some evangelicals will call me out for, ‘not standing up for Jesus’ on this one. Again, go ahead – get mad at me. Spew out the verses that support your hard-line approach to dealing with all the heathens around you. But listen: by not yammering on about the sub-standard, un-God-sanctioned marriage experience my gay friend is into, I am not, ‘denying Christ’. Do we forget the words of Paul when he suggests, while going about our regular work-a-day lives, to

“Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone…”?
(Paul’s letter to the Colossians, Chap. 4, verses 5-6 / NIV Translation)

Or what of Peter’s thoughts toward others with respect to sharing your faith?

“… in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”
(1’st Letter of Peter, Chap. 3, verses 15-16 / NIV Translation)

I don’t see any aspect of ‘bulldozing’ our PTM faith-values as being the right way to share our beliefs on the matter of gay-marriage or anything else for that matter. Did your gay work-mate/friend ask you, “So what do you think of my gay marriage, huh?” Now then – THEN – you have to tactfully and ‘with grace’ state how you arrive at your position that with respect to heterosexual or homosexual marriages, “one of these things is not like the other.”

You will at that point experience either backlash or an, “oh, okay then!” To refuse to answer may be cowardly, depending on the situation. But you could state with full Christian authority and genuine love, “I really wouldn’t want to say anything to you that would offend you at this time regarding our differences on any of several matters with respect to my faith. How about we get to know each other a lot better and when you feel comfortable about talking about our differences – when you know and understand that I will not ever judge you – we’ll get to chatting about all sorts of things. Sound good?”

By his or her getting to know the real you over time, they’ll realize you don’t shun or despise them for their life-choices or personal sins. We all got personal sins going on, after all. They just might not be sexually oriented … er, a lot of the time, anyhow.

Again, with respect to dealing with those about us who are not into the Bible’s definition of marriage or sin or anything else for that matter, Paul’s words make things rather clear:

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.”
(Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, Chap. 5, verses 9-13 / NIV Translation)

3. Silence.

No one likes ‘the silent treatment’. It’s just as rude as piping up and saying, “Sorry, I couldn’t disagree with you more!” You’ll just look like a snob and nothing better than that.


Your gay friend states: “We just got married!” Or, as in my buddy’s case, “We just celebrated 34 years together!”

A Christian PTMF’s response: “Hey – thanks for sharing that with me! May God infill your lives in every way possible!”

… You saw what I did there, right?

I didn’t condemn, I didn’t sanction. All I stated was my hope – my prayer – that God would get into their lives to do the work of the Spirit. It is HE (not me/not us) Who is the only One who can convince anyone that there is sin or moral shortfall in their lives. We offer a blessing upon them as individual persons without cursing them at the same time or making ourselves appear compromising in any fashion. After all, God is “not wanting anyone to be destroyed, but wanting everyone to turn away from following his own path and to turn toward God’s.” *

Your gay friend may look at you funny, balk at the statement, growl “What’s that supposed to mean”? or he/she might surprise you by going, “Oh, uh … thanks!”

Like they say of a good comic or joke-teller, ‘timing is everything’. In Scripture, we are continually told that God does things based on His wrist-watch and not ours. Let us remember who we were before God got a hold of us and made us PTMF’s and/or believers respectful of His Word when it comes to issues of sin and evil.

And let us treat our LGBTQ(xyz) friends and family and coworkers with the character of Christ who came to save, serve and not to judge.

© 2015 Flagrant Regard

* (Peter’s 2nd letter, Chap. 3, verse 9 / The Voice Translation)

Categories: Apologetics, Christianity, Homosexuality, Human Sexuality, Liberalism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

C.S. Lewis For The 21st Century

C.S. Lewis

Have you ever, on the recommendation of a teacher, book-review website, or a friend, began to read an old book – a classic – only to discover a few pages in, “I just can’t get into this … the language is so archaic!”

Nancy and I thought it would be a challenging exercise to modernize one of our favourite essays from C.S. Lewis found in his compilation of short works, entitled ‘God In The Dock’.

The essay we chose was “We Have No Right To Happiness”. I set out to rework the article in a way that I thought would align closely with C.S. Lewis’ original style, but with a modern spin via sentence structure and word choices.

Nancy read my modernized version and felt that she too could bring some 21st century life to the piece by structuring it more like a blog post.

Below represents each of our individual attempts to present the powerful, highly prophetic message penned by Mr. Lewis that examines humankind’s pathetic attempts to justify that which is unjustifiable – that we have the supposed ‘right’ to be happy in this world.

Please feel free to provide feedback with respect to our efforts to modernize the essay and, more importantly, share with us your reflections on C.S. Lewis’ thoughts re the society-eroding, self-entitlement posturing that so many among us now eat, breathe and sleep in this present day.

We Have No “Right to Happiness”
by C.S. Lewis
Paraphrased by Martin Douglas of Flagrant Regard

“After all,” said my friend Clare, “they had a right to happiness.”

We were discussing something that once happened in our own neighborhood. Mr. A, had deserted Mrs. A and got his divorce in order to marry Mrs. B, who had likewise gotten her divorce in order to marry Mr. A. And there was clearly no doubt that Mr. A and Mrs. B were very much in love with each other. It was equally clear that they were not happy with their former partners. If the newly formed couple continued to be in love and if nothing failed with respect to their health or financial security, they might expect to be very happy.

Mrs. B had adored her husband at the beginning, but then he was severely injured in the war. It was said that he had lost his virility and had also lost his job. Life with him was no longer what Mrs. B had bargained for.

Poor Mrs. A, too. She had lost her looks was no longer her vivaciousness self. It might have been true what some had said – that she had become worn down by having and raising Mr. A’s children and nursing him through a long illness that overshadowed the early years of their married life. But please don’t think that Mr. A was the sort of man who nonchalantly threw a wife away like the peel of an orange he’d sucked dry. Her suicide was a terrible shock to him. We all knew this, for he told us so himself. “But what could I do?” he said. “A man has a right to happiness. I had to take my one chance when it came.”

I went away thinking about the concept of a ‘right to happiness’. At first, this sounds to me as odd as a ‘right to good luck’. I believe (whatever any particular brand of moralists have to say) that for the most part our happiness or misery hangs on circumstances outside all human control. A right to happiness doesn’t, for me, make much more sense than a right to be six feet tall, or to have a millionaire for your father, or to have good weather show up whenever you want to have a picnic.

Now, I get that a ‘right’ is a freedom guaranteed me by the laws of the society I live in, therefore I have a right to travel along the public roads because society gives me that freedom (that’s what we mean by calling the roads “public.”)

I can also understand a ‘right’ as a claim guaranteed me by the laws, and as it correlates to an obligation on someone else’s part. If I had a right to receive $100 from you, this is another way of saying that you have a duty to pay me $100. If the laws allow Mr. A to desert his wife and seduce his neighbor’s wife, then, by definition, Mr. A has a legal right to do so, and we need not bring in talk of ‘happiness’.

But of course that was not what my friend meant. She meant that Mr. A had not only a legal but a moral right to act as he did. In other words, Clare is (or would be if she thought it through) a classical moralist after the style of Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Hooker and Locke.

She believes that behind the laws of the state there is a Natural Law. I agree with her and I hold this conception to be common knowledge in all civilizations. Without it, the actual laws of the state become an absolute. They cannot be criticized because there is no norm against which they should be judged. The ancestry of Clare’s maxim, “They have a right to happiness,” is high-minded in nature. In words that are cherished by all civilized souls (but especially by Americans), it has been laid down that one of the rights of man or woman is a right to “the pursuit of happiness.” And now we get to the real point.

Just what did the writers of that grandiose declaration mean? We’re quite sure what they did not mean. They did not mean that everyone was entitled to pursue happiness by any and every means including, say, murder, rape, robbery, treason and fraud. No society could be built on such a basis. They meant “to pursue happiness by all lawful means”; that is, by all means which the Law of Nature eternally sanctions and which the laws of the nation shall sanction.

Yet here is where I disagree with my friend: I don’t think it’s obvious that people have some sort of unlimited “right to happiness”, as she has suggested.

For one thing, I believe that when Clare says “happiness,” she means simply and solely “sexual happiness”, partly because people like Clare never use the word “happiness” in any other sense. But also because I never heard Clare talk about the “right” to any other kind of happiness. With respect to her political views, Clare, being rather leftist in her approach, would have thought it scandalous if anyone defended the actions of a ruthless financial tycoon on the grounds that his happiness consisted in making money and he was pursuing his happiness. I also never heard her (a serious non-drinker herself) excuse an alcoholic because he was ‘happy’ when he was drunk.

Clare is, in fact, simply doing what I think the whole western world seems to have been doing for the last forty-odd years. When I was a kid, all the progressive people were saying, “Why all this prudishness? Let’s treat sex just as we treat all our other impulses.” I was simple-minded enough to believe they meant what they said. I have since discovered that they meant exactly the opposite. They meant that sex was to be treated as no other impulse in our nature has ever been treated by civilized people. All the others, we admit, have to be restrained.

For instance, absolute obedience to instinct for self-preservation is considered cowardice. An ever-increasing desire to collect things will have us in the grip of greed. Even sleep, normally a welcomed respite, must be resisted if you’re a officer on guard duty. But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned provided that your object is to have “four bare legs in a bed.” It is like having a moral standard where stealing fruit is wrong except if you steal nectarines. And if you protest against this view? You are usually met with rhetoric about the legitimacy, beauty and sanctity of “sex”. You get accused of harboring some Puritanical prejudice against it – that you view sex as something disreputable or shameful. (I vehemently deny being guilty of such a charge: Venus, Aphrodite, Our Lady of Cyprus – I never breathed a word against you!)

If I object to kids stealing nectarines, must I then be thought of as someone who disapproves of nectarines in general? Or even of kids in general? It might be the stealing I disapprove of, you figure?

The real situation is skillfully concealed by saying that the question of Mr. A’s “right” to desert his wife is one of “sexual morality.” If I may continue with the fruit analogy, robbing an orchard is not an offense against some special morality called “fruit morality.” It is an offense against honesty. Likewise, Mr. A’s action is an offense against good faith (to solemn promises), against gratitude (toward one to whom he was deeply indebted) and against common humanity.

Our sexual impulses are thus being thrust into a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behavior which, if it had any other outcome in view, would be condemned as merciless, treacherous and unjust.

Now though I see no good reason for giving sex this privilege, I think I see a strong cause, and it is this: the nature of a strong erotic passion, which is completely distinct from any heat-of-the-moment, fleeting appetite, makes more towering promises than any other emotion.

No doubt all our desires make promises, but not so impressively. To be in love involves the almost irresistible conviction that one will go on being in love until one dies, and that possession of our beloved will supply us with not just merely frequent ecstasies, but settled, fruitful, deep-rooted, lifelong happiness. Hence, all seem to be at stake. If we miss this chance we shall have lived in vain. At the mere thought of such a doom we sink into fathomless depths of self-pity.

Unfortunately these promises are often found to be quite unfounded. Every experienced adult knows this to be the case with regard to all erotic passions (except the one he/she is feeling at the moment). We discount the world-without-end pretentiousness of our friends’ romantic liaisons easily enough. We know that such things sometimes last and sometimes don’t. When they do last, it is not because they promised at the outset to make it last. When two people achieve enduring happiness, this is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also – I must put it crudely – good people; controlled, loyal, fair-minded, mutually adaptable people.

If we establish a “right to (sexual) happiness” that supersedes all the ordinary rules of behavior, we do so not because of what our passion shows itself to be in experience, but because of what it professes to be while we are in the grip of it.

So while the bad behavior is real and works miseries and personal ruin, the happiness which was the object of the behavior turns out again and again to be illusory.

Everyone (except Mr. A and Mrs. B) knows that Mr. A, in a year or so, may have the same reason for deserting his new wife as he did for deserting his old one. He will again feel that all is at stake. He will again see himself as the great lover, and his pity for himself will exclude all pity for the (current) woman.

Two final points remain:

1. A society in which marital infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women. Whatever a few songs composed by men and/or satirical offerings might say to the contrary, women are more naturally monogamous than men; it is a biological necessity. Where promiscuity prevails, they will therefore always be more often the victims than the culprits; domestic happiness is more necessary to them than to us. And the quality by which they most easily hold a man – their beauty – decreases every year after they’ve reached maturity, but this does not happen to those qualities of personality we find in women. In the cut-throat promiscuity war that rages on, women are at a double disadvantage – they play for higher stakes and are also more likely to lose. I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing lewdness of female provocativeness. These are signs of desperate competition and fill me with pity.

2. Secondly, though the “right to happiness” is claimed chiefly for the sexual impulse, it seems to me impossible that the matter will remain there. Once such a fatal principle is condoned in that department (our sexual natures) it will sooner or later seep through into our whole lives. We therefore advance toward a society where not only each person but every impulse in each person claims no-holds-barred permissions. And at that time, though our technological skill may help us survive a little longer, our civilization will have died at heart, and will – don’t even dare add the word “unfortunately” – be swept away.


