I am a heretic 3.0. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church

I was exposed to disagreement very early on as a Christian.

I came to Christ as a freshman at Eastman School of Music in a college dorm room. Soon after I hooked up with the chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

When I returned home, I decided to hook up with the most radical Christian church that I knew of in the Rumford area, one "Church of Good News" headed by Rev. Larry Shaw.

The problem was that my IVCF was comprised primarily of calvinist reformed type while the Church of Good News was most definitely Pentecostal.

In my Pentecostal Church I learned that the IVCF types were folks who denied the power of God and believed in greasy grace (eternal security). From my IVCF friends I learned that my Pentecostal church was into error, hyperfaith, and works salvation. All that I could figure out was that they obviously disagreed with each other.

Since then I have encountered disagreements on subjects like the second coming of Christ, baptism, whether drinking alcohol in moderation is morally evil, Christian rock, what version of the Bible is correct.. and the list goes on. I have figured out the following realities.
* There are folks who know the Bible more than I do and who are more spiritual than myself who disagree with other folks who know the Bible more than I do who are more spiritual than myself.
* There are a vast number of areas of disagreement where these folks above can disagree agree on. Therefore, the probability that an average Christian like myself can get all of these areas of disagreement correct is negligible.
* Since I am a Christian nonetheless, it is probably not a priority to God that I get all of these areas correct. Therefore I should focus on other things in my life other than areas where Christians disagree on.

I have learned that Catholics disagree with Protestants on a whole number of other issues (purgatory, Mary, the saints,..) that we agree with ourselves on. But this is what I don't understand.

I have figured out (and have learned) that the areas where us Protestants disagree with each other are (mostly) "nonessential". A "nonessential" is a point of belief where you can still have eternal life and be wrong. I furthermore have a classification of "unimportant" which is a "nonessential" point of belief that furthermore will not mess you up and cause you grief if you are wrong. To differentiate, I view the whole eternal security issue I encountered my first year as a Christian as nonessential and mostly unimportant (extremes of belief either way might become important). Hyperfaith might be nonessential, but it is important. You could die if you don't call a doctor when you have a heart attack, believing instead that God will heal you.

Here is what I don't understand though. Why are the disagreements between us Protestants on issues that are mostly nonessential and unimportant, while disagreements with the Catholics all of a sudden are essential and important. If a Catholic asks the Virgin Mary to pray to the Lord for prayer request 'A', why would being wrong on this point deny the Catholic eternal life particularly when possibly being wrong on the second coming holds no eternal consequences to me. I am not even convinced this issue is all that important, particularly if you believe (as I do) that prayers that go to God the Father through the saints are just routed to the Father directly.

All of the literature that I have seen from Protestants that expose the evil of Catholicism seem to have the underlying assumption that all of these issues are "essential". But I have yet to read a logical explanation of why this is the case while at the same time our disagreements are "nonessential".

(Actually I have read one source that claimed that "faith alone" is an essential, and that Catholics by disagreeing with "faith alone" are a non-Christian sect. Now if you are talking about "faith alone" as in how you initially come to Christ, I agree that one becomes a Christian on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ, not on the basis of "how good I am". The Bible is clear on this. But I think Catholics agree with this also. Therefore, it seems to me that "faith alone" really deals with how faith and works relate to each other after one becomes a Christian. If this is the point of disagreement (and I think it is), Protestants disagree with each other on how they work together (see Lordship salvation controversy); thus I fail to see whereas this is essential.

Most other sources I have read like Chick tracts just seem to assume that the pope is the AntiChrist and the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon..or is it the other way around.)

Until I read something that clearly and convincingly makes this case, I guess I will remain a Protestant heretic and continue to view these disagreements as "nonessential" and (mostly) "unimportant".

My Heros

There are a couple of forums that I follow. One baseball (for the Red Sox), a couple Christian, and one a support forum for prostate cancer survivors.

On the prostate cancer forum, I have been priviliged to meet two guys that I consider my heros. They both have web sites at Caring Bridge.

The first is Tony Crispino. Tony (or TC-LasVegas) joined the forum a little after me and had post-op statistics a little more serious than myself (one higher gleason grade..somewhat more advanced out of the prostate (stage T-3B) than mine. He has had radiation therapy and is undergoing hormone therapy. His psa now is undetectable, and I pray that it stays this way.

