Denominations are a good thing.

Though this has never happened to me personally, I have heard stories of Protestants being told by Roman Catholics that they are "going to the wrong church". They claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true church begun from the ministry of Christ. Peter was the first pope. Mary lived a life of virginity and sinlessness, was born of a sinless mother, and ascended to heaven, being spared from the curse of death.

I'm a Protestant. Well, technically, I belong to a non-denominational church. The church had began in the Baptist tradition and later chose to leave the denomination.  My point is that I don't share many of the beliefs and traditions found in Roman Catholicism. I don't believe they are the original church or that Peter was a pope. I recoil at the excessive reverence toward Mary and the claims that she and her mother were sinless. I don't believe in papal infallibility.

All this is said with my sincere belief that Roman Catholicism does teach from the Gospel. Many Catholics are, in fact, Christians. I do believe that the Pope is a sincere servant of Christ. This is not a popular view among some of my peers, who believe that Catholicism is idolatrous, legalist, and promotes salvation being achieved through good works. From Rome's point of view, this isn't the case. They revere Mary, but she isn't a god to them any more than the Trinity is polytheistic.

I do have a major problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it pertains to none of things above. My problem is that the Catholic Church doesn't do a good enough job with explaining what salvation is and how it works. Many Catholics, in their ignorance, believe that living a good life is what guarantees them a place in Heaven. This is where denominations come in.

For those not familiar with Christendom, the Protestant Reformation was a point in history where an explosion of theological dissent from Roman Catholicism occurred. Up until the 15th century, there were only two dominant churches; the other being the Orthodox Church. The Reformation was a call for Christians to reject Catholic authority and to acknowledge the corruption occurring within it. Martin Luther is considered one of the fathers of the movement, posting his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. This sparked further protests.

The Church, that is, Christendom, needs followers of this stripe. You'll hear a lot of, "Why can't we all just get along?" in today's culture. We're obsessed with unity, yet have little to no knowledge of what came before. It's yet another example of anti-intellectualism within the Church. I'm not asking for every Christian to be an Augustine, but they need to have the passion to know and understand the convictions and conflicts of our forefathers. The Church is not a country club. There's no place for the half-hearted. If the Church is to flourish, we must have thinkers. We must have brothers and sisters that will challenge the churches. Denominations serve in that purpose. Unity will only homogenize and, eventually, water down the Church.

There's a conflict over the Calvinist doctrine of Preservation of the Saints, also known pejoratively as "once-saved, always-saved". Roman Catholicism objects to this teaching, believing that a Christian essentially gets a hall pass to do whatever he desires. Luther, a believer in said teaching, countered that if a man truly has Christ in his heart, his desire will be to please Him.

I love that! I love that people within the Church can and will care enough about the Word to argue over these things. The Bible should not be approached frivolously. It's meant to be studied. We have the benefit in today's world to debate peacefully. We need to take advantage of that gift. While there are absolute deal-breakers existing within theology, it's debate that will bring Christians together in their mutual love for desiring Christ, not the abolishment of denomination.

-L. Travis Hoffman

9/30/2015

Faith of a Child

We had a guest speaker (Justin Grunewald) in church today. While he gave an excellent lesson and I hope that he comes back to speak again, there was one specific thing he said that really lodged itself in my mind. He related how he accepted salvation when he was only five years old. He made a point to emphasize how surprising it is for a child so young to do something like that. And then something donned on me.

I accepted salvation when I was somewhere between 6-8 years of age. Not as young as five, but still pretty young. Young enough that I really didn't understand the depth and implications of being saved. I did speak to someone in the church and I was even in a group class that taught about it, but I was the youngest in that group. It didn't really click. All I could wrap my head around was that Jesus died for my sins and that we needed to ask Him into our heart. So I did just that. I did it because I knew that was what we were supposed to do.

I've always found that to be kind of unusual. You always hear stories about how people came to be part of the Church after struggling with the choice. It seems so foreign a thing to me because I just did it out of obedience, like it was no different than doing school work or making sure to have good manners. I'm not trying to diminish my fellow Christians' testimonies or say that I'm in some way more spiritually mature. I'm only trying to explain how my mind worked at that time.