We Have No “Right to Happiness” by C.S. Lewis
Adapted from the article of the same name by Nancy Douglas of Flagrant Regard

“Well, I just think everyone has a right to do what makes them happy …”

So said my girlfriend the other day when we were chatting over lattes. Luke had divorced Laura to be with Michelle who had likewise divorced her husband to be with Luke. They were hopelessly, madly, in love and, barring unforeseen health or employment issues, they were set for life in the happiness department. My friend continued giving her opinion that it was abundantly clear that neither Luke nor Michelle had been happy in their marriages. It didn’t matter that they were in love with their exes at the outset – because life happens, time passes, and looks get lost by the wayside. Things had changed.

There are any number of reasons why marriages fail and people get kicked to the curb but it does always seem to be an outworking of someone in the relationship deciding that they have the right to do what makes them happy.

Sadly, Laura committed suicide some months after her marriage dissolved. Of course, Luke was distraught but never showed regret that he had left the marriage. He always maintained they had grown apart and were floundering in the proverbial loveless marriage. When Luke had serendipitously met Michelle, she was like no one he had ever met before and leaving his marriage was, as he saw it, his only chance – his last chance – at real happiness.

I began to think about the idea of having the ‘right’ to be happy.

We live in a world where our happiness and, conversely, our misfortune is often predicated on circumstances beyond our control. That being the case, it seems that to expect – to have a ‘right’ – to be happy doesn’t seem like something that can or should be depended on; any more than we can expect or depend on perfect weather every Saturday in June so that all brides will be smiling. You pick your date, send out your invites, and take your chances.

I believe we can have ‘rights’ as far as what is legislated and guaranteed by the laws of the society we live in. For example, we have the ‘right’ to basic education because, here in Canada, we are given that privilege through taxation and public policy. That is why it is called ‘public’ education.

I can also understand a ‘right’ as it relates to a contractual obligation. If someone hires me to design a logo for them and I design it and charge them $100, then I have the ‘right’ to expect to be paid $100 for my work.

Back to my friend’s statement – “Well, I just think everyone has a right to do what makes them happy …”

What my friend was not saying was that, however you need to find happiness, whatever you need to do to be happy, is not to be held up for criticism or judgement beyond a bit of neighborhood gossip – because nobody knows the ‘whole story’.

The American Declaration of Independence laid down at the outset that one of the basic rights of any American citizen is the right to ‘the pursuit of happiness’. That did not mean that people should be entitled to pursue happiness outside of the law (i.e., through murder, rape, robbery, etc.) – but by lawful means. But this is too broad-based for what my friend meant. My friend is not philosophically deep. She watches The Bachelor and thinks the Tea Party is the party at Witzend in Alice in Wonderland. What she simply and solely mused was that people have the right to be happy when it comes to sex. Her view has been ‘trending’ for some time now and you have to look no further than the plethora of partnering change-ups in Hollywood at large.

There is no room for a counterpoint in today’s society. But, if you could get a word in, the counterpoint would be that, happiness aside, Luke’s leaving Lisa for Michelle was done in direct contravention of their marriage vow. That overarching solemn promise made up of subsets of conditions wherein two people promise that they will never leave each other – no matter what. This promissory social contract is sealed either in a civil ceremony or before God and, in both cases, before witnesses. Happiness is not even figured in to the marriage vow which is one of duty of care for the other – again, no matter what.

Today, our sexual impulses and proclivities have been put on a pedestal of preposterous privilege. And where sexual ‘happiness’ is not the order of the day, heinous acts have occurred. When lack of sexual happiness has been the motive behind murderous and unjust actions, the headlines have still – even in this day and age of post-modernism – spoken loudly and clearly in defense of the innocent. We don’t have to look past Susan Smith and the drowning of her two young sons so that she could pursue a relationship with a local wealthy man to find where the utilitarian doctrine of the ends justifying the means is so egregiously lopsided in favor of the means.

The problem with sex is that it makes more towering promises than any other emotion. All our desires make promises – that new car, that new house, that new job, that next You Tube video with over a million views – but none more so than the promise of sex. To be in love involves the irrational yet irresistible conviction that it will last forever and that our beloved will supply us with deep-rooted, passionate, lifelong sexual happiness. Everything is at stake. If we miss the chance to be in love or, as we are speaking of here, to get back in love, life will not have been worth living. Anything in the way has got to go – and fast. So thought Luke and Michelle. So thought Susan Smith.

But, if we establish a ‘right to (sexual) happiness’ which supersedes all the ordinary rules of behavior, we are chasing after the wind because the object of our behavior (erotic passion) is illusory and wishful. In the movie, The Life of David Gale, in a soliloquy on happiness, the main character portrayed by Kevin Spacey warned, “Be careful what you wish for. Not because you get it, but because you’re doomed not to want it once you do. Living by wants will never make you happy.”

As time permits, those experienced at long-term relationships know that erotic passion can sometimes last a good long time but that it will most certainly wane. For those relationships that continue long after erotic passion has waned, it is not because of the promises made at the outset. It is because the two people have found true love and contentment outside of the sex act, and have otherwise strived to make their relationship both mutually beneficial and sustainable.

In a few years, it is likely that Luke will leave Michelle to fulfill another last chance at sexual happiness. Or she him. And, again, my friend will say that she believes they have a right to be happy. That is, if her husband, Chris, doesn’t decide in the meantime that he has a right to be happy with that bubbly new hire in the Corporate Marketing Department. That could change her perspective.

For the here and now, the ‘right to happiness’ is predominantly the dominion of the sexual impulse. But, what if this ‘feel good’ principle creeps into other areas of our lives to the point where every impulse in every person has the ‘right’ to be indulged?

I hear the ticking of the doomsday clock …


For the original article and other incredible essays and thoughts from C.S. Lewis, you can purchase “God In The Dock” at your local Christian book seller or online via any number of online book retailers.

Categories: Apologetics, Christianity, Creative Writing, Evil, Homosexuality, Human Sexuality, Integrity, Liberalism, Pain | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Top Ten Reasons We Can Be Sure Jesus Christ Wasn’t/Is Not A Zombie


… yeah, uh no, not exactly …

This post goes out to the somewhat supercilious fellow on Reddit who expressed how proud he was of his young son who, completely uncoached, came to the conclusion that if the historical Jesus had risen from the dead (as Christians assert) then He was in fact a zombie.

There seems to be a growing fascination and/or association with Jesus’ resurrection and zombie culture. It’s time to put this silliness to bed.

Without further ado, here now are the


1. When a person has been turned into a zombie, angels do not materialize to herald his reanimation with the words, ‘Do not fear – He is risen!’

2. Jesus had a hearty hankerin’ for fish after His resurrection and not disciple flesh or brains.

3. Jesus easily left behind the burial linens He was tightly wrapped in after He rose from the dead and somehow managed to roll away a nearly two-ton stone that sealed His tomb. On the other hand, zombies can be restrained with straight-jackets (if you can suit them up without being bitten) or be easily held in place by a length of chain.

4. Jesus was actually worshipped by people after He appeared alive to those He knew. Zombies aren’t worshipped by those they knew as they’re too busy fleeing from them in terror or scrambling for a 22.

5. Jesus had to prove to the disciples He was not a ghost (but rather, a physical reality) by showing them His scarred hands and feet. Zombies often have little left of their hands and feet after some advanced rotting has taken place, which pretty much establishes they’re more dead-ish than alive-ish.

6. When the risen Jesus appeared before people, He spoke very articulately whereas a zombie’s vocabulary is generally limited to, “Uuuaaarggghh!”

7. Immediately following Jesus’ proclamation of the ‘great commission’, He was taken up into the heavens fully intact. Zombies, however, are ‘taken out of commission’ by bullets/axes to the head and end up splattered all over the ground.

8. After Jesus’ resurrection, both an angel and Jesus Himself gave advance notice that He’d be popping up in nearby Galilee. Zombies fail to provide advance notice for anything – they are rude and pop up unannounced at all hours.

9. Jesus returned to life in a very-much-alive human body in order to display God’s incredible power that will one day be fully extended to all believers as a reward for their faithfulness. Zombies are considered ‘the living dead’ and have nothing to look forward to but further putrefaction or a coup de grâce that ends whatever ‘life’ it is they’ve been enjoying.

10. Several highly intelligent researchers who investigated the resurrection of Jesus started out as skeptics but became believers. No amount of investigation, as of yet, has been able to confirm the existence of zombies as depicted in popular cinema/television, ever!

“But we are citizens of heaven, where the Lord Jesus Christ lives. And we are eagerly waiting for him to return as our Savior. He will take our weak mortal bodies and change them into glorious bodies like his own, using the same power with which he will bring everything under his control.”
Philippians 3:20-21 (New Living Translation)

© 2014 Flagrant Regard

1. Matthew 28:5-6 / Mark 16:6 / Luke 24:6 /
2. Luke 24:41-43 / John 21:9-14
3. Matthew 28:2 / Mark 16:4,6 / Luke 24:2,12 / John 20:5-7
4. Matthew 28:9,17 / Luke 24:52 / John 20:28
5. Luke 24:36-40
6. Luke 24:13-30, 38-49 / John 21:12-23
7. Matthew 28:19-20 / Mark 16:15,19 / Luke 24:51
8. Matthew 28:7 / Mark 16:7 /
9. Luke 24:36-43 / John 20:17,27 / John 20:31 / Acts 1:9-10 / Philippians 3:18-21 / 1 Corinthians 15:20-25 / Revelation 1:18, 21:1-7
10. C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Frank Morrison, J.Warner Wallace, Nabeel Quereshi, Philip Vander Elst, Alister E. McGrath

Categories: Apologetics, Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Creative Writing, Didactic, Humor, Humour, Religion, Theology, zombies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Four Things You Need To Know About People Suffering With Chronic Pain

“We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”
C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain


This article is a long time in coming.

As many of you know, I suffer from severe, almost daily migraine pain that has taken me out of the workforce and made my life extremely difficult to live at times.

Chronic pain does everything from suck up any good time you have in between sleeps to driving you to near madness with the frustration of not being able to overcome it.

But there are some things you – the healthier human (for now) – may not have thought of with respect to those living under the weight of frequent, unbearable pain:


Pain is a funny thing (okay, it’s not) in that when it invades your life and refuses to let go, there is no amount of comfort offered, no amount of encouraging bible verses available, no amount of sympathetic words from your loved ones that can make you feel any less alone in your suffering.

It doesn’t matter that there are hundreds of thousands of people going through what you go through every day. There is this overwhelming aloneness that seems to invade your mental space and press in around you. Though those of us with faith know that we never are alone in our pain, it doesn’t change how we feel when we’re in its oppressive grip.

I am blessed beyond measure, having a wife who so kindly and gently offers to massage my scalp or say, “Poor Ba”, when I am groaning in agony. I cannot express my gratefulness enough for her presence, love and co-endurance when I go through the more intense periods of suffering, especially. But even she, the love of my life, cannot step inside my soul to massage away the isolation chronic pain causes. It’s just the nature of the beast.

All I can do is work through it and continue to remind myself that I’m ‘alone, but not alone’ (as Joni Erickson-Tada’s new song proclaims) and force myself to remember that I will come through the storm and feel connection once again on the other side of it.


What the heck is comorbid depression? Well it’s the all too familiar sidekick to anyone going through chronic pain.

You see, when pain encompasses so much of your life, time, personal dealings, conversation and whatever, you start to realize that you are not like everyone else around you. You’re less productive, you are a burden to your loved ones and society, you cancel out on get-togethers with family or friends and worst of all, you watch time pass you by extremely quickly. Another year gone and you’ve done what? Nothing much (or so it feels). So there’s THAT collective of thoughts or mental meanderings that get depression festering nicely.

But then there’s the physical aspect of it. When you’re in chronic pain, your brain/body (along with any drugs you’re taking) is doing its darndest to produce endorphins or whatever feel-good chemicals that are at its disposal to try and relieve your pain. I’m sure that they can only be stretched so far and for so long before saying, “we’re done – can’t help the dude any more – shut off the valves”. And so when you’re out of the extreme pain for any length of time, you have no feel-good chemicals left in your body or mind and you crash. You often crash really hard, in fact. I know – I’ve broken down in tears … weeping like a man at the funeral of his mother. Or I’ll sit around for hours – whole days even – doing nothing and feeling like doing nothing. It will take a good 24 hours or more sometimes before I can get into gear to accomplish anything as basic as putting dishes away or even having a shower.


As already mentioned, many things have to take a back seat to the person suffering with chronic pain. Trips are cancelled. Family events are postponed again and again. Church attendance is spotty. People get sick of hearing your litany of complaints and/or symptoms because that’s all you’ve got going on at times.

In my case, I’ll be up for nights at a time – unable to sleep due to the severity of the pain. My wife often never sees me during daylight or early evening hours and when she does, I’m a hot mess.

Drugs being tried out or taken regularly can have serious or problematic side effects, supporting the old adage, ‘the cure is worse than the disease’ far too often. A ‘can’t live without ’em, can barely live with ’em’ scenario almost always prevails.

On behalf of all chronic pain sufferers everywhere, I would like to say, “We’re so sorry!” We’re sorry that we can’t be there for you – our loved ones – like we want to be. We’re sorry that we let you down time and time again, not being there for you when you need us. We’re sorry that we have cost you your time and have put a financial burden on you because of our sickness and the oft-expensive treatments and medicines needed to deal with our pain. We know that we’ve caused you your own pain. Please forgive us. If we could have it any other way, we would.