He is such an encouragement to everyone on the forum. Always, always positive. He has recently taken over a volunteer moderator position on the forum. His mother has just passed away from cancer. She is in a better place. Pray for comfort for Tony.

The second is Walter Whited. Walter (or War-Eagle) has more advanced prostate cancer. He has been the hormone therapy route and now I think is (or will be starting) chemo.

Walter is also such an encouragement to everyone on the forum. Never complaining about himself, his concern is for the others there.

Both Walter and Tony are definite Christians. Tony is Catholic. I am not sure what Walter is (maybe Baptist but I dunno). It don't matter. Funny thing when a bunch of guys are all fighting a serious disease, we could give two hoots about the name on the outside of the church door.

There are other guys on Healing Well that are also my heros, but just want a special tribute to these two.

The Gift of Knowing Your Eternal Destiny

I admit it. I'm a wimp.

Almost two years ago, I was facing a prostate cancer biopsy. My urologist told me it would be nothing to worry about..it just felt like rubber band snaps against the prostate..and that I would do fine without a local.

However, twelve needles being injected into my prostate hardly seemed to be a transparent procedure. The night before my biopsy I was up all night reading and researching the procedure over the internet. I convinced myself I was going to die in agony from this procedure.

The next day I walked into the doctor's office and asked for lidocaine. When I was told that this urologist did not offer it, much to the dismay of my wife, I walked out.

I ended up getting a second opinion from a doctor who did offer lidocaine. Come to find out that with the local, the procedure was not all that terrible..the worst part was the instrument up the anus (I feel sorry for urologists having to deal with people's butts all day for a living..yuck).

Now having prostate cancer, particularly the type that escaped the prostate bounds (fortunately hopefully still locally) I have found myself reflecting on death and dying. Now I know my prognosis is good, but even if I am cured of cancer, all this cure represents is a delay of the inevitable for 10-40 years or so.

I am convinced that the biggest blessing one can have this side of the grave is the gift of knowing your eternal destiny. This knowledge makes all of the difference even when thinking about the prospect of death.

Now on a scale of 1-10, I have been a reasonably well-behaved person. I don't have a prison record, I support my family, and I don't lose my temper all that easily. So in a scale of "goodness" I might have some optimism I might be in the top 50% (but maybe the middle 33%).

But gosh, I would hate to have my confidence in my eternal destiny based on how well behaved I have or have not been. For starters, I live with myself and I know how I fall short. How good would I have to be anyway to have eternal life? Certainly I have not been as good as Mother Theresa or Billy Graham or many of the saints of the ages. And when I compare my life with the one perfect life that has been lived on earth, I certainly fall far short.

Now I can turn to the Bible and promises found within it. For example John 3:16 says "that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life". Now this is better because it indicates that my eternal destiny is not based on how well I behave but somehow based on "believing on Him." So I am set free from worrying about somehow being good enough for eternal life.

But how do I know that I am believing on Him? What if I think and profess that I am believing on Him but really am not? After all, didn't Jesus say that many will say to Him "Lord, Lord.." but He will respond "Depart from me I never knew you". Were these folks believing on him? Or more accurately, did these folks think they were believing on Him only to find out (too late) they really were not. What if I think that I have faith but really do not.

So then I can look back on my life and reflect on how I came to start believing. I can remember that dorm room at Eastman School of Music when I prayed with another student to ask Jesus Christ into life and transform my life. And I can look upon the events that transpired shortly after this point as evidence that yest indeed my life was transformed.

But that was then and this is now. How do I know this event is still valid today. Certainly I have not renounced what Jesus did in my life that day. But could I somehow drifted away from it as the writer of Hebrews warns us about. Now maybe I could put stock in the theology that it is impossible for a genuine Christian to lose his salvation. But what if this theology is wrong (a good number of Christians don't buy into it). Is basing ones assurance of salvation on a particular theology, particularly one that is not universally agreed upon, a good idea.