These have been discussed in a previous post, but Justin Grunewald's words brought to mind one of the five points of Calvinism, Irresistible Grace. Maybe my asking for Christ's salvation was purely an act of the spirit as opposed to relating to the mind. Jesus did say that the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to children and He instructed those around Him to have the faith of a child. It starts to fall into place.

Then I think about how incredibly fortunate I was to be blessed with that proclivity as a young church-goer. I could've been older when I got saved. I could've gone through a chunk of my life without Christ being bonded to me. It's true that the Lord is always with us. But there's a difference between the Lord being with you and the Lord being in you. I haven't always been the most dedicated of Christians. Yet it has always been something important to me in some way. Which brings up another point within Calvinism, Preservation of the Saints. That is, that the saved will always be guided back to the Lord, however far they've drifted away from Him. That's the distinction. I'm glad that I was able to have that gift as a little boy.

-L. Travis Hoffman

8/30/2015

The Double Standard with Sex and Violence and Why I'm Okay with It

I don't like sex scenes in movies. I don't care for nudity, either. Call me prudish, but it comes off as gratuitous and unnecessary in a film. Violence, however, I can get behind. In fact, I enjoy certain types of violence. That will sound strange and even unsettling to many who will read this blog entry, but I'm choosing to be honest here. Maybe the word "enjoy" is misleading. It's probably better for me to say that I can be entertained with violence in a film while comfortably seeing it for what it is.

It's been seen said ad nauseum, especially in Hollywood, that it's easier to get excessive violence through the ratings board, whereas it's like pulling teeth to keep a sex scene without any cuts. There's an excellent documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, that discusses this very thing. The director makes use of interviews and compares footage to make a case that the MPAA has a double standard. And it is double standard. Very much so. But I don't see that as a bad thing.

From infancy itself, we are exposed to violence. We experience pain and we know how it feels. When we hit someone, we're scolded for doing so. If our loved ones are harmed, we sympathize and have emotional distress from it. Barring mental and/or psychological problems, we conclude early on that violence is bad. As we get older, we recognize that the use of force can be necessary to prevent even worse acts of violence against others. Regardless, we can still see that violence is painful and to be avoided.

Sexuality is mostly presented at puberty. Before that, our experiences around it are pretty much limited to hugs and kissing. Then somewhere between fourth and sixth grade we're given sex education. It's awkward, uncomfortable, and often quite funny. We learn about our changing bodies and reproduction and all that good stuff. Most importantly, we learn that sex is enjoyable. When we walk out of that class, that is the deepest engrained fact; sex is good.

This is where the problem presents itself. It's true that sex is enjoyable, but it's not always good. It's not always to our benefit, though we often ignore the consequences and go through with it, anyway. Compare that to violence. Violence is painful and bad, but it can sometimes be of benefit in the long run. We hesitate to use violent ends because we know that there will always be painful consequences. There's frequently idiots who will eschew this common sense, but I'd hope that most people are capable of proper discernment.

I believe media contributes to our culture's short-sightedness with sexuality. Think of 10-20 movies that you've viewed that have a sex scene, however explicit or conservative it might be. After you've done that, think of how many of those movies take the time to explore any negative consequences that could or do come about. I'm talking about emotional or psychological turmoil, its effect on other characters outside of the act, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc. How about even the emotional depth of the act itself? I would wager that most of those 10-20 films don't even graze over these topics. If we're realistic, we know that a lot of sexual relationships (especially pre-marital and/or promiscuous ones) come with this sort of baggage.

There's a great quote from David Lynch where he said, "Sex is a doorway to something so powerful and mystical, but movies usually depict it in a completely flat way. Being explicit doesn't tap into the mystical aspect of it, either. In fact, that usually kills it because people don't want to see sex so much as they want to experience the emotions that go along with it. These things are hard to convey in film because sex is such a mystery." For someone who's never had that kind of intimacy, I'm certain that David Lynch hit the nail on the head. But our youth culture doesn't understand the emotion and can only see the physical pleasures of it. I believe that we all want it, but we aren't aware that it even exists.