So many souls with great intentions have come up to me and offered the name of this doctor or that product in the hope that I can finally be freed from my suffering. They will quickly go through their mental rolodexes and recount how ‘their sister’s best friend’ or ‘their mother’ had your condition and that now they are the ‘pink of health’ because of treatments A, B and C.

Letting you know now, this drives us chronic-pain folks a little nuts.

You see, unless we are guilty of Munchausen’s syndrome – pretending we’re chronically ill to get attention – you have to think that we have, by now, tried everything available thus far to make ourselves well. If we were beset by our particular ailment for only a few weeks, say, it’d be a different story. Sure – if that’s the case, throw out your best thoughts re our ailments, your home-remedies, your curative concoctions. But when we’ve suffered for years with some serious infirmity, please think twice before you offer us some solution that just popped up in a recent internet periodical or that worked for your grandmother when she had (what you think is) my particular condition.

In addition to this, I would like to address any Christians out there who think that with a good ol’ fashioned healing service that’s we’d be out of the woods – all cured ‘n hunky-dory. Sometimes prayer will not result in a person’s healing. Paul the apostle had poor vision. Timothy had some stomach ailments. I have migraines. They were not given to me as a punishment for sin nor are they continuing for lack of faith or because of something I have held back from God. Poop happens and pain can be that happenin’ poop.

That being said, YOUR PRAYERS ARE WELCOME and are very much needed and appreciated. How God deals with your prayers or mine is mysterious at best, but He is near to those who call on Him and we who walk through the valley of the shadow of death (and yes, the pain can be so bad at times that you think you will die or that you and everyone else would be better off if you did).

Christ’s cup of suffering wasn’t removed from Him when He begged heaven from the garden and yet look what He accomplished. I may never, in this life, be free from the pain that has become my life, but I tell you the truth – pain, for me, has served as a call to prayer like a minaret to a Muslim. Pain is God’s calling card, I have always stated. It’s when I’m in the deepest pain that a lot of prayers get said – especially for those around me and for others who suffer greater woes than mine. Maybe without my suffering, I would be insufferable to God and others. I think pain keeps me real in a lot of ways that are spiritually healthy, to put it simply.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t continue to pray for healing for those who are sick. Sometimes, God’s will is to see some become well via a miraculous intervention. We’ve seen that before and you’ve probably heard the stories. Don’t stop thinking God is powerful enough to do mighty things just because today you will not be seeing or receiving a miracle.

Chronic pain is a fact of some people’s lives … my life. Still, I can’t believe how blessed I am despite having this invasive force in my world. Financially, God has met our needs – exceeded them in fact. He has kept me from plunging so deep into despair that I would consider taking the easy way out of this life. The people He has placed around me are golden – from my wife, family and friends to the many, many Christian souls who remember me (and Nancy) in prayer and who care deeply for the suffering all around the world – not just me. A big THANK YOU to everyone who has taken the time to listen to my grousing and just for being there for us.

© 2014 Flagrant Regard

“I was given a thorn in my flesh … to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”
St. Paul, 2nd Letter to the Corinthians, 12:9-10 (NIV Translation)

“He causes the sun to rise and shine on evil and good alike. He causes the rain to water the fields of the righteous and the fields of the sinner.”
Jesus, Gospel According to Matthew 5:45 (The Voice Translation)

“I have told you all this so that you may have peace in me. Here on earth, you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, because I have overcome the world.”
Jesus, Gospel According to John 16:33 (New Living Translation)

Categories: Compassion, Didactic, Evil, Pain, Religion, Spiritual, Suffering, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Baking Gay Cakes

In a recent news article, the proprietors of a bakery in Ireland, wanting to remain faithful to their conservative Christian values, refused service to a homosexual couple who wanted the words “Support Gay Marriage” inscribed onto a cake to be featured at their upcoming wedding ceremony.

The case is being thought of as a discrimination issue and was even brought before Prime Minister Cameron by a conservative member of the British parliament who wanted to defend the rights of religious individuals who aren’t comfortable with supporting something (in this case, homosexual marriage) that they don’t condone.

This is nothing new. Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a wedding photographer in New Mexico who, on religious grounds, refused to use her camera to capture the festivities at a lesbian wedding. The decision was upheld this past April when the photographer’s appeal was rejected.

Where should Christians stand on these issues of service provision to those we don’t agree with?

When this kind of thing first popped up some years back in the media (and in thanks, no doubt, to some very outspoken proponents of gay rights), we were of the mindset that Christians rights and freedoms were being taken away and that we should all take a firm stand for every believer’s right to not compromise on their faith or faith’s tenets, regardless of whether such views fit with the mainstream ideas proliferating society.

But after thinking this through, we believe that ‘violations of freedom of speech and/or beliefs’ are indeed at stake, but in the reverse. If ANY proprietor (and in particular, a Christian one) refuses to provide ANYONE service and/or products when such services/products are an expected part of a business owner’s offerings, they are acting in a discriminatory manner and violating the core principle of Jesus’ teaching – namely, loving your neighbour as yourself.

Picture for a moment that you own and operate a clothing store in a small town where everyone knows everyone’s business – whether you want to or not. One day, into your shop walks ‘Roger the wife-abuser’ … a nasty dude. He comes in and cavalierly asks, “Hey, I’m here to pick up some more ‘wife-beater’ shirts! Whatcha got?” (Please don’t go bananas at this point thinking I’m comparing gay marriage proponents or homosexuals to wife-beaters. I am simply using this illustration to hold up for scrutiny the concept of ‘Christian tolerance’.)

We used to call 'em undershirts ...

We used to call ’em undershirts …

What are you gonna tell Roger, exactly? What will you say? Would you look at him disgustedly and repine, “I’m sorry, but since you referred to the shirts you want to purchase as ‘wife-beaters’ I refuse to sell any product to you”. Shouldn’t you, as a Christian, simply sell Roger the sleeveless shirts and try to open up a conversation with him in order to try and share with him the love of Jesus and set an example through your life, conduct and, if the opportunity arises, your beliefs?

If a gay couple comes into your bakery and wants to buy a cake and have you decorate it with the words, “Adam and Steve Forever”, why should you refuse to serve them? You have no say in what ANY customer is going to do with your products/services – including the icing sitting on your shelves that you are going to whip up and pipe onto the  top of a cake at your customer’s request.

By making, decorating and selling the cake, you’re not saying to the world, “I now support gay marriage”, just as you wouldn’t be in support of wife beating because you sell some unpleasant dude some sleeveless men’s shirts that have come to be associated with some (perceived or actual) evil.

You are not baking a ‘gay cake’.

A bakery is a place where the buying public has a reasonable expectation that the baker is there to whip up some eggs, flour and some sugar into a cake and then decorate it with words made out of icing and sell the entire package. You may not (or may) agree with gay marriage but your cake-making and associated script-writing on the cake does NOT represent your beliefs. If you feel you mustdo or say something, you might mention that you don’t necessarily agree with the words you had to squeeze onto a 12″ diameter dessert product. But if you do not provide the service that your industry promises to for the public at large, then you ARE most likely in violation of your country’s constitution and DEFINITELY acting in a discriminatory manner. And that is not very Christian at all, is it?

“But where should we draw the line?” you may ask.

Okay. Let’s say a person comes into your bakery and asks you to inscribe, in bright pink icing, “John Smith, owner of Smith’s bakery, supports gay marriage.” At this point, we have an issue. If you happen to be named John Smith and own the bakery that bears your name and this request is made of you, you may THEN invoke your withdrawal of service. If you don’t happen to support gay marriage, you shouldn’t be forced to say you do by the government or by anyone. Period.

Admittedly, the whole ‘separation of church and state’ conundrum surrounding gay marriage is a far more serious matter. Should a minister of a denomination that is wholly and only in support of traditional marriage be forced to officiate a gay wedding? No. Currently and generally speaking, the religious community does possess rights and freedoms associated with practicing their faith. And if by practicing their faith it means they don’t support the marriage of same-sex couples, then they should be allowed to carry on as they see fit. Would a minister be forced to marry anyone he didn’t want to in any other given situation? No. If the gay community doesn’t like ‘that denomination’ or ‘that minister’ for their lack of support, then simply don’t shop with them – just as a heterosexual male seeking a mate wouldn’t opt to spend money on dinner or drinks at a place called, “Dykes-R-Us Restaurant & Bar” .

As for your trade or profession, brothers and sisters in Christ, if your business is to provide a service, do so in full and don’t discriminate. By doing so, you will actually be fulfilling the law of Christ. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that ‘good Christian people’ thought they were fine and cultured for keeping ‘coloured folk’ from getting on white-only buses. And if that seems ultra-draconian in today’s light, what will baking cakes for gay couples seem like 50 years from now?

© Flagrant Regard 2014

“So no matter what your task is, work hard. Always do your best as the Lord’s servant, not as man’s, because you know your reward is the Lord’s inheritance. You serve the Lord, the Anointed One, and anyone who does wrong will be paid his due because He doesn’t play favorites.” Colossians 3:23-25 (The Voice Translation)

“If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”
Romans 12:18 (The Voice Translation)

“May we never tire of doing what is good and right before our Lord because in His season we shall bring in a great harvest if we can just persist. So seize any opportunity the Lord gives you to do good things and be a blessing to everyone, especially those within our faithful family.” Galatians 6:9-10 (The Voice Translation)

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.” 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 (New International Version)

Categories: Apologetics, Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Homosexuality, Religion, Theology | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

PRIDE! Isn’t It One Of The Seven Deadlies?


You would think that if one were trying to convey that homosexuality is the ‘new normal’, you’d use words like ‘integration’ or ‘acceptance’ or ‘connection’ when thinking about a name for an annual parade – but, no, the gay community uses the word PRIDE.

The active gay community and the media that propogates their declarations would have us believe, especially in the last decade or so, that they are all ‘born this way’ (thank you, Lady Gaga), so where exactly does pride fit in? If you truly didn’t have a choice in the matter as to what you are or aren’t, how can you be proud? Isn’t one proud when one has had a hand in creating something? “Oh Billy, your Lego fort looks lovely, you must be very proud!” If one is born with webbed toes, they can’t exactly say they’re ‘proud of it’ as if they had a hand in their skin’s odd formation, but they could say, “I have accepted my quirky webbed toes as being part of me”.

So which is it? Are you, as a gay man or woman ‘born that way’ or did you have a hand in the creation you have become? If you were born that way, why boast?

I once sat down with an openly gay co-worker (this was back in the 80’s) and had a frank discussion with him about himself, his sexual orientation and about the gays he was friends with. I asked him, “how many of the guys you’re friends with are gay because they experienced male-to-male sexual experimentation when they were young and/or very poor father-son relationships (if at all)?” His answer? “All of them!” This was in Toronto when the gay community was on the cusp of its big ‘outing’.

Did something change between then and now? My guess is ‘not likely’, except maybe for one thing: the growing media inundation with respect to the whole ‘gay is okay’ agenda via images, homo-erotic relationships portrayed on screen (including kids as young as fourteen) and forced education in the schools. (Not many people are aware that just over 40 years ago, homosexuality was considered sexually deviant and/or aberrant behavior in the definitive publication of psychiatric conditions, the DSM-II *.)

I have a close, homosexual friend who does not like being identified with the gay community because of the shenanigans that go on (like lewd, open sexual behaviour that would most likely have any heterosexual arrested for public indecency) and because he feels one’s sexuality is private. At one time, I believe he thought of himself as straight. But because he suffered terrible abuse at the hands of three different priests (God help them at judgment!), he was most likely swayed into his sexual orientation because of the kind of abuse he endured; as is the case with many who’ve suffered such assaults. Yet here’s the thing: he cannot identify with ‘gays’ because he thinks the ‘Pride Parade’ approach and other overt, public manifestations within the framework of society – forgive the play on words – is out-and-out wrong. Disrespectful, even. He deems his sexuality as a private issue – I respect his thoughts here. After all, MY sexual inclinations are not something I plan on building a parade around. It’s personal what goes on in the bedroom, no? But, of course, if I and the hetero community at large planned to openly parade to celebrate traditional marriage, heterosexuality if you will, would we be regarded as intolerant homophobes and shut down? I wonder if such an event were to occur, would the liberal media go so far as to label our parade a form of hate crime and our placards and banners hate speech?

In stark contrast to homosexuals, heterosexuals don’t feel the need put their sexuality ‘on parade’. Sure, there’s raucous, inappropriate sexual imagery foisted upon us repeatedly on TV and in film, but such does not close down a large metropolitan city’s main street for the day. Opposite-gender relationships are generally not defined by sexuality on the surface. It would appear this is NOT the case for the active gay community. Case in point: Maybe you’ve watched one or two episodes of the near-dozen talent competition shows on television. Invariably, in almost every competition, some guy or gal introduces themselves thusly: “Hi, I’m ___ and I’m gay and I just came out to my parents a week ago,” or something along these lines. How conflicted must you be to present your raison d’etre as being that of your sexual proclivity OVER your voice or other talent on a show meant to judge such talents?!