What I need is more of an assurance of my eternal destiny than one that is based on (1) how "good" I am, (2) head knowledge of Biblical promises, (3) a certain theology, or (4) a historical event. I have become convinced that the best assurance I can have of knowing my eternal destiny is one that God pours into my soul. This is a gift that God gives.

Then I can reflect on what God has done in my life including how it all began and praise Him because His presence is still real in my life and He is with me today. As important as the starting point is, I think the finishing point is even more important, and Jesus is real today.

Then I can look in the Bible and see the promises of God and praise God that He is faithful because He is with me today.

As far as how good I may or may not be..who cares. That is not the point.

As cancer has forced me to reflect more upon my life and eventual death, God has been giving this gift to me and I thank Him for it.

I am a heretic 2.0. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church (and EWTN)

I have never been a big one for television. We have Dish Network at home with 4,356,297 channels (well maybe not that much) and sometimes my wife and I will flip through all of them and conclude..Yuck..there is absolutely nothing on. More often than not I will then let her watch something on Hallmark channel while I am upstairs playing the piano, on the computer, or sleeping in my big reclining chair with the dog.

The shows that I sort of like are "The Amazing Race", "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader", and lately I've sort of been fascinated with "American Idol". Sometimes there is a movie on that sounds interesting. Oh..the news and sports of course. Oh forgot..this year we got NESN so the Red Sox will be on my agenda.

Of course when you are in the hospital (as I was two years ago with prostate cancer surgery), watching TV is all there is when you don't have visitors. In the two days following my surgery I was sort of in and out on pain killers and all that, and really didn't have the attention span to watch any television show that would command me paying attention. I just wanted something nice and peaceful that seemed to minister to me. That is when I found EWTN.

Now I can't remember that much about what I watched. I do remember a couple of funny looking priests and nuns who seemed nice and even funny at times. I watched quite a few masses. Now I will admit that Catholics seem to do church differently than I am used to, but it was fascinating to watch something different. Their church (or mass) seems to center around the communion service.

Now I know some Protestants are critical of Catholics because they believe that somehow their communion elements are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, but I honestly fail to see what is so terrible in this belief. I guess it all revolves around how literally you take the "is" in "This is my body..this is my blood". At any rate I can not open my Bible and convince myself that they are definitely wrong in this. Besides, I knew an elderly couple at my first Pentecostal church in Rumford Maine that believed the same thing (or near it) anyway. I look at it this way, at least the communion service is meaningful to Catholics.

Oh and there was this elderly couple that had shows on Catholic saints. Now I know that Protestants are critical of Catholics because of their saints, but I don't see what is so terrible about showing honor to those great in the faith who have gone on before. At least a good Catholic has some sense of being tied to their past and knowing who those who are great in the faith are.
But anyway, that TV show seemed to make an impression on me for some reason, maybe I learned something.

I remember once of flipping it when the discussion turned to indulgences. That seemed a little wierd to me. But other than that, I can't remember hearing anything that seemed all that terrible on it. On and there were some talk shows that I seemed to enjoy. In a couple of days the Red Sox were signing Matsuzaka, and my interest flipped to following that story. But I have watched EWTN a little since (if I am up and flipping through the tube). Of the 3-4 Christian networks on my tube, I like EWTN the best..the others seem contrived and cheesy mostly. Plus I have never heard EWTN begging me for money; and I highly doubt whether they will use the contributions that are sent to the network for heated doghouses for the priest's pets.

So I guess I am also a Protestant heretic in that I actually like watching EWTN (sometime anyway). In fact you can listen to it over the internet, and I think I will do that now (haven't done it in a while).

Anyway, I have an idea on how this series will go. I think I will talk first about what we (or me anyway) should agree with the Catholics on..what (in my little mind) are the fundamental differences (I think it all reduces to one difference)..plus one difference that I personally have great difficulty with (that you might find surprising). Then I will talk about the differences that in my mind are overrated to some extent. Oh..also in my little study..I came across some groups in Christian history that I did not know much about and ended up really liking. I might diverge into those a couple of times.

Oh and this will not be "All Catholic all the time". I do have other interests.

I am a heretic. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church.

Around two years ago my wife and I got it in our minds that we might be moving soon. My daughter was soon to graduate from high school, and we felt that after graduation there might be a window of opportunity to move if it seemed to make sense.