Just so I can further prove my point, think of 10-20 movies with violent scenes. When you've done that, think of how many movies show characters mourning, reflecting, regretting, experiencing emotional or psychological distress, etc. Count the movies where a person is in pain or dies. Do you see what I'm saying? However explicit or mild, realistic or stylized, violence is honest in its appearance. Most audiences probably don't watch violence for the sake of violence. Porn has a far wider appeal than snuff films. When we watch a violent movie, it's because the bloodshed is a means to an end. It's violence that is used to prevent further, darker atrocities. It's good against evil.  

I'm not about to say that we don't have our share of problems with it. Every year it seems like there's conflicting studies about whether or not video games make children aggressive. Personally, I don't think it does. Not on any substantial level. If I'm wrong, however, shouldn't we be studying whether sexually explicit media increases promiscuity, teen pregnancy, divorce, or depression? Shouldn't this be brought into prominence too? I say yes.

-L. Travis  Hoffman

7/28/2015

Freedom of the Atheist vs. Freedom of the Christian

The idea of freedom is easily the greatest appeal of atheism. Intellectual freedom. Philosophical freedom. Freedom of lifestyle. Freedom from the guilt and restrictions provided by religion. If you don't want to use your money for charity, you don't have to. Marriage? Sure, if you want. Or you can have a great life of sex. There's no reason why you shouldn't. We're here to procreate; it's instinctual. And if you don't want a child or can't handle one, there's no reason why you can't get an abortion. This is about self-preservation. Again, it's necessary to rely on our biology. It knows us better than ourselves. So long as we aren't hurting anyone, nothing is wrong with holding an atheistic worldview. Society would run more smoothly if we allowed ourselves the freedom of naturalism.

Except that it wouldn't. The natural world can be a brutal place. Watch the Discovery Channel and you'll see it pretty quickly. When you realize that these animals are acting on instinct, things come into focus. Naturalism is able to explain how life works. In simplistic terms, organisms are what they are because of chemical reactions to stimuli. Everything is dictated by this. And that terrifies me.

An atheist, a true atheist, must subscribe to this view. Even Secular Humanism, which claims that humanity can be moral without spirituality, must concede to this fact. Atheism rejects God and the supernatural in favor of empiricism. The natural world is tangible and it can be tested and have proof. Because science is the study of nature and provides knowledge for these things, it becomes the highest form of truth.

However, in accepting naturalism there comes the necessity to yield what atheism values most: freedom. Choice no longer exists or, rather, it never did. Everything you are, everything you do, feel, and think is nothing more than chemical reactions to stimuli. Nothing is "wrong" or "right" because it's just things doing what they do. You're nothing more than a machine that's part of a machine and so on and so on. Nothing has value and, therefore, you have no value.

It's for this reason, first and foremost, that I'm not an atheist. A clockwork existence is a sad and pointless one. Critics of Christianity like to point at how we "suppress" rights and halt progress without realizing that we believe in an actual, non-illusory freedom.

I believe in the processes of how things work. It's undeniable. What differentiates me from the atheist is that I believe in transcendent ideas. I believe that actions and thoughts, sadness, hope, morality, love, and creativity are more than just chemicals. I believe that they are what God put in us. It's what separates us from all other life. It reveals our value and our individuality. It reveals God's love in creating us. And any true atheist that's intellectually honest with himself will recognize that he cannot believe in these things without a God in existence.

-L. Travis Hoffman

7/23/2015

"But Jesus Was God!"

Hebrews 4:15

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are -- yet he did not sin."

Every once in a while, you'll find yourself at a place in life where things just plain suck. Things that don't seem to be getting better. Inevitably for the Christian you will likely be met with the consolation that even Jesus went through rough times. Very rarely do I ever feel any sort of relief from that. In fact, it almost always irks me.