Just once, I’d love to see some contestant on national TV lean over and say into the mic: “Hi my name is _____ and I’m straight. I’ve just come out to my two dads in the last few weeks.” Wouldn’t that be just mind-blowing?

Again, for a group of individuals trying to identify themselves as a new normal, they’re doing it in a strange way. If gay really is a new normal, why toot your horn so loudly? In this era of ‘gay is okay’ and marriage equality, what’s the deal with all the shouting about your sexuality? Keep it to yourself and have some self-respect. Heterosexuals generally choose to identify themselves via their minds, their talents, their gifts and abilities, their sexual proclivity not coming into play with such in-your-face declarations.

I well-realize that pride, in the context of the many gay parades held worldwide, may once have had more to do with the once-closeted homosexual no longer needing to feel ashamed of their sexual nature; that their taking the leap of making a public declaration about their true identity merited the applause of those who would deem such an ‘outing’ as brave (and that such bravery was something to be proud of). But the truth is the Pride Parade is not about that anymore. In the here and now, the Pride Parade is all about, “Hey – this is who we are! We’re in your town and here to make some noise – like it or lump it, b!#ches!”

Since that disposition now appears to be the more dominant reason to dress like your sexual opposite and sashay (or openly fornicate) in the streets, then it seems to me that gay pride is based on the fact that, well … you’re gay. 

My wife claims that I am a natural musician and blessed with a far better than average singing voice. My parents never spent a penny on lessons for me so, yes, I guess I was ‘born this way’. I know lots of other natural-born talented people and the last thing they do is flagrantly boast about it …

© 2013 Flagrant Regard

* https://sites.google.com/site/psych54000/early-dsm

Categories: Apologetics, Christianity, Homosexuality, Integrity, Religion, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Pope Francis Is A False Teacher … Seriously?



A Facebook friend posted a link to a recent article by well-known Christian blogger Tim Challies. The essay is one in a series dealing with false teachers in the Christian church.

I have read Challies’ work before and have always found his writing smartly-provocative and worthwhile.

Till today.

A few short hours ago I learned that Mr. Challies believes Pope Francis, head of the entire Roman Catholic Church, is a false teacher or a heretic. This of course implies that Francis is not a bona fide Christian and, by extension of this, neither are his denomination’s millions of members.

For an individual supposedly committed to sharing the Gospel of Christ and God’s love, Mr. Challies just shot himself in the proverbial foot the same way fundamentalist hard-liners have been doing for hundreds of years.

A bit of background on Mr. Challies: he is a pastor asociated with Grace Fellowship Church in Toronto and has been blogging away for over a decade. He’s written three Christian books and states he is, “Christian, Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and Unfinished”. Unfinished? According to him, on his About Mepage, this means, “Though I find great beauty in traditional Protestantism, I realize that in some areas traditions may not be fully Scriptural. Where that is the case I am eager to change as the Spirit convicts me through the Word.”

Let’s start there – Mr. Challies’ ‘traditions’. His theological leanings may be one of those traditions that could use a healthy dose of re-examining.

Here’s the article in question:

In summary, it’s a diatribe against Roman Catholic doctrine; Pope Francis is simply used as a prop for his platform and the Catholic Church is wrong about everything. The Pope is the messenger of – not just the poster-boy for – the religion.

To his credit, Challies states, “Those within the Roman Catholic Church who have experienced salvation (and I sincerely believe there are those who have) have done so despite the church’s official teaching, not through it.” Having come from a Catholic background myself and after meeting a munificence of souls in love with Jesus, via several church/prayer-meeting settings, I couldn’t agree more. It barely has to be stated that in any church, Protestant or Catholic, you’ll find fakes or non-followers; as Larry Norman once said, “God’s not fooled by those who believe and those who say they do.” Mr. Challies is also correct in stating that there are still many old-world traditions and practices (known as catechism) that deny (or at best, fail to fully endorse) the all-sufficient grace of God in favour of works-plus-faith-based salvation, and granted, that is not a good thing.

But that’s not what’s wrong with Tim Challies piece. The problem is that he has called out one man – Pope Francis – as a ‘false teacher’ and uses very little evidence to back up such a serious claim. How serious? Based on his strict fundamentalist leanings, the next step (not taken – gee, I wonder why?) would have been for Challies to imply that Pope Francis is bound for hell, will suffer eternal punishment and is taking a ton of folks there with him. Wow.

Now, I’d like to take the opportunity to first state that I would have appreciated the chance to address Mr. Challies’ thoughts directly on his blog, but apparently ‘comments are closed’. Bit of a chicken—– move, if you ask me, but just maybe he has some comment-limitation policies in place so ‘my apologies’ if this is the case.

WHAT DOES THE POPE SAY? (No, not a new song by Elvys)
I have to ask outright here: Mr. Challies, have you yourself ever heard a definitive statement from Pope Francis that denies the complete and total saving work of Christ? Have you heard him advocate that the Catholic Church, “officially damns those who believe anything else”? Don’t think so, sir. Therein lies the problem. You yourself quoted Francis as stating, “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying—and this is the fundamental thing—that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart.” Seems very unjudgy to us. Looking at it another way, the pope himself doesn’t appear to fully subscribe to his religion’s subset beliefs! And if this is the case for the head of the R.C. church, how likely is it that your average church-attending Catholics also aren’t apt to buy into every doctrine tossed out during catechism class?

The remainder of the Pope Francis’ quote found on Challies blog appears to be a fairly close paraphrasing of Paul’s letter to the Romans, specifically a few verses found in Chapter 2 of the missive. Compare:

“The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”
Pope Francis

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”
Romans 12:14-16, NASB **

A false teacher – the type Christ warned us about – is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. Whether from a spirit of ignorance or deliberation, he/she lives to deceive and draw people away from Christ’s Gospel of grace. Paul wished that any such ‘false teachers’ (or any angels teaching false gospels) be ‘forever accursed’. 1

In Jude’s one-chapter letter, Christians are warned,

“For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Jude v.4 NIV

Paul warns of the latter days (which some Christians believe are upon us now) where,

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”
1 Timothy 4:1-4 NIV

Mr. Challies, do you really feel Pope Francis is a ‘hypocritical liar’, ‘ungodly’, a sensuality-driven ‘grace-perverter’ or a ‘demon-influenced’ man? Has the Pope said anything about people refraining from marrying or stopped anyone from eating certain foods? Do you think him worthy of being ‘eternally cursed’? More to your point – have you personally heard him attempt to draw people into works-based religion while dismissing the doctrine of grace via his teaching?

Don’t think so.

Call me stupid, but I just don’t see Pope Francis as a false teacher. His life seems to embody the outworking of a life devoted to faith in God and Christ. I certainly don’t see him pushing anything contrary to the Gospel.

But should we even be judging the man?

Tim Challies, like a lot of fundamentalist watch-dogs out there, feel they have the right to expose false teachings and judge the men/women purveying errant doctrine. As Christians, we technically understand that there’s a very fine line to watch for when it comes to judging. But for some reason, some evangelicals like to hurl themselves across this line like a pole vaulter. Just as in a court of law there’s a difference between judging the evidence of a case and determining what judgment awaits a defendant on the stand, there is a difference with respect to how we Christians are to evaluate certain people and the things they believe. Sadly, we often get this quite wrong.

According to Scripture, we are not to judge those who are ‘outside the church’ – in other words, those who are outside of our faith. So if Mr. Challies believes Roman Catholics are basically ‘another religion’ due to their doctrines of works-plus-faith (which would be similar to Islam or Mormonism), then he technically has no right to pronounce judgment on Pope Francis (calling him a false teacher) or anyone else claiming to be of the Catholic religion!

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.”
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 NIV

Oh but wait. ‘Roman Catholics claim to be Christians’, Mr. Challies might say, and therefore has the right to call the Pope a False Teacher.

Uh, no – no he doesn’t.

“You never know another man until you’ve walked in his moccasins”, say the indigenous peoples of North America. Without personally knowing Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Mr. Challies has no right to assume how God will judge him. But that’s not the impression you get from Challies’ blog-post.

Jesus tells us,

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Matthew 18:15-17 NIV

But rather than do this, Mr. Challies fires off his digital bullets that wound and maim, saying things like:

–  “… he (Francis) … remains committed to a false gospel.”
–  “He (again, Francis) is the head of a false church that is opposed to the true gospel of salvation by grace alone …”
– “Rome remains fully committed to a gospel that cannot and will not save a single soul …”

And worst of all, Challies states,

“Even while Francis washes the feet of prisoners and kisses the faces of the deformed, he does so out of and toward this false gospel that leads not toward Christ, but directly away from him. Good deeds done to promote a false gospel are the most despicable deeds of all.”

If this isn’t a heavy-handed implication that Pope Francis and his followers are bound for eternal punishment, I don’t know what is. Remember what we noted earlier; Paul warned that anyone teaching a ‘false Gospel’ should be forever accursed.

This kind of rant by Mr. Challies reminds me of a bully who throws stones at you from a distance. There’s nothing remotely Christ-like in Mr. Challies approach or evaluations.

Ignorance is a funny thing. Sometimes it works in our favour and at other times it works against us (see John 15:22-24). On the issue of ‘Grace alone’ vs. ‘Works-Plus-Faith’, I propose a different view of things that may be considerably more gracious (and biblical) than the judgments offered by Mr. Challies who is ironically a pastor associated with ‘Grace Fellowship Church’.

Let’s assume the lady living next door to you is a Catholic. Believes baptism keeps babies from Purgatory, prays to Mary as well as Jesus and maybe calls upon a few saints now and then. She has crosses over every doorway in her house and believes in transubstantiation when taking communion at mass. She’s faithful to light a candle for her husband who has passed, and has a mass said for him once a year, hoping it’ll get him closer to God in the next world. Now as protestants, we realize a lot of this is just nonsense – to us. To them, however, it’s an important part of their religious practice. But aside from all of these rituals or practices, the dear woman truly loves Jesus. She believes He is The Saviour of all mankind. Believes He rose from the dead. And believes every word of the Apostles Creed when she offers it aloud and with her whole heart and soul on any given Sunday.

“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.”

Can anyone state with absolute certainty that this woman’s Christianity is false and more importantly, should anyone even venture down that trecherous road of judgmentalism? No. Sure, some of the church’s religious observations are questionable or out of whack with Scripture to most protestants, but that does not afford them the right to assume that the majority of adherent Roman Catholics are – as Challies states – heading in a direction “directly away from Him (Christ)”!

Mr. Challies, I appeal to the grace of God that lives in you to be more considerate and less judgmental of individual souls while dealing with false teachers/false teachings through your essays. Yes, some wrong teaching out there needs to be exposed and it’s an important topic to delve into. But at present, your careless approach affects your quality of ministry and undermines the credibility of the all-encompassing grace you claim to believe is offered to us in Christ. I sincerely hope you take time to re-evaluate your thoughts on the matters discussed and leave judgments of an eternal nature in the safe and outstretched hands of the Eternal.

Grace and Peace to you in the Lord Jesus Christ,

© 2014, Flagrant Regard

1. Galatians 1:8-9


** In our experience, this passage in Romans is one of the least explored or talked about parts of the New Testament. Many evangelicals shy away from it because it seems that Paul is indicating there is a separate and distinct judgment for those who haven’t received the salvation of Christ in their lifetime on earth. This is, in fact, EXACTLY what Paul was outlining. If one looks at the structure of Paul’s letter to the Romans, it is clear that right up until chapter 3 and verse 20 of his letter, Paul is providing a running commentary on the world ‘as is’ – a world that hasn’t been made aware of Christ, is unaware of His atonement via the cross and living without the assurance of eternal life the Christian believer is in receipt of, through faith. (From Chapter 3, verse 21 onward, Paul then explains to the Romans the nature of the Gospel and why it is superior to anything ‘law-based’, Jewish or otherwise.)

This passage clearly shows that God’s mercy, in Christ, is in some way extended to those who’ve not accepted the Gospel or (if you’re of the Calvinist ilk) who are not predestined to receive Christ’s unique, all-encompassing salvation through faith. These individuals, however, live with NO assurances of the coming rewards and/or punishments due them. Just as there are levels of reward in heaven based on one’s works while in the body, it would appear the same goes for souls that do not step into eternity’s glory at the moment of death. Apologists such as C.S.Lewis understood this; and his sentiments on justice in the afterlife were creatively expressed in his fictional books ‘The Last Battle’ and ‘The Great Divorce’.