Now as it turned out my daughter attended University of Vermont and moving would make absolutely no sense as I would be forfeiting in state tuition. Anyway, since my prostate cancer surgery, I am a little less inclined to move. Now my prognosis is good now, but it could change at any time. If in fact I only have 5-15 or so more years left (who knows I might have that anyway) I don't want two of those years tied up in moving. I would like to simplify my life, not make it any more complex.

Anyway, one day a silly thought came into my mind. I had the thought that since my conversion to Jesus Christ in college, that all of my church experience had been in the Charismatic / Pentecostal tradition of Christianity (primarily Assemblies of God). This was because the first church that I associated with after Christ was the Church of Good News in Rumford Maine. Had it been the Baptist church across the river in Mexico (or down the river in Peru..love these names) my Christian life would have a different orientation. Or had I remained in the Methodist church of my parents, the orientation would be different still.

Anyway, I thought that if we were to move locations, I might be open to changing my tradition. (Even though I am Charismatic / Pentecostal..I am sort of the cautious type in this..and some parts of their theology I have some reservations about). But to what? I knew quite a bit about the Pentecostal / Charismatic tradition (from experience), quite a bit about the Methodist tradition (from my upbringing), and some about the Baptist tradition (from my piano teacher and grandparents). Beyond that point however, I was ignorant.

But I decided if I were to change traditions, I would do it right. I would first educate myself on the various traditions out there in ChristianityLand and then make an informed decision. I would not base it on transient stuff Christians often make such a decision on like the pastor or the program or the friendliness of the church.

Now many Christians I know would never have included the Catholic denomination in this list of traditions worthy of studying. However, these Christians never knew the LaPlante family in Rumford, Maine. However, having known them, they are the primary reason I just never could became a rabid anti-Catholic (well maybe a mild one when I lived in NY state). I guess I just could never reconcile the Catholics being the antichrist and the pope the whore of Babylon (or is it vice versa) with the obvious Christian testimony of the LaPlante family. Given a choice between some folk's opinions and people I know and respect, I will side with people I know and respect any day of the week thank you.

Besides I knew enough about Catholicism to know that they claimed to have started it all (what with St. Peter being the first pope supposedly). So I figured that any group that claimed to be my spiritual ancestor and the origin of Christianity was worthy of investigation.

One day I decided to google "evangelical catholic" and came across this web site and this one. Eventually I found this one. I found them all fascinating. This was the first time I had really read about Catholics from Catholic sources. I began to entertain the following questions:
* My understandanding of the Catholic Church was entirely through Protestant sources. Was my understanding correct? If I was misinformed, was it intentional? Disclaimer: in my current church I have never heard one thing negative about the Catholic Church. Now we don't preoccupy ourselves with the other churches in Franklin county, but to the extent that other churches are mentioned, it is almost always positively (I remember a wonderful sermon our pastor preached on St. Patrick a while back).
* I knew of people who were raised Catholic but came to Christ through our church and others like it. But here were folks who made seemingly informed decisions to leave their Evangelical church for the Catholic church. And to my surprise they did not spiritually die. In fact they seemed to thrive spiritually. What's up with that?
* They seemed to have at least some valid points when they were critical of Protestants. Yes 30,000 denominations seems to be a tad exaggerated. But the bigger issue is whether denominations is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. This amongst other points seemed to be valid concerns.
* Maybe the differences between our traditions is not as great as we make them out to be. I mean these guys did appear to be evangelical and Catholic.

And finally the unthinkable one:

What was God speaking though this? Is this all because He is leading me to (sometime anyway) go through the mother of all tradition changes? Assemblies of God to Catholic seemed very wild..but strangely not impossible. But..any move of this magnitidue must be very well thought out and very reasoned. Who knows, maybe this denomination is the whore of Babylon and this whole line of thinking is simply satanic deception.

Anyway..this seems like a good juncture to hang it up for the evening and continue at another time. I think I will stay on this topic a while. Hillary, Obama, and McCain are getting boring.