Jesus was God. I mean, he still is God but I'm speaking specifically to His life on Earth. At the same time, He was also fully man. As such, He felt the pains and temptations of sin that plague every one of us. But did He really? I find myself asking this question frequently. If Christ felt temptation to sin yet was still perfect and pure in nature, was there any real temptation to be had? He was aware of His own divinity. Wouldn't He also be aware that He would never succumb and, therefore, never needed to be concerned? This is where I get annoyed.

Until recently, it never occurred to me that my questions and frustrations are exactly what makes Christ so far beyond our understanding. The Bible says that He faced temptation and always conquered it and I believe this to be true. I've never given pause to think that I could be interpreting this verse incorrectly. For all the times I've stressed contextualizing scripture, I found myself falling to the same mistake that again and again I've had to address.

So what if Jesus faced temptation? That doesn't need to be the draw of Hebrews 4:15. The point is that "he did not sin". Picture a time in the past when there was something that you really wanted to do, agonizingly so, but knew that it was wrong and that, in your conviction, you would never do it. Now take that and apply it to Jesus with every single temptation in His life. Imagine the emotional and even physical toll that would take upon a man. An ever-increasing burden made worse with the knowledge that He would be taking all of mankind's sins with Him in the most horrible death imaginable. It's no wonder He was sweating blood.

I could very well be misinterpreting this verse. My knowledge of hermeneutics is limited, however much I find it enlightening. But I have little doubt that the conclusion I've made is consistent with the character of Christ. The value in that is something that has brought me comfort in a way that it never had before.

-L. Travis Hoffman

7/23/2015

What's Really Wrong with Abstinence Education

I don't care for the public school system as it exists today. For all the people that have graduated from high school, a good many don't seem to be very educated or lack common sense altogether. I blame the schools for this in many cases. Whether we're talking about illiteracy, an inadequate special education department, or lack of discipline, things don't seem to be improving. The thing that really bothers me, however, is how we handle sex education.

Remember the D.A.R.E. program? I recall in 6th grade that we had a police officer that would teach us about the dangers of illegal drug use and how they'd try to hook us. At the end of the last class, we had to deliver a speech (side note: I had a panic attack from nerves). Each of us then took an oath to not use drugs or be involved in gang activity. How many people do you know that actually kept that oath?

Let's consider the reasons for a moment. What did most of our speeches say as to why we'd choose to avoid drugs? Health risks and jail time, both of which center around self-interest. Once young adults are old enough to be offered drugs, they believe in their own invulnerability to addiction, bodily damage, and/or the law.

This same rule applies to abstinence programs. Teens can pledge to wait for sex all they want, but if their abstinence is to avoid a pregnancy or STDs then they can justify having sex by making sure to "be careful" with condoms and birth control. We can see how well that ends up working by the number of unplanned pregnancies among our fellow alumni, most of whom are unmarried.

What if we were to teach abstinence by placing importance not on ourselves, but rather our friends and loved ones? You want to know why I'm still a virgin? Because it would bring undeserved criticism on my parents. It would dishonor everything that they've taught me. Because it would put my family in a position where they would be obligated to help me. Whether by helping financially or providing living space or taking time out of their lives to pick up my slack because of a lack of personal responsibility. Because it doesn't honor God or His teachings. Because I wouldn't be emotionally prepared or mature enough to be the best father possible for my child. Because it would force my significant other to abandon her plans and aspirations. Because it might mean that my girlfriend would choose to get an abortion and I would have that death on my conscience.

We've become such a selfish culture that can't exercise restraint. We don't know how to think about the consequences of our actions. We want what we want and no one is going to convince us otherwise. Let's work on teaching students to have humility and selflessness before we bother expecting them to wait for marriage.

-L. Travis Hoffman

7/13/2015 

Keeping It To Yourself

Did you guys hear about the reactions to UFC fighter Yoel Romero's post-fight comments? Romero took time acknowledging the good Lord for bringing him success and stressing that the United States needs to do the same. Needless to say, it annoyed people. 