Other authors – considered evangelical protestants – have also addressed the issue of the unsaved:

“The great prophetic discourse (Matthew 21-25/Mark 11-13/Luke 19:29-48 Chap. 20 & 21) worthily ended with a solemn representation of the final judgment of the world, when all mankind shall be assembled to be judged either by the historical gospel preached to them for a witness, or by its great ethical principle, the law of charity written on their hearts; and when those who have loved Christ and served Him in person, or in His representatives, – the poor, the destitute, the suffering, – shall be welcomed to the realms of the blessed, and those who have acted contrariwise shall be sent away to keep company with the devil and his angels.”
The Training of the Twelve, A.B. Bruce

“On a trip to Japan I found myself late at night in a pastor’s study in one of the largest churches in Tokyo (which isn’t saying much, since the average congregation numbers thirty in a nation where Christians claim only 1 percent of the population). … I wanted to check into my hotel room and go to sleep, but Japanese hospitality required this courtesy visit. For the next twenty minutes without interruption the pastor poured out the agony he felt over the 99 percent of Japanese who had not accepted Jesus. Would they all burn in hell because of their ignorance? He had heard of theologians who believed in people having a second chance after death and knew the mysterious passage in 1 Peter about Jesus preaching to those in Hades. Some theologians he had read seemed to believe in universal salvation although certain passages in the Bible indicated otherwise. Could I offer him any hope? Thinking aloud, I mentioned that God causes the sun to rise on the just and unjust and has no desire that anyone should perish. God’s Son on earth spent his last strength praying for his enemies. …

“I do not know the answer to your questions,” I said at last. “But I believe strongly that at the end of time no one will be able to stand before God and say ‘You were unfair!’ However history settles out, it will settle on the side of justice tempered by mercy.””
PRAYER: Does It Make Any Difference? Philip Yancey

My wife and I have, over the years, conferred with several pastors from different backgrounds. Three of them – a Free Methodist, a Presbyterian and an Anglican – all concurred that there will be a fairness in a person’s judgment even if they’ve never accepted the Good News of Christ. None of these ministers supported the idea of ‘Universalism’ or ‘Inclusivism’, they just concluded – from Scripture alone – that God will be righteous in His judgments of every man’s soul.

We sincerely feel that those Christians who continue to assert that everyone who’s not a believer automatically burns in the fire of hell and suffers eternal torment in a lake of sulphur study the scriptures more deeply in order to determine and highlight the depth of God’s amazing grace, through Christ – Lord and Judge over all.

Some Bible verses to consider:

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.”
John 15:22-24 New International Version

“Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. …

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”
Revelation 20:6,11-15 New International Version

Categories: Apologetics, Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Didactic, Integrity, Religion, Spiritual, Theology | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

If Evolution Is A Fact, Then How Come … ? (Part 1)


Intro: Over the last 10 years or so, my wife and I have had many interesting discussions surrounding the whole creation vs. evolution debate. She and I don’t agree on every point with respect to some creationist concepts, but one thing we both are not able to wrap our heads around is the idea that we – at some distant point in our prehistory – were nothing more than pond-scum; that all humanity started out as some biological soup. Shakespeare once referred to mankind as the ‘Paragon of Animals’ and quite certainly, we humans are very different from than anything else observed in nature. Not every human trait or characteristic can be adequately explained by the scientist’s ‘go to’: evolution. And as for the rest of ‘creation’, it too maintains and displays a level of complexity that defies the premise set forth by modern science; that all animal species known today are the result of ongoing transitions from some other kind of species – the result of millions and millions of years of change. Feel free to join in the discussion. All we ask is that you stay on point and avoid a religious mentality that proffers a bullyish insistence that ‘science/the bible says it is this way and therefore it is more true’. Let’s keep it interesting, shall we?


Just yesterday afternoon, Nancy and I spent our time doing something we never do; watching a hockey game. It was the New Year’s Day ‘Winter Classic’ featuring the Detroit Red Wings vs. the Toronto Maple Leafs. The temps in Ann Arbor were just frigid – minus 11 Celsius – and probably a lot colder than that if you factor in the wind-chill, yet the stadium was packed with over 100,000 fans! Not just Detroit fans either, Leaf fans as well.

As we watched in the comfort of our living room, the camera would often pan from the hockey players to the crowd where you’d witness their hopping up and down not to cheer their team, but to keep themselves from freezing to death. I suggested that, ‘maybe folks aren’t as cold we think thanks to the BTU’s being given off by their bleacher buddies’. Nancy just looked at me like, ‘Riiiiight’.

It was then I stated the simply obvious: “If evolution is a reality, how is it that we – the most evolved species on earth – haven’t anything in the way of natural defences against the cold, namely warm fur or feathers?” Nancy chuckled as she too recognized the conspicuous problem. Every creature known to man can survive its own environment (and sometimes far less favourable environments) thanks to either fur, scales, feathers or exoskeletons but we can’t! Plop us down naked in the middle of a snowstorm and we’re dead inside of an hour. Leave us in a desert and we’re toast in as little as 4 days. And even if you set us up in temperate climates, we can’t be ‘naked and afraid’ for long without something killing us due to our ‘parts’ being exposed. Think about it.

Central America could be considered the ideal climate for the human body. But 100’s of thousands of people died during the making of the great canal in Panama. From being over-worked? Nope – the culprit was malaria, a disease spread by a tiny insect that literally gets under our skin. Canada’s favourite humourist, Rick Mercer, has encouraged schools throughout the country every year to contribute to the ‘Spread the Net’ campaign that serves to protect people from the mosquito bites that can lead to certain death in places we oxymoronically refer to as ‘Tropical Paradises’. Malaria isn’t the only disease spread by mosquitoes in such places either, Dengue fever is another killer transmitted by them. Heck, a whole plethora of skin diseases are possible due to the many parasites that will find their way onto our epidermis or exposed orifices.

Here in North America, on a really nice summer day in the forest, one might think you could exist safely as a naturist/nudist but in reality you could pick up the tick responsible for carrying Lyme’s Disease and not know you have it ’til it’s far too late. West Nile (again, mosquito-carried) virus has led to several deaths in our part of the world too.

The evolutionist might say that humanity’s random demises caused by viruses, insects or plagues is the ‘cost of doing business’ with the planet and that even other mammals die from such diseases as well. The North American little brown bat populations, for instance, are threatened by a fungus that attacks their faces and wings and somehow confuses their hibernation cycles which results in their premature emergence into cold, wintry air instead of the warm spring climes. In this case, the animal’s being introduced into an unsuiting environment is affecting its numbers and survivability. There are rare but similar goings on with other species around the globe.

Though this may be the case, one cannot dismiss easily the fact that if it weren’t for humanity’s capacity to use logic/intelligent pragmatism and come up with some defensive coverings (we now call them clothes) we wouldn’t have survived ANYWHERE on this planet for very long. Sure, other animals construct nests, dig dens or sometimes even utilize their own bodies to protect themselves and their young, but in a high majority of cases the animal survives independently from its creations. Man does not.

Right from the get-go, we all begin this life as an ‘infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms’. 1 What other creature on the planet is born so utterly helpless (and remains that way for so long) save for man?

If we evolved to be the highest form of intelligence on the planet (dolphin-lovers are vehemently shaking their fist in disagreement with that suggestion), it seems rather incongruent that our physical selves didn’t catch up. We are not presently evidencing ANY new physical changes that would allow us to survive without clothing the way the rest of the mammalian world does. Your uncle’s disturbing abundance of chest hair may give you pause with respect to his mammalian origins, but he is very much human and his hirsute predisposition wouldn’t save him from dying of exposure after toppling his canoe in an icy lake. Toss your ‘stupid’ golden retriever into the same lake, mind you, and she’ll come out shaking half of the lake’s volume all over you and begging you to throw another stick to her in the freezing water.

All this points to one thing: we humans are a separate and distinct creation that were given unique bodies and intelligence that no amount of evolutionary time elapses or supposed beneficial mutations can account for. It appears that we were made to be highly dependent beings – dependent for survival first on our parents and thereafter on our ability to create things from our surroundings that protect our bodies from harm. Truly, we were initially constructed by some Supreme Intelligence that oddly wanted us to be both dependent and yet creative within the framework of our challenging world.

If anybody has any other way around this problem, we’d sure like to hear about it.

Until then, we will conclude our thoughts on the matter with the words of John Stewart,

“Evolution, Schmevolution”.

© 2014 Flagrant Regard

  1. Shakespeare’s As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII [All the world’s a stage]

Psalm 8:4-8 (The Voice Translation)

I can’t help but wonder why You care about mortals—
sons and daughters of men—
specks of dust floating about the cosmos.
But You placed the son of man just beneath God
and honored him like royalty, crowning him with glory and honor.
You ordained him to govern the works of Your hands,
to nurture the offspring of Your divine imagination;
You placed everything on earth beneath his feet:
All kinds of domesticated animals,
even the wild animals in the fields and forests,
he birds of the sky and the fish of the sea,
all the multitudes of living things that travel the currents of the oceans.

Categories: Apologetics, Creationism, Evolution, Humor, Religion, Theology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Top Ten Reasons Why You Wouldn’t Want Your Parents To Name You ‘Messiah’


In Tennessee this week, a judge was cited for his ruling that a couple who’d petitioned to have their new-born son registered with the first-name, ‘Messiah’ could not do so on the grounds that, “The word ‘messiah’ is a title, and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ.” (1)

While we agree that the judge was a little over-zealous in his ruling – that people should have the right to name their kid almost anything they want – we DO think that growing up with the name, ‘Messiah’ may have its drawbacks.

Here now (ala David Letterman format) are the


10. Getting caught swearing by people who are happy to note, “Well that sure doesn’t sound Aramaic to me!”

9. Having to avoid common sayings that could offend such as, “I’m just hanging around” or “Really nailed it” … (sorry!)

8. Trying to live up to the high expectation your mom has that you’ll treat her like Holy Mother Mary at all times

7. Problem when there’s a shortage of grape juice at the family dinner and everyone turns to you, begging for you do something about it

6. Finding that, when another kid named ‘Messiah’ in your class is the one causing problems, you hear yourself telling the teacher, “But I’m not the Messiah you’re looking for!”

5. Your mother talks about you to her friends, saying, “Oh he’s fine – just don’t cross him.”

4. Being chided by your professor of religion (right after he informs you that you’re failing his class), “If you are indeed who you say you are, throw yourself into your work and I’ll give you all the great grades you see before you.”

3. High probability of bullies in the schoolyard whacking you from behind and shouting, “Okay Messiah, who hit you?”

2. Being told by your family waiting at the airport for your arrival during the thanksgiving holidays, “Yeah, we saw you coming in the clouds” every flippin’ year


1. Far too easy for psychiatrists to figure out what kind of complex you’re developing

© 2013 Flagrant Regard

(1) http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sns-rt-us-usa-tennessee-judge-20131025,0,617443.story

Categories: Christianity, Creative Writing, Humor, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

“And Who Is My Neighbour?”

I’ll tell you who – she’s an annoying old bat who wants nothing to do with you until the day she drops by to tell you how much you’ve ticked her off.

“Hello,” says she. Then with barely a breath between her saying hello and the ensuing plaint,
“Are you the people who are feeding the squirrels? Because they are getting into my plants!”
“That’s too bad”, I says. Apparently she didn’t hear me …
“I have many flowers at the back and the squirrels come and dig up my plants. It’s because you’re feeding them.”
“Have you tried raising your plants off the ground into planters?” I says.
“Yes, and they still get in there!” she moans.
After we suggest a few other rodent-discouraging remedies, Mrs. In-a-you-face then proceeds to gripe for 5 more minutes about her squirrel-affected garden. She ends the spiel with a request that we don’t feed the squirrels any more. My wife and I assure her with pleasant smiles,
“Sorry, we like the squirrels – we don’t plan to stop feeding them”.
And then the old lady walks away in a peevish huff.

Was that unchristian? Were we supposed to turn the other cheek? How would we do that … let me see. We could go and buy her plants to replace any damaged ones. Uh, no. We could not only stop feeding the squirrels, heck! we could put out poison and kill them all – that’d keep the old lady’s plants in pristine condition! No again.

That’s simply not what being Christian is all about.

Being Christian – loving one’s neighbour – has nothing to do with acquiescing to another’s gluttony. Our neighbour (in the literal sense of the word) wanted us to satisfy her selfish interests, her penchants. She didn’t ask us to walk a mile with her (presumably to aid her with something) nor did she ask us for a cloak or coat in order to make her life more livable through keeping her warm.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan (1.), we read of a guy who got taken down by robbers while travelling down a road. In the story, the victim of the assault was a bloodied mess and left without a penny to his name after the incident. After two religious sorts passed by the injured man without as much as a word, a man of Samaritan background came along who didn’t ignore or avoid the injured soul and met all of his needs. The victim needed healthcare and wound-dressing. Done. He needed a place to heal; “Here you go hotel-guy, here’s some cash for a room and for continuing care costs until this dude’s out of your hair”. Going the ‘extra mile’? Done! The Samaritan comes out of this story smelling like roses, and rightly so!

In similar fashion, an opportunity to love our neighbour should stem primarily from our wanting to address serious, life-impacting types of concerns. But if we come to believe that serving the Lord means pandering to others’ selfish wants and tastes, we’ll end up as sycophantic masochists – not martyrs – and that’s really not what Jesus was calling us to do when he said, “love your enemies” or “love your neighbour”.

Paul the apostle, writing to Roman Christians stated, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (2.). In other words, Christians should do whatever it takes to come up with a peaceful or ‘mutually beneficial’ solution but it’s clearly implied that though this is the ideal, sometimes it just isn’t possible.