The Earth Is Flat

I recently have come across an interesting blog post which views beliefs on evolution, creation, and Biblical literalism as a spectrum. Each position considers the positions to the its left as reading Scripture too literally. Each position considers the positions to its right as compromisers who cede the authority of the Bible to Godless science.

Surprisingly, the young earth creationist view (7 literal days about 10,000 years ago or less) was only position 3 on this spectrum. Position 2 was geocentrism (the universe revolves around the earth). Position 1 is a flat earth.

Well this got my curious mind to wondering whether this author was correct. In other words, if I were to adopt a literalistic interpretation of Scripture on this topic and be logically consistent in this perspective, would I have no other option but to conclude the earth is flat?

My conclusions after studying this matter is that this post is spot on. Biblically speaking the earth is flat. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Let God be found true though every man be found a liar.

Unfortunately I found only one web site that has not compromised on this issue. I will let the Scriptures produced by this web site speak for themselves.

To be fair, I also examined the other side (courtesy from the young earth creationist web sites) that believe the Bible literally teaches a spherical earth, and I found their case surprisingly weak. First of all they claim the phrase "circle of the earth" found in the Bible refutes the flat earth. However, I still remember my 11th grade geometry class, and as I recall a circle was two dimensional while a sphere was three dimensional. So these Scriptures still support a flat earth.

The only other Scripture I found that could support a Spherical earth was Luke 17:31-34, where Jesus used the phrases "In that day..In that night" in reference to His second coming. Since His second coming is a one time event, the only way this could be true would be in a spherical earth where night and day occur simultaneously.

But wait a minute. The Bible also teaches in Matthew 24:26 that not even God the Son knows the date and hour of the second coming. Given this Scripture, Jesus was obviously just covering His bases so to speak and allowing for both possibilities in respect to the second coming.

So the teaching of the Bible is clear. The Earth is flat. However, if one must compromise the plain teaching of the Bible in favor of Godless science, it would seem that the minimal compromises would be found in the geocentric position. Here I found an association of geocentrists with their own web page. And this little discussion also summarizes the clear Biblical support for geocentricism.

I also found that Catholic apologist Robert Sungesis is also a geocentrist through this link (which unfortunately is dead..I actually found this out through a web page that linked to his stuff.

Of course there is one other option that might be (probably is) grossly heretical, but I throw it out here simply as a possibility.

Perhaps God did not intend the Bible to be used as a science textbook. Perhaps he knew that us frail humans would eventually figure out the secrets to the universe by ourselves. Thus perhaps He allowed His word to humans who had incomplete and yes even faulty understanding in the fields of astrology, physics, and biology. And perhaps even this faulty understanding is indirectly reflected in the Bible in passages where God's intent is to convey Spiritual truth about Himself.

Nah..this is blatant heresy. The earth is obviously flat and we live in a geocentric universe.


Where are you on this scale of possibilities for origins. Glad you asked.

I can take each of these eight possibilities and assign them values in two categories: theological probability and scientific probability.

Theologically, if I assume the Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, I would rate 1-6 being equally possible theologically. If I want to believe the earth is flat, gosh-diddly-yarn I can't open my Bible and find a Scripture against. But neither am I convinced that theological evolution is wrong. Only when we get to points 7-8 (no Adam and Eve) do we have a problem because Jesus seemed to disagree with this.

Now if I were to go through the eight options and rate them scientifically (not being a scientist of course) only option 1 would I conclude as definitely impossible. Options 2-3 might be scientifically impossible, but I can't prove this so I will call them improbable with option 2 being more improbable than option 3.

Options 4-6 I feel confident are not scientifically impossible..and option 6 would be most probable scientifically, so that is where I lean. But this issue is not a great bone of contention for me. The only real problem I have here is when this issue is used as a great delimeter of heresy.

Amazing Grace

Now my taste in movies is not complex. Just off the bat, here is a list of some movies I have liked:
* The Simpson's Movie
* Napoleon Dynamite
* Mars Attacks
* The Stupids
* The Shawshank Redemption
* The Green Mile
* The Shining
* The Wizard of Oz
* Psycho (the original Alfred Hitchcock Version)
* North by Northwest
* The Birds

I guess I show a proclivity towards stupidly funny movies, Steven King movies, and Alfred Hitchcock. Nothing too serious please.