The president of the UFC, Dana White, expressed his disapproval. "The reality is this: You just won the biggest fight of your career, America doesn't want to hear your thoughts on Jesus. Keep that stuff at home; religion, politics, all that stuff. When you're out there fighting and you're being interviewed, they want to hear about the fight. It's awesome you love Jesus; love Jesus all you want. You just don't have to do it publicly."

This is yet another one of those instances where a person who is not of faith should refrain from teaching orthopraxy. Christians don't have to love Jesus publicly, Mr. White? Perhaps you should open a Bible and see what it has to say about it. 

Isaiah 62:6- "I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the LORD, give yourselves no rest."

Isaiah 40:9- "You who bring good news to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good news to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, 'Here is your God!'"

Psalm 119:46- "I will speak of your statutes before kings and will not be put to shame."

Matthew 5:14-16- "You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

Acts 18:9- "One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: 'Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.'"

I could go all day, Mr. White. There is no commandment that says, "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself." Christianity does not work that way! The Bible says that God desires all to be in heaven, not just the ones who would like to hear about Christ. We Christians have a personal relationship with Him, but not a private one. It was Christ's command to go and preach to every nation. You cannot practice the Religion while keeping it to yourself! That's not the way of the Christian. We're instructed to speak the truth in love, and that truth is that Jesus is Lord and Savior and that He is the only way to the Father's Kingdom. 

I'll end this with a quote from magician and devout atheist, Penn Jillette. 

"I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and people could be going to Hell and you think it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward, how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you and you didn't believe it, there's a certain point where I tackle you, and [everlasting life] is more important than that."

Should Christians Complain?

A lot of events in the world have been troubling me as of late. The censorship and suppressing of Christian expression has given me cause for concern. The recent rumblings of the State dictating policy within the Church is even more disturbing for me. Post-modernism and its offspring of cultural relativism have already taken their toll on Christianity. With all these things going on, we still don't have it all that bad. At least not in comparison to Christians in North Korea, China, and many Middle Eastern countries. In America, our expression of belief is negatively responded to with verbal abuse and the occasional fine or lawsuit. The aforementioned countries respond with prison, torture, or execution.

Quite frequently, I'll read posts from non-Christians or even political liberals who believe that Christians in the U.S. play victim and close their eyes to their dominance within the culture. I'm of two minds on this subject. I think non-Christians, being what they are, cannot see how the Church and its values are being undermined simply because they support the views and causes that are behind that very undermining. They have no vested interest in the survival of Christianity and therefore see no persecution taking place. At the same time, I do think that the Church underestimates itself and resigns to having lost what's termed as the "Culture War".

I really hate it when well-known evangelists and pastors talk about how "the end times are here". I think it's rubbish. It's presumptuous and fails to take into account how much pull the Church still has in the world. Maybe same-sex marriage poses a potential threat toward Christian expression, but abortion has gone down considerably in the US, even in the states with few restrictions. The Church played a big part in that. Or how about the fact that Roman Catholicism hasn't budged on its position of homosexuality and abortion as being sins? Many churches have been swayed on this, but what is arguably the most powerful denomination in Christendom has still stuck to its guns. They haven't backed down. That's something to celebrate. However much controversy Pope Francis continues to generate, he hasn't changed the Roman Catholic Church into some mirror-universe equivalent. Well, not yet anyway.

What I'm trying to say is that the world hasn't been given to hell in a handbasket. The end times do approach closer each day, but that doesn't mean that those days are here. The world hasn't gotten nearly bad enough to warrant using that phrase. Yes, Christians are getting marginalized within our culture, but this is nothing new. Christians were oppressed in the Church's infancy. That this sort of thing goes on just proves that events run circular, that there's an ebb and flow to the persecution of Christianity.

We also need to take into account that this may just be God's way of seperating the sheep from the goats. It's easy to call one's self a Christian when those tenets of faith are without heavy resistance. But a true Christian will stick it out when the world is working against them. Even when receiving verbal abuse, whether we be referred to as hate-mongerers or anti-science or an obstruction to social progress, the true Christian shows his loyalty to Christ and His teachings.