If Mrs. Squirrel-hater fell down in the parking lot outside her building we wouldn’t hesitate to help her to her feet. If she was short on change at Tim Horton’s we’d cover her whole tab. We relish opportunities to help others in need. But what we don’t have to do is make everyone feel good by giving in to their petty wants. Christians should not be about making people feel good but should be focused on caring for others sincerely whenever the authentic opportunity arises; and that may often mean doing so while carrying our differences, idiosyncrasies and personal disagreements in tow.

What about you? Do you agree? Do you think we should have tried so work out something with our grousing neighbour? How do you go about loving your (literal and figurative) neighbour when differences arise?

© 2013 Flagrant Regard

1. One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question:

“Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”
The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Parable of the Good Samaritan

Jesus replied with a story:
“A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. “By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. “Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’
“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked.
The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.
“Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

Luke 10:25-37
New Living Translation

2. Romans 12:18, New International Version

Categories: Apologetics, Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Didactic, Integrity, Pacifism, Religion, Spiritual, Theology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is Neo-Pacifism The New Christianity? Part I

Does anyone remember pacifism?

You know, that fairly extremist position of non-violence held by certain Christian faith-groups who endorse that their members absolutely refrain from joining the military (for combat service), becoming a cop (as all police agencies mandate the use of lethal force when required) or even using self-defence to protect oneself or loved ones if it might lead to killing another human being in order to do so?

Well, it’s apparently back with a ‘non-vengeance’. This time around, however, pacifism’s re-emergence is no longer the theological territory of aloof, simple-life religious communities, but can be found in modern churches equipped with all manner of technology, multimedia tools and eye-catching backdrops. In these places of worship, passionate, enthusiastic preachers are making waves in the Christian community by extoling the virtuousness of old-world pacifism. At first, this might seem like not such a bad thing … after all, what’s wrong with a growing bunch of peaceniks, right? But here’s the rub: those delivering this message of ‘non-violence-at-all-costs’ are stating, in no uncertain terms, that unless all Christians everywhere submit to pacifism, they are failing to fully comprehend or represent the life, character and principles of Christ.

We believe that there is something very disconcerting about this latest push towards a collective peace-initiative – something we’ve dubbed ‘Neo-Pacifism’ – and contend that it’s just one more ‘ism’ that hampers our efforts to spread the true Gospel message of faith in Jesus Christ.

What Does Neo-Pacifism Teach?

Answering this question accurately required quite a bit of reading/listening to several sermons from prominent figures associated with the movement. What we discovered proved to be both interesting and sometimes kind of disturbing. As already noted in the first paragraph of this article, Christian pacifism (which is rooted in the Anabaptist tradition that began about half a millennium ago) means a person does not engage in any act of retributive aggression or defensive violence that could cause harm or especially the death of another human being. Pacifism’s adherents believe their position represents the truest fulfilment of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (or Sermon on the Plain) with respect to His followers loving their enemies and taking the command of Christ to ‘turn the other cheek’ quite literally. It matters not an iota what the prevailing circumstances may be. You simply do not take lethal action against anyone – ever. The concept of ‘just war’ is regarded as scriptural and spiritual error. Though a nation could be taken into captivity by an invading force and its people suffer unnameable atrocities at the hands of evil men, pacifism demands that you are not to become a soldier in order to defend the oppressed or the innocent. Applying for a job in government? Not in the plan. Joining a police force is out of the question (for reasons already mentioned) and it can be assumed that signing up for Mixed Martial Arts doesn’t score any points with pacifists either.

(Why Neo-pacifism misrepresents Christianity will be covered in Part II of this article.)

Who’s Behind Neo-Pacifism’s Rise To Acceptance?

Several popular ministers, we discovered.

One individual who’s covering a lot of territory (and time) with respect to pacifism is Bruxy Cavey, a gifted, charismatic speaker and primary ‘Teaching Pastor’ for the far-reaching, momentum-gathering church known as ‘The Meeting House’. The Meeting House doesn’t hide the fact that it is rooted in the Brethren In Christ (BIC)/Mennonite/Anabaptist tradition, but is of late making a significant push to ensure that the pacifist agenda is tremendously close to being front and centre along with the Gospel message. In 2010, Bruxy engaged his congregation/listeners with a teaching series called, ‘Inglorious Pastors: Waging Peace in a World of War’, which was a seven sermon lecture on how to (and why all Christians should) get on board with pacifism. Right up there with Cavey are other proponents of neo-pacifism such as famous author/speaker Tony Campolo, Woodland Hills pastor Greg Boyd and ‘visionary leader’ Shane Claiborne. All of these speakers/church-leaders are connected with (and are scheduled speakers for) the most recent Christian peace-initiative venture called PEACEWORKS.TV, a group self-described as “a youth movement for peace bringing people from all over the world together for a single purpose…to turn every church into a peace church.” 1

Why You Should Be Concerned About The Neo-Pacifist Movement

When it comes to presenting your church’s doctrines, it’s one thing to state, “What we believe and teach has proven to be effective” but quite another to stress that everyone else not doing what you’re doing or believing what you’re believing has got it all wrong. What’s far more disconcerting is when any church group/denomination – their growth, solid doctrinal foundation or good intentions notwithstanding – comes right out and says that “Jesus is the model for our system of living and anything short of this model fails to fully represent Christian character”. Well, the Christian neo-pacifists are doing just that.

Here’s what Bruxy Cavey, author of the successful and provocative book ‘The End of Religion’, states with respect to those inquiring into pacifism:

“Something else we should think about just before we dive in … this is for those of you who are having to answer questions of others as we process through this … You should be aware that some of the questions people ask are asked ‘genuinely’ and some are asked just because they’re looking for an excuse not to have to listen to the teachings of Christ. In other words … people ask questions of Jesus’s peace-teaching in two ways, sometimes, first of all, in order to find an excuse to disregard it or sometimes to better understand and apply it.” 2

This statement shows Bruxy is making the assumption that those who question pacifism are questioning the way of Jesus. That kind of approach strikes us as ‘our way or the highway’ and has that familiar stench born out of theological arrogance; something I’ve been known to struggle with myself. (‘Takes one to know one’, as they say!)

It’s fine to detail your own position on pacifism and teach what it means; that it’s ‘okay to die for a cause, just not kill for one‘ or that it is ‘not a success strategy but a love strategy‘ etc., but Bruxy takes it to a whole other level by pretty much ordaining it as a religious
obligation for true Christians (which is kind of strange when you consider the title of his book).

Though Bruxy says that pacifism isn’t necessarily the best strategy in a situation where violence could be used as a solution, he states that “WE (the church’s members, leaders etc.) still believe it is the right choice because we choose this way because Jesus ‘called for it, commanded it, modelled it and then calls us to be the body of Christ – today – filled with his spirit – living as Jesus lived, presenting him to the world.’ In the same sermon he also elaborates, ” … we don’t follow the way of peace because it works, we follow it because it’s like Christ.” 3

Again, he infers that ‘the way of peace’ as per the pacifist’s stance is Christ-like, clearly intimating that one’s not being a pacifist is a failure to be Christ-like.

Not wanting to misinterpret the pacifist position of The Meeting House, I spoke to a representative of the church. I asked, “Would we not be allowed to be church members if we did not subscribe to your strong, pacifist leanings? The individual stated that we could be members, but that if we’d climbed the ladder into church leadership by any degree, we would not be allowed to voice our disfavour of or lack of allegiance to pacifism. That information revealed to us just how deeply entrenched the doctrine was. When I asked, “Do you think that those who do not subscribe to pacifism are deficient in their Christian walks or lives?” the person on the other end of the line – as politely as they could – acknowledged that you would be numbered along with those who ‘struggle with Christ’s teachings’. Upon my probing into the issue a bit further, the church representative strongly implied that you wouldn’t be as mature in your Christian faith without being a pacifist.

St. Paul MN’s Woodland Hills pastor, Greg Boyd, recently spoke at the Sunday service for The Meeting House here in Canada. In his sermon, entitled, ‘From Baptist to Anabaptist’ he stated:

“… the true Kingdom always looks like Calvary. … All over the place people are getting this vision … that what Jesus came to do and that it always has this humble, servant, self-sacrificial feel to it. And these folks are looking for … a tribe and a tradition – something that’s anchored and has witnessed in the past. And the only folks who have the tradition are the Anabaptists, the Brethren in Christ/the Mennonites. God’s doing a new thing … is pouring out new wineskin … a new tradition that they can call home and the only ones who have it are you guys!” 4

Once again, there is a definitive ‘us and them’ vibe going on that – I hate to say it – reminds me of a cult mentality. We are NOT SAYING THE NEO-PACIFIST MOVEMENT IS A CULT – please do not misinterpret us. But as it currently stands, the neo-pacifist leaders we are hearing from are stating that all branches of Christianity outside of their own are failing to fully meet the objectives of the Gospel by their not subscribing to pacifism. This is just not the case and is a much uncalled for sweeping generalization. There are many peace-loving, self-sacrificing, love-oriented and ‘mature’ Christians from ALL denominations who are fantastically Christ-like and yet are not pacifists. But try and get a neo-pacifist church leader to accept that and you may find you’re beating your head against a wall. I remember encountering this very same spirit in some evangelical protestant churches where they believe that all Roman Catholics are lost and bound for hell – an inane, judgmental position that’s doctrinally unfounded. It’s this very spirit of judgment, borne out of a faith group’s egotism, which subjects the Kingdom of God to public disgrace by the disunity it ultimately fosters.

The funny thing is that a great percentage of the time (here in the west especially) your pacifist or non-pacifist disposition exists almost solely in the realms of the abstract or theoretical. What I mean is that there is hardly ever a time where you’re provided an opportunity to live out your pacifist views in the same way a trained martial artist almost never finds himself going all Jackie Chan on a bunch of thugs after leaving the dojo. As this is the case, I have to wonder why the neo-pacifists are pushing the peace-agenda so hard?

And so, we would really like to ask the neo-pacifists out there to contemplate the possibility that you’ve let a doctrinal side issue become an agenda that takes precedence over the Gospel. The Gospel is about God’s grace extended to a broken world through the death and resurrection of Christ and about our living a life ‘worthy of the calling’ first and foremost. How you live your life in Christ and how I live mine is bound to be different, but the Spirit of God has given us both a measure of faith and will convict us of our shortcomings, including those that have to do with peace, love and practical real-life application. Harping on anything outside of this – the heart of the Christian life – will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary divisions in the body of Christ. Things turn ugly when an interpretation of the Gospel (or some aspect of it) is presented as if it were the Gospel itself. Please, don’t make that mistake.

© 2013 Flagrant Regard

1. http://peaceworkstv.wordpress.com/ & http://youtube.com/peaceworkstv

2. http://www.themeetinghouse.com/pageid/1700/but-what-about-4614 – SERMON TITLE: “BUT WHAT ABOUT …” (at 6:42min)

3. http://www.themeetinghouse.com/pageid/1700/but-what-about-4614 – SERMON TITLE: “BUT WHAT ABOUT …” (at 5:10min)

4. http://www.themeetinghouse.com/teaching/archives/2013/one-church-2013/week-1-from-baptist-to-anabaptist-5475 – SERMON TITLE: “FROM BAPTIST TO ANABAPTIST … (at 29:02min)

Categories: Apologetics, Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Integrity, Pacifism, Religion, Spiritual, Theology | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

A Matter of Some Integrity – Unfortunately, Not My Own

After hearing a sermon on ‘The Integrity of Joseph’ at church last Sunday and then my meeting up with a dude this week who demonstrated ethics and/or integrity that superseded my own, I hereby feel it is my solemn duty declare myself an abuser of God’s grace.

What I mean is that even at the best of times I know my goodness doesn’t add up to a hill of holy beans. I live with that – maybe a bit too comfortably – because I’m ‘covered’ by Christ’s work on the cross to ‘save a wretch like me’. But when I encounter a fellow who hasn’t declared himself to be of any notable faith-based disposition/persuasion behaving or acting better than I do, I am bugged. My spirit becomes irritated because it’s then I realize how badly I’ve been using God’s grace as a free pass to write off my less-than-perfect attitudes, behaviours or actions; labelling them ‘growth areas’ or things that ‘God’s still working on’. Cop-out!

So THIS is what the Holy Spirit’s job is then – to ‘convict me of short-comings’ and ‘guide me into all truth’. What better way to do this than to show me up with a man who displays integrity in an area I do not. It’s like I’m being told, “Martin! You see that? That’s what you should be doing but you ain’t. What are we going to do about that?”

Being put in one’s place by a person who hasn’t professed any religious affiliations is like my considering myself a pro-ball player, only to have a guy who specializes in making doughnuts step up to the plate and hit a home run first time at bat. That kind of thing catches you off guard because you think YOU’RE the one with experience and know-how and then boom – you’re blown away by the contrast created by a single, remarkable act performed by someone you’re not expecting it from.