Last night I was a movie we rented called Amazing Grace. Now this movie was about the life of William Wilberforce, the man who was responsible for abolishing the slave trade in Great Britain (now I read disturbingly this morning that the bill did not abolish it entirely. For a while it continued illegally. If a slave ship were in danger of being caught, its cargo was just thrown overboard).

What fascinates me is how societies can be morally blind to the great evils of their time. Slavery was such an evil of the 1600s-1800s. If we go ahead in time we find state sanctioned racial discrimination. If we go back in time we would find the evils of witch hunts and inquisitions. As a Protestant believer I have long been aware of the the Spanish inquisition, but one historical detail that I have been unaware of is that our history is just as bad. I spent some time reading over the Internet about the anabaptist believers (the predecessors of the Mennonities) and how they were burned by the Catholics (and John Calvin) and drowned by the reformed (Zwingli). Luther was in no position to directly persecute the anabaptists, but he did support their persecution (he was also an anti-Semite..another moral evil..his writings were used by the Nazi Socialists to justify the holocaust).

Learning all of this was disconcerting to me. If the Protestant reformation was this great move of God that I was taught in Sunday School that it was, how come its leaders had such moral blindness in certain areas. I don't have an answer for that. But even in my life as a child, I have witnessed how Christian folks seemed to be the ones who were the most resistant to ending racial discrimination.

It does seem obvious to me that no society is exempt from its moral blind spots. Otherwise good people can be morally blind to the prevalent evils of their generation.

I can't help but think that somehow that future generations will look back at the present time and shake their heads in amazement and wonder just how come a society that claims to be humane and just sanctions the killing of innocent (unborn) human life.

Pressing Theological Issue: Life on Other Planets

Some theological issues bore me to sleep. As a new Christian at Eastman School of Music, I was the only Pentecostal / Charismatic Christian in my Intervarsity Christian Fellowship in a sea of (what I thought to be) heretics. As such I had my fill of setting these folks straight with the truth as I learned it from my home church on pressing issues such as eternal security, the second coming of Jesus, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. So thirty years later, when I encounter these issues I immediately zone out.

But last Tuesday at church, I began to wonder about what I consider to be a more important theological issue. As a Star Trek and Star Wars fan, I can't help but wondering whether there is life on planets far, far away.

This was of course prompted by a message by our pastor concerning Jesus as the light of the world. To illustrate this message, he spoke some about the science of light and showed on the projector a picture by the Hubble Space telescope. This picture showed pictures of galaxies 12 billion light years away that appeared as small dots to the telescope.

Now of course this also touches on the great theological issue on the age of the earth. I know some folks insist the earth can be no older than 7000 years or so according to the Bible. Galaxies 12 billion light years pose no problem to this theology, God just created the light in transit so that they only seem 7000 years or so.

Of course I would then ask whether this is within God's character to plant scientific evidence that suggests the universe is at least 12 billion years old while at the same time clearly speaking in His word that it is only 7000 years or so old. It would seem to me that this is a rather deceptive thing for God to do. Of course the only other alternative then is maybe the age of the universe is not as clearly laid out in the Bible as some would have me believe.

Anyway, according to my calculations, galaxies that are 12 billion light years away are 12,000,000,000 * 186,000 * 84,000 * 365 * 5280 * 12 inches away. According to my calculations this comes to 1,907,805,892,608,000,000,000,000,000,000 inches. We could then round this to 1.9 dectillion inches away. That is a lot of inches.

Of course then the question comes, given the vast number of inches in the universe, whether there are any other sets of inches that support life.

Now when I was in Junior High, I used to listen to the People's Gospel Hour by pastor Perry F. Rockwood on the radio. Once my friend mailed away and got a little pamphlet "Youth Wants the Answers" which had the answers to this and other great important questions straight from the Bible. Besides learning that women had to wear dresses and that men had to keep their hair off the ears and that everyone (especially Catholics) who did not go to a Bible believing fundamentalist church was going straight to hell, I also learned that it was impossible for there to be life on other planets because God did not say there was in the Bible. This must be the same school of thought that you can't have pianos in church because God did not mention pianos in the Bible.