Just for the record, I have no desire to give people the impression that my being a true Christian somehow elevates me above others. I know many within the Church that are far better examples than myself. But having those qualities of a true Christian is something I aspire to. I want God to be pleased with me that I made attempts, though not without stumbling, to serve Him and seek His Kingdom.

-L. Travis Hoffman

6/9/2015

When is it no longer legalism?

Every few months or so, I find myself asking this question. When does an act, behavior, or what have you, become distinctly and instrinsically sinful as opposed to being something that is meant to fit the box of the Christian "image"? I really don't know. I'm not sure if this should bother me or not. I only know that I want to avoid legalism and also avoid ways of being pulled further away from Christ. That doesn't necessarily mean that I feel closure, however.

I love listening and watching stand-up comedy. And, putting it out there, I enjoy the comedy of comedians like Louis C.K., Dane Cook, and Pablo Francisco. Guys that are most definitely crass and crude with their material. I enjoy R-rated comedies like Superbad or The 40-Year-Old Virgin. I get a lot of amusement out of its humor.

Perhaps I'm trying to justify myself, but I feel that this humor taps into who we are. We are people that are impure; we lust, we let our tempers get out of control, we covet, and we hate. There's a certain honesty about that type of comedy. And sometimes when it gets dirty or dark, it's oftentimes out of sheer absurdity. The humor becomes surreal. Does Louis C.K. really want to get AIDS so he can pass it onto deer so they can die? No, of course not. He's using hyperbole to make a point that he really hates having deer on his property. Do I always enjoy their humor? No. There are many times that I think Louis or Dane go over the line for me. Blasphemous or hurtful. They frequently condone values that are very much un-Christian.

It's said that our behavior reflects what we take into our lives. In fact, even the Bible says something to that effect. I don't know the verse off-hand, but I do recall it. The point is that it's a truth and therefore absolute. The Word also says to be in the world and not of it. I'm trying to figure out where one ends and the other begins.

I'll use another example of something I enjoy. I really dig mythology, especially of the Greek variety. It's imaginative and it's informative of what culture was like in their respective eras. It also consists almost exclusively of pagan gods and magic and, compared to Christianity, acts of sin. Is it morally sound for me to gain pleasure from the stories of cultures that created and worshipped false gods? Stories that were created by people who likely condemned themselves to hell? I think that this is a legitimate question to pose to one's self, because I don't know the right answer. I really wish I did. My only advice, my only comfort, is to pray for proper descernment and vigilance toward what might be sinful. Pray to recognize what is offensive to God and what He probably doesn't care about. As frivilous as this sounds, we're going to have to answer for our sins, regardless.

-L. Travis Hoffman

6/3/2015

Why I Lean Toward Calvinism (Kind of)

I'm not a Calvinist. That is, if you were to ask someone that adheres to John Calvin's approach to Christian theology, I wouldn't fit the bill. I'm hesitant to subscribe to all five points of Calvinism. At best, I'm a four-point Calvinist. But close is only good in horse shoes, so I won't describe myself as one.

However, as I've learned about John Calvin's observations on sin and grace, I feel inclined to agree with him. Questions about heaven, hell, and salvation seem to have some clarity and bring me some peace of mind.

For those who aren't well-learned of church history, John Calvin was among many thinkers who furthered the Reformation or Protestant movement. I don't want anyone to think that I'm somehow worshipping Calvin or elevating him to prophet status. In fact, for this reason many prefer to be identified as Reformed. It's merely referring to those who agree with Calvin's studies and interpretations about Christian theology. I believe in the same tenets and foundations as my family and friends who are Christians.

I'll be honest in saying that I don't know anyone personally that follows this school of thought. I know at one point that there was a movement within my own church to push for this system. However, this was years back. What little knowledge I have of Calvinism has been gathered from a podcast series that focused on it and a little bit of reading here and there. I'm not claiming to be an authority or even terribly knowledgable about it, but I can express my own reflections on what I've learned. Onward to my reasons.