The day before I met up with ‘Mr. Integrity’, I had been reading in the Bible about the story of a particular individual Christ encountered in his travels way back when.* It’s a sure bet that the ‘people of the promise’ (those of the Jewish faith) who began to comprehend that their Messiah was among them thought that they were the most blessed and holiest people, had the right God, were full of all the right beliefs etc.. Then Jesus meets a Roman official – a nobody as far as the Jews were concerned – but of whom Jesus remarked, “In all of Israel I haven’t found faith like this” … all because he did the right thing at the right time with the right Man watching. As the story goes, the Roman official had a sick servant he cared about and whom he wanted to see healthy again. No biggie: go find this Jesus guy because he’s known to have a one-hundred per cent success rate with miracles and because He’s a no-nonsense authority on lots of things. Because our Roman friend believed in such a matter-of-fact way, Jesus healed the servant from an untold distance – a first as far as we know with respect to the wonders done by the Messiah. I wonder how many of the Jewish folks standing around hearing Jesus remarking about the Roman official’s unique, exemplary faith, looked down at their feet at that moment feeling somewhat teed off with either Jesus or themselves?

This past Sunday, pastor G. opened his sermon with, “Integrity is the kind of thing you expect from other people“. How true: we often want to see authenticity in others first before we offer it ourselves. But that will not do for this believer. It’s not a pride thing that drives me to better myself or to shoot for a higher standard, but the desire to be more Christ-like and to be, as Paul the apostle said, “above reproach” in the sight of believers and non-believers alike.

Who’s with me? Who wants to shine a little brighter in the light of the Son? Time to get out the polish (God’s word) and also to learn from every example of goodness we see that sets the stage for changes toward the better in our own lives.

© 2013 Martin D. of Flagrant Regard

* Matthew 8:5-13

1 Tim 3:1-13
If anyone wants to provide leadership in the church, good! But there are preconditions: A leader must be well-thought-of, committed to his wife, cool and collected, accessible, and hospitable. He must know what he’s talking about, not be overfond of wine, not pushy but gentle, not thin-skinned, not money-hungry. He must handle his own affairs well, attentive to his own children and having their respect. For if someone is unable to handle his own affairs, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a new believer, lest the position go to his head and the Devil trip him up. Outsiders must think well of him, or else the Devil will figure out a way to lure him into his trap. The same goes for those who want to be servants in the church: serious, not deceitful, not too free with the bottle, not in it for what they can get out of it. They must be reverent before the mystery of the faith, not using their position to try to run things. Let them prove themselves first. If they show they can do it, take them on. No exceptions are to be made for women — same qualifications: serious, dependable, not sharp-tongued, not overfond of wine. Servants in the church are to be committed to their spouses, attentive to their own children, and diligent in looking after their own affairs. Those who do this servant work will come to be highly respected, a real credit to this Jesus-faith.
(from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)

Categories: Christianity, Creative Writing, Didactic, Illustration, Integrity, Religion, Spiritual, Theology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Flagrant Regard Launches Thought-Provoking New Song ‘Reimagine’

Reimagine’ Now Available On iTunes

“Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today”
(from John Lennon’s 1971 song, ‘Imagine’)

For years, John Lennon’s song Imagine has always been one of those songs that leaves me feeling unsettled whenever I hear it. There’s certainly no doubt that Imagine is melodically beautiful, artfully recorded and musically uplifting.  Lennon’s voice is in its prime and the piece is sung with sensitivity and raw emotion. The words represent John’s (and Yoko’s) heartfelt desire to see a better world come about through unifying peace. (A poem by Yoko Ono initially inspired John’s lyrics for the 1971 recording.)

Imagine is over 40 years old now and we still hear it being ‘covered’ or played at memorials and peace rallies across the globe.  It’s also somewhat odd that though Lennon recommended that we “imagine there’s no countries”, the song received renewed word-wide attention at the closing ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics – a celebration that inherently lauds national pride and diversity in the wake of intense competition.

That said, as a follower of Christ, I feel compelled to take issue with the overarching message of the song. A good portion of the lyrics of Imagine are emblematic of the atheistic or humanistic idea of what it would take to bring true peace to mankind. According to Lennon, peace can come at a price that includes, among other things, that of forsaking belief in God, belief in an afterlife, and even the passion to live or die for something truly important.

Blogger Paul Wilkinson pointed me to an article in Christianity Today authored by David Neff that noted the following:

“… a friend reminded me of comedian Steve Martin’s comic tune, “Atheists Don’t Have No Songs.” At the New Orleans Jazz Festival, Martin waved a single sheet of paper and told the audience, “This is the entire atheist hymnal, right here.” … “Martin is clever, but wrong. John Lennon wrote just such a tune in 1971. Lennon’s tune for “Imagine” is indeed inspiring. But Lennon’s text posits an existence with “nothing to live or die for.” With no countries, no possessions, no heaven or hell, no religion, Lennon promised, the world would live as one. Not likely. Perhaps Martin was right to ignore the song.”

Our pastor recently re-reviewed the lyrics of Imagine and made an interesting observation: “If you take out the first ‘verse’ of his song, he [Lennon] is actually describing heaven. The problem is that by ignoring the call of heaven (God’s Kingdom) and living for today, Heaven is only a dream never realized. The bitter irony of the song is that the call/desire of the first verse completely removes the possibility of experiencing the rest of the song’s desire.”

When people, beliefs aside, join their hands and light a myriad of candles while singing Imagine reverently (or at the top of their lungs) at some important gathering, it’s certainly not a bad thing. But there is a more excellent way.

God challenges us to ‘reimagine’ what the world and what the future is to be through the message of hope revealed to us through Jesus and his disciples. Some serious time spent reading the New Testament reveals that there is a God who is there and cares so deeply for us that He doesn’t want us to settle for the kind of peace that fades, but wants us to know a peace that is real, lasting and available to anyone by way of a dynamic relationship He is absolutely prepared to begin in each one of us. But take note, it will cost you – your preconceived notions about God, your level of comfort, your media-influenced beliefs or life choices, and possibly many other things along the way. But it will be well worth it in the long run.

Flagrant Regard, by way of this song, challenges you to reimagine peace, reimagine hope and reimagine what it means to truly experience life to the fullest.

It is our sincere hope that followers of Christ everywhere share this song whenever and wherever they can in order to open up discussion about or spark interest in the message of the cross.

In Him Who is Our Peace,

Flagrant Regard

Categories: Christian Contemporary Music, Christianity, Creative Writing, Religion, Spiritual, Theology, Worship Music | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

My Nose Can See!

It was about 12:30am when I, chronic nighthawk that I am, decided to burn off my remaining energy and go for a long walk; a fairly recent habit I’ve gotten into since moving back to Uxbridge.

As I stepped out into the still night and mused over the beauty of the cheddar-tinted half-moon that hovered over the southern back half of the town, I began to stroll the many neighbourhoods that make up this wonderful little town and which my wife had once dubbed “Sweetville” shortly after our settling here the first time.

Halfway into my walk, I began to close my eyes and inhale deeply, saying a few prayers as I ambled along.  As I did so, I became electrically aware of something I’d never really experienced before.  My nose could see!  I mean, I know it’s always been able to smell stuff.  But I’d never actually accessed its lavish abilities.  I learned that when you really give it full reign, you can actually use your nose to assess where you are, what your eyes may or may not be perceiving and even what’s up ahead in your travels.  The olfactory proboscis bounces back information to your brain like a radar device and you find your self saying to yourself, “That’s a maple tree!” … “Oh, and that’s water – I smell the falls coming off the pond!” … “Apple blossoms are up ahead!” … “Must be recycle day – smell all of that card-board!”.

I got to thinking that a living and vibrant faith, once it’s been handed to us by the Creator above, creates within us the same kind of powerful awakening that would ensue upon our receiving say, a new set of eyes with which to view things, or in my case, a very awake nose with which I could identify my surroundings!

Unconventional thinking is how lives are changed.  If we always see things the same way, we can never grow or properly identify the world around us.  Faith is unconventional, and oft thought as being futile and ‘blind’.  But the faith Christ gives us is not that at all.  Faith in God is learning to see through His senses.  What was mundane to us due to our limited scope or that which might have been completely ignored by us before is gradually (or sometimes rapidly) thought of quite differently.  We begin to hurt over things that hurt our Lord.  We are enthralled by things that enthrall the Spirit of the Kingdom we become new citizens of.  Real faith changes our outlook and bridges the gap between what we’ve always known, and what we have yet to know about the familiar things in our lives.

If we learn to fully access the portion of faith God lovingly gives us, we’ll realize that it isn’t so much about our moving mountains as it is our allowing the mountains to move us.

1. “Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art.
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.”

© 2011 Flagrant Regard

1. Words: Attributed to Dallan Forgaill, 8th Century (Rob tu mo bhoile, a Comdi cride); translated from ancient Irish to English by Mary E. Byrne, in “Eriú,” Journal of the School of Irish Learning, 1905, and versed by Eleanor H. Hull, 1912, alt.

NOTE:  This blog-post was from last summer (2011).  We’ve since moved from ‘Sweetville’ to just north of the G.T.A. where nature and beauty still surround us.  We are so truly blessed!

Categories: Apologetics, Christianity, Creative Writing, Didactic, Illustration, Religion, Spiritual, Theology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Boxing Day Musings on ‘Staying Grand’

In the course of my business day, I hear the latest and trendiest of corporate jargon (phrases such as ‘let’s consider the optics of that‘ and ‘let’s get alignment on this‘ and ‘let’s drill down‘ and ‘let’s unpack this‘).  We are definitely corporate cool when it comes to language. So much so that my uber-swank workplace even calls a Powerpoint file a ‘deck‘ which I personally consider a lexicon-fail because the word continually yanks my brain back to the gruesomely analog 70s where I sit on a floor subjected to watching an endless array of slides of my aunt and uncle’s seemingly incessant vacations, the horrible photography made worse by the excruciating clatter of 35 mm slides as they drop and pop and more-often-than-not stick as the deck turns. But I digress. The above highlighted snippets of pretentious vocabulary are my top nominations for 2012 Newspeak … or they were until Christmas Eve.

On Christmas Eve, my husband and I attended a soiree after our church’s first annual (and incident-free) candle-lighting service at which the better half of FR sang a song he wrote some 30 years ago accompanied only by his adept guitar playing. It is a truly beautiful song which puts forward the notion that, between partying and socializing and gifting and re-gifting, it’s okay to say ‘happy birthday’ to Jesus at this time of year.

The church, which we have been attending since last August, is full of many wonderful, mostly retired people, including a nonagenarian general practitioner and his wife, whom I shall call TB and BB. We had the privilege of sitting with them at the after party, munching and chatting (as we had done once before at a local Tim Horton’s after church) and, when it was time to mingle, and we stood up to leave the table, TB told my husband to “stay grand” … huh? What was that? Stay grand? I must say it took some time for my ear-to-brain mechanism to reconcile what he said and what he meant.

By telling someone to ‘stay grand’, it means, in your eyes, they have achieved a level of grandness. Grand is not a word flashed about in normal conversation in 2012, or even in the last few decades for that matter, and is an adjective describing what is “impressive in size, appearance, or general effect; stately, majestic, or dignified in front of an audience; highly ambitious or idealistic; magnificent or splendid; and noble or revered.”

I always knew my husband was something special and indescribable in many ways. It has always taken me a myriad of words to describe all his wonderful attributes (as evidenced by his Christmas card that I crafted about this time yesterday) but TB considered the optics, drilled down, and unpacked that my husband is, in a word, grand. That is the word I’ve been searching for … for 14 years! Grand … it seems to me that using that word to describe someone can only come from one who really, really knows your heart and nature. How could TB, who has only met my husband twice, both times over coffee, come to such a conclusion that I couldn’t grasp myself in our years together? The Bible says we never know when we are entertaining angels and I’m starting to have a funny feeling about TB …

Now that I officially live in the shadow of bona fide grandness on a daily basis (and I do have my tongue firmly planted in cheek), albeit that he oftentimes goes around in sweats, unshaven and wearing his hair in a ponytail, I feel it incumbent upon myself to rise to the calling and stay grand myself. Jesus said in John 15:5, “… for without Me, you can do nothing”. So I cannot be grand … we cannot stay grand … without Him. As the song my husband sang on Christmas Eve boldly asks, “how ’bout you”?

Happy Birthday Jesus and Merry New Year to all!

Link to A Christmas Song here.

© Flagrant Regard, 2012

Categories: Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Creative Writing, Didactic, Illustration, Religion, Spiritual, Theology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Human Fetus Gets Overnight ‘Status Update’ To Human Being

An open letter to pro-choice
advocates in light of recent events.

Okay, I’m really confused.

Pro-choicers, help me out here.

You rant and scream at your rallies, on your blogs, in your liberal-leaning newspaper columns and directly at your detractors that abortion – especially if performed on a woman prior to the 24-weeks-pregnant mark – is okay because the creature, the ‘it-thing’ inside that woman’s body is a fetus. ‘Fetus’, in your minds, being a word for a disposable type of developing life-form that’s not, in fact, a little human person.

Really? ‘Cause you wouldn’t know it today.

Every news server this morning broke the story that Kate Middleton, the internationally admired, beloved Dutchess and wife of the future king of England is about 12 weeks pregnant.

Websites have already been created in homage to the ‘baby-to-be’, throngs of royal-watchers are passionately discussing what the baby’s name might be if it’s a boy or a girl, women everywhere are gushing and/or vicariously ‘glowing’ over, with or for Kate Middleton in anticipation of the newly expected ‘child’ who will be 3rd in line to the royal throne (as if he/she had the job in hand already).