Anyway it makes sense to me that God does not need to tell us everything that He is doing in the Bible. So therefore I can not eliminate the possibility that there is life on other planets. All that I know is that if there is life on other planets, God did not see that it is that important for us on earth to know about it.

But this leads to questions about intelligent life. One thing that I do know is that the universe is governed by a triune God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). It does make me question whether there is other fallen life on other planets, because then would not God the Son have had to die for the sins of fallen life on other planets. Would this go against the Scriptures that God the Son died once for the sins of the world. Or would God the Son have died several times on several planets for the sins of several fallen races. This seems improbable to me.

Maybe satan is only in operation on planet earth and any other planets are perfect planets with no fallen races (that I would like to see). Under this theory the Star Trek Klingons and the Star Wars Darth Vader would be an impossibility because every where else would be perfect.

Anyway, these are the pressing theological issues I like to thing about.

Wasting your cancer

I found this website on wasting your cancer.

It was written by John Piper, a Christian (Baptist pastor from Minnesota I believe) and a fellow prostate cancer survivor. Excellent read.

Our Church Youth Band Rocks

Happiness is finding your little place in the kingdom of God and doing it.

As for me, my little place at this point in time seems to be with our church youth band.

Now why a bunch of junior and senior high school musicians would put with an old man like myself is beyond me. But they seem to, and as long as they tolerate my presence I am glad to impart what little knowledge I might have about music to them.

I guess it all started about 3 1/2 years ago when I was invited (for some reason) to a church vision meeting. We were all supposed to write down one vision you had for the church. At that time most people had expanding our facilities since we were cramped for ministry space at that time (God graciously granted us to fulfill that vision). For me, I'm not big into buildings and stuff, so I remember writing down having a youth worship band that is equal to the grown up kids worship bands in importance.

Well, as often happens in the kingdom of God, when you have a vision for something, you become a part of putting the vision into action. Two years ago last September we started it up. Now I'm a classical musician with zilcho knowledge of bands, guitars, drums and stuff. Fortunately that year we had an excellent group of musicians (mostly seniors) who were able to help me along the process.

Let's see, we had Bryce (guitar, vocals) who was a worship leader who was later joined by a second worship leader Ashley (guitar, vocals and a wonderful voice) who moved to St. Albans midyear. We had John on drums, Katie and Jackie on vocals and Matt on bass. All but Matt were seniors. That year we should have made Orlando in the fine arts festival, but for some reason the judges didn't quite agree with me (we just missed). Still whenever we do "How Lovely is Thy Dwelling Place" I think of that version (Ashley had such a wonderful voice for it) as the gold standard by which all other versions are measured.

Last year I really after losing all of the seniors, I really didn't think we had enough to reform the band, but God seems to have disagreed with me. Matt stepped up and became a worship leader. During the course of the year Austin and later Ian (seniors from BFA) started coming to our church and joined in. They both are wonderful musicians on drums and vocals. Matt (a junior high student) was learning drums and joined in. It was wonderful to see Austin mentor Matt during the course of the year. And lest I forget, this was the first year for Shannon a Freshman at BFA. And finally midyear Eli, a wonderful bass player and musician joined the band. Eli is also like me is a Classical Music fan; we like to talk Beethoven and Mozart. And finally Ashley a junior in Swanton who lives fairly near me joined the group as a junior.

Both years we ministered in the "adult services" every six weeks or so. Since we didn't have a keyboard player, I filled in on the piano.

This year, I am more excited than ever about our group than ever. We played in church the Sunday before Thanksgiving and they were great.

Shannon and Eli have stepped up to become sort of co worship leaders. I did not realize Shannon had such a wonderful voice until this year. Ashley is now the senior member of the group on vocals. Matt has come such a long way on drums, but now I have a problem..two drummers. Brendan has also joined the crew and we have to rotate. Meanwhile we have some new members. Hattie has joined the group on vocals, and I want to work her in on piano. Matt's sister Ashley is also doing vocals and flute, while Matt's brother Cameron will be doing sax.

The wonderful thing is that we have the nucleus in place for a wonderful group over the next few years.

I am salivating over Fine Arts Festival this year.

Mea Culpa for any member of the band that I might have inadvertently forgotten.