My investigations on Calvin's interpretation of divine election and grace have provoked thoughts and, potentially, answers to things that I frequently ponder. Particularly as of late. The concept of irresistable grace, that a person who might be completely hostile to Christianity and then joins the Body of Christ, for example, explains some things. Another example could pertain to our concern about areas of the world where people are unaware or not exposed to Christianity. Through this idea of irresistable grace, we can take comfort in knowing that the Father is more than fair and chooses His elect without discrimination. No location, color, age, gender, or history can obstruct His blessing of election. It is not earned, but given. Through His will, an individual among the elect will naturally be pulled into accepting Christ's gift of salvation. This doesn't negate the necessity to witness, but it does bring a sense of privilege and devotion toward Him in that we can be His instrument to carry out His will.

On the other side of the coin, this can also explain how certain individuals will adamantly refuse and reject Christianity. They could be subjected to the most compelling of evidence or experiences and still would not admit that Christ is Lord. I know someone that is exactly like this. I've mentioned him in a previous entry. Both the doctrines of total depravity and irresistable grace (or lack thereof) could feasibly explain that. I hope that I'm wrong and he comes around.

What has likely given me the most to occupy my mind is the fifth point of Calvinism, Perserverance of the Saints. This is not new doctrine for me as my church has always taught this view. However, my exposure to it from the aforementioned podcast provided food for thought. When leading the reformation, Martin Luther was challenged on this view by the Roman Catholic Church. They objected to this interpretation of scripture, believing that if salvation did not require continuous renewal then man would feel free to do as he pleased without fear of repercussions. Luther replied that one who has the gift of salvation will desire to please God. The point being that a Christian, a true Christian, displays the fruits of the Spirit. It may not be apparent to others, but God knows. We generally look at the people that are "playing the part" and make a judgement call based on that. It's all about the heart. It's reflected in whether you're being good to become a Christian or you're being good as a result of being a Christian.

I lost a close friend some time ago. His mother, naturally, was concerned about where he was in eternity. She asked me if I thought he was in heaven. I said that I hoped so and assured her that God is more than fair. I told her that if he was saved, then his soul would be with Christ. Then she got into some other stuff that Roman Catholics don't believe in getting saved (which is not true, FYI), but it did get me thinking. Assuming that he had asked for salvation, did he receive it? By that I mean, in his heart was he really asking for it? I knew my friend for nearly his entire life and yet I never found myself exposed to his fruits of the Spirit. He never expressed much love for religion or anything remotely spiritual.

What I'm saying is that it made me realize that words from the mouth do not bring salvation. Words from the heart do. My inclination is to believe that my friend did not receive salvation. It's disconcerting on one hand at the thought of my friend being in hell. On the other hand, God is fair. Beyond more than fair. I take comfort in knowing that. It's nothing I have control over, anyway.

As far as points of doctrine that are chaffing to me, I have a hard time with limited atonement. I believe that Christ's sacrifice atoned for the sins of everyone and not just those among the unmerited elect. The idea that even the possibility of salvation is denied to many people seems to fly in the face of God's gift of free will. However, the Calvinist's understanding of free will seems to function differently than what is taught to Arminians. But getting into that might make this entry even more longer than it is now. Maybe another time.

It's been fun reading and learning about this stuff if for no other reason than to provide me with the challenge to observe my faith through a different set of lenses.

-L. Travis Hoffman

5/1/2015

10 Years Later

We're approaching the end of April and it just occurred to me that it has been a decade since I had made my suicide attempt. Hard to believe, because it doesn't seem *that* long ago. I was 17 at the time. I felt like I had absolutely no control over my life. My mind was constantly bombarded by doubt and self-loathing. Any hope of career aspirations or creative autonomy looked completely out of reach. Then the straw that broke the camel's back in the form of complete rejection and unrequited love. I was hospitalized from Tuesday evening to Friday afternoon. Good times.

It was pretty agonizing trying to recover from that ordeal. But with the help of treatment, faith, family, and a girl named Kayla, I was able to get through the year without any more incidents. I was very fortunate.

Hardships like