For nearly a full 10 minutes on the CTV National Evening News all my wife and I witnessed was intense focus, hope and expectation surrounding a human being who has yet to become, well, a ‘human being’ according to you, the pro-choice supporters.

So if I am understanding this correctly, a woman has the right to call something growing inside her a “zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus” (thank you for the terminology, Pro-Choice Action Network) and then rip it out of her body if she believes it to be anything less than a prince or princess in the making?

50 shades of hypocrisy at work here, maybe? How many of you pro-choice advocates are up in arms over Kate Middleton’s fetus being regarded as – elevated to the status of – not just a valuable ‘human being’ but to royalty – at 12 weeks! How many of you plan to march around the streets of London shouting, “Don’t you people (the majority population) dare call this thing inside Ms. Middleton a child yet, you’ll ruin our cause and our case against pro-lifers who say that the fetus inside that woman is actually a human baby worthy of esteem and life.”

Is it not fairly clear, especially amidst these present and widely publicized circumstances, that something amiss with respect to your staid and sacrosanct pro-choice perspective?

How many of you would readily admit that you got a tad misty-eyed or even excited for Kate Middleton when you heard she was expecting a child? Or conversely, how many of you got upset – planned to vilify the media – the second you heard the term ‘baby’ or ‘child’ being bandied about in the news as if it was a given that it was indeed a child inside pregnant Kate Middleton?

Let me help you with some headlines and/or placards for your next rally, march or blog posts so that you can suppress or end this nonsense about a ‘baby’ being carried by Kate Middleton and continue on your merry way deciding what is worthy of being called human life and what is not.

Feel free to borrow from me these anti pro-life statements for your protesting outside Kate Middleton’s hospital room in London:



And here’s some blog-post headings or news-article headlines that might suit your purposes:




But you don’t have it in you to put such raw headlines/statements out there do you?

Seriously, then where do you go in your heads?   Do pro-choice supporters flippantly chime together, “Well, it’s okay if a ton of folks (including Kate Middleton) think that there’s a baby in her womb as long as we know and maintain that that’s a lie.”  Really?  You’re just going to ‘let it slide’ are you? … all the ‘baby-lovin’ currently going on when there’s no baby to speak of yet?  You’re okay with that?  If so, it really does beg the question, “Just how sure are you of where you stand (or how strong are your convictions) concerning the value of an unborn human life or when that tiny life truly begins?

I say that if you really believed your own tripe about human life only beginning at the 24 week mark (and I’m aware that some of your proponents even consider the moment of birth the definitive ‘do not murder’ point on the human fetus time-line), you’d all be out in force trying to put an end to this ubiquitous joy, reverence and excitement surrounding one little life, no matter whose life it happens to be or happens to be inside of.

Maybe it’s time many of you examined your position and humbly recognized how much you really don’t believe what you have been told or have fought for for so long.

May God give you wisdom, not as this world gives, but as He gives it, to see the truth and sanctity of life – be it royal or rejected.


© Flagrant Regard 2012
Full permission is granted by the writers to reprint and/or repost any or all portions of this blog-post. 

Categories: Abortion, Abortion Issue, Apologetics, Religion, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The God Who ‘Sticks His Neck Out’

There was once a man who went for a walk in the fields near his home in the early springtime. As he began to make his way upon familiar paths, he eventually came up to a pond that he had passed by many times on his previous sojourns.

The winter had not been a heavy one and the pond was shallow enough for the man to see many rocks sticking partway out of the pond; some round, some more rough and angular.

The man decided to venture a little closer to the pond’s edge and noted that one of the rounder rocks in the water had a different sheen on it than the other ones. Not having the greatest vision, the man put on his glasses and was soon able to confirm that the rock indeed looked different from the others in the pond. Though mildly curious, he concluded nothing further and was certainly not about to waste his time getting his feet wet in order to determine why this particular rock was different.

He was about to tread up the hill away from the pond to resume his strolling through the fields when suddenly the sun came out from behind the clouds and the rock that he thought was an inert hunk of rounded stone moved!

A head, followed by a long neck slowly began to extend itself outward from one end of the semi-circular ‘rock’, eventually stretching its way out and above the surface of the pond and into the blazing light of day.

The man laughed at himself and said, “I should have known! That was no rock, it was a turtle all along! I guess if I’d made the effort to wade near the pond’s edge the creature might have stirred and I’d have known it was a turtle sooner. Heck, I could have picked up one of the long sticks that lay along the banks of the pond and reached out to prod the ‘rock’. Then I would certainly have known it was not a rock at all.”

Only the man didn’t.

However, the turtle did what turtles do: at just the opportune moment, the creature made his move – stretching out his head with eyes a’blinking – in order to bask in, absorb and reflect the light of the life-giving sun. Through this one act, the turtle revealed his true identity as a living being to a man who might otherwise have gone on his way thinking that he had simply seen a slightly different looking rock sticking out of a pond on a warm spring day.”


Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, in one of his famous detective stories, once stated, “the world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes”. How true! We can often pass by a familiar object and not see any further significance in the object, other than the fact that it is there. A bit more investigation, if we’re interested enough, may reveal that the object we’ve thought as being one thing is in fact another thing entirely. Have you ever had a moment where it finally hit you that you’ve been seeing things wrong (or have maybe been oblivious to what’s directly in front of you)? That photograph you’ve walked by every day at the office, suddenly it’s, “Hey, that’s no photo, that’s a painting!” Or mom’s ‘fake’ plant in the corner of the living room – it turns out to be real (usually, right after you’ve accidentally ripped off one of its leaves in a careless moment). It’s times like these we realize that our perceived world is not always grounded in reality.

When it comes to our knowing what’s what regarding anything, we must agree that the goal of all humanity is to grow in knowledge in order to further benefit our existence and not to run on mere instincts. (When humanity does operate from primal or base desires, it often results successfully in filling up jail cells. Though correctional officers and police benefit from this via employment, no sane person would consider the situation utopian.) Growth in the area perception is one of those things that makes us truly human. With perception changes occurring as we mature, our creeds and philosophies are born and affect/frame our whole lives. However, there comes a point where we seem to settle in our ways and it’s at that stage where most of us are extremely disinterested in ‘re-perceiving’ our world or our views, religious or otherwise. We’ll look at things through the lens of our prejudices or from our set of perspectives and then comment on one issue or another (in attempts to find balance), often with tepid sayings like, “It’s all the same when you look at it,” or “To each his own,” or “A rose by any other name is still a rose”. But things are not all the same and there is an incredible amount one could learn about roses if they care to!

Is it possible your view of God is something like this? Maybe for years you’ve seen God in one way and one way only. Maybe you’ve always seen Him as an ‘amorphous blob’, having no definite shape, form or identity. Or maybe you view God as being like ‘the Force’ – a good or bad power as per George Lucas’ concept in Star Wars (and which was borrowed heavily from Eastern religions). Or conversely, you’ve always thought of God (or have been made to think of God) as the very opposite of ‘unknowable’ – that in fact, he’s very knowable: as an overarching, dominating being who arbitrarily picks and chooses who lives or dies, who’s saved or damned, and who is incapable of showing anything ‘humane’ or something akin to benevolent love to his creation? There are so many views of God that it would be next to impossible to list them all.

The only way we can become ‘unstuck’ regarding our view of God is through His Spirit (that personal extension of His very being) shining a light into our hearts so that we can clearly see that God is far more incredible, involved and interested than we think He is.  This applies to the unbelieving, the skeptical and even at times the religious-minded! If we’d only take (or make) time to wait for a ‘parting of the clouds’ – that moment when God reveals His true self to us – how much further along would we be? God has done this in the past for those who looked for truth and reality concerning Him and He can do this for us now. We so want God to ‘show up’ in this world and ‘do something’, but what if He already has (or still does) and some of us just haven’t grasped that?

Maybe you’re like Christ’s disciple, Philip, who in John’s Gospel, asks Jesus a ‘simple’ favour: “Show us (me and the rest of the disciples here) the Father (the God of Israel) and that will be enough for us!”

Jesus hands Philip ‘God on a platter’, so to speak, with the words, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”

These words of Jesus should encourage some serious investigation, if in fact they’re true. For me, Jesus’ claims have spawned such investigation and thanks to superb authors such as Phillip Yancey, N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer and a host of others who’ve delved deeply into the Christian scriptures that hail back to the first century, I believe that one does get to know God by knowing Jesus Christ as he is revealed to us via the Gospels and other New Testament documents. But I also maintain that it had to have been God who shined down his light into my mind in order for me to ‘get it’ or understand the significance of Christ’s words and life. And if this Christ of the New Testament is truly true, as I believe He is, then He did more than just stick His neck out; He gave his very life-blood for the this broken world – for you – so that you could have a unique relationship with God unlike anything else this world and its many other religions offer.

For anyone willing to ‘stand on the banks’ and wait patiently, God will reveal Himself once His powerful light illuminates those priceless and pure realities that are found only in Him. It wouldn’t hurt to do a little prodding into things and step out into the mysterious waters of faith; that is true. But ultimately, it will be an intelligent, loving and amazing God who shows His true self to you and propels you into wanting to know more and more about Him with every passing day.

May that wonderful and superbly enlightening moment be yours soon, I pray,

© Flagrant Regard, 2012

“… the reality, however, is found in Christ.”
Paul’s letter to the church at Colosse, Chapter 2, verse 17

“And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

Peter’s 1st letter, Chapter 1, verse 19

Categories: Apologetics, Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Creative Writing, Didactic, Illustration, Religion, Spiritual, Theology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If You’re Gonna Be A Walking Billboard For Jesus, Make Sure It’s Really Jesus You’re Representing


So in Nova Scotia, the battle is won: a Christian student has received the right to wear a ‘Christian T-shirt’ by the administration of the high school he attends. I’m sure all the Christian conservatives around the planet have collectively breathed their sighs of relief re the Province of Nova Scotia’s decision to maintain ‘constitutional integrity’ with respect to Canada’s freedom of religion ‘n such.

But being a ‘Classical Christian’ (something like a ‘conservative Christian’ but less embarrassing) I have to say that I am not all that happy about the attention this is receiving from the watching world.

In the initial story that broke over the wire, a young high school student named William Swimmer at Forest Heights Community School was banned from wearing a T-shirt that brazenly stated, “Life is WASTED without Jesus”. But after the ban received significant media attention, the ban-decision was overturned and now William can proudly display his message to the souls around and about him.

But with respect to the Christian faith, is it the right message?

When I was a teen I was the high school Christian weirdo who wore a baseball shirt with a transfer on the front that said, “I’m Hooked on Jesus”, and which was often accompanied by my hand-bedazzled jean jacket festooned with Christian sew-on patches along with the glitter-goo message, “Jesus Lives” on the back of it. It was a ‘positive affirmation’ message that elevated Jesus and my love for Him.

But this T-shirt message of Mr. Swimmer? Negative … really negative. In effect, here’s what the T-shirt’s words are proclaiming: “Your life is worth crap if you don’t have Jesus…you LOSER, you!” Wow.  That just ain’t playin’ nice in my books.  The message is condemning in nature and I can’t but help remember the words uttered by Christ immediately following John 3:16 (the faith statement ubiquitously placarded at sports events) “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:17).

Can you imagine if Jesus had everyone sit down in groups on the side of a mountain hill and instead of His famous (and wonderfully tender) ‘Beatitudes’ he began instead to speak to the crowds with something like, “Okay, listen up! You are all spiritually retarded dolts who really don’t get me and are pretty much a waste of space!”  Isn’t that in effect what William Swimmer’s T-Shirt’s message is to his fellow students and teachers? If I were to ask Mr. Swimmer if he feels that way about his many peers – if they’re all meaningless sans the Saviour, would he look me in the eye and say, “Well, yeah!”. I pity that young man if that were how he felt, because then he is NOT receiving Christian education from a right-minded sort or source. (I personally believe that the young fellow hasn’t really explored the semantics of the T-shirt’s message all that much and probably is in no way insensitive and intolerant of everyone’s existences being lived outside of Christ.)

Jesus came to serve and to love those who were outcasts, who were searching for truth, who wanted to believe in a God who cared and were hoping for some relief from the burdens imposed on them by pernickety religious zealots. The Lord served by teaching in a thoughtful manner with respect to the general public but was often frighteningly visceral in his admonitions to those teachers of religion who should have known God and His expectations better (and, in fact, they did know better!).  And as for Jesus’ disciples he, once again, spoke to them very differently from the curious masses he attracted; often firmly and with deeper instruction or revelation those outside of the discipleship circle would not have been privy to (Matt 13:11).

If we’re going to be walking billboards for the Saviour, let’s display a message to the surrounding populace that shows the seekers and the unbelievers the qualities we Christians truly elevate and hold dear in our faith-journeys: hope, faith and that all-important love found in and at the heart of God. That is the Gospel. Whether it’s a sartorial mission statement found on a T-shirt transfer or via one’s code of conduct before the watching world, I believe it’s important how we represent the Who that is our life.

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone
who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience,
so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ
may be ashamed of their slander.”
1 Peter 3:16-17

© Flagrant Regard, 2012

Categories: Apologetics, Bible Knowledge, Christianity, Didactic, Religion | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. The Adventure Journal Theme.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 157 other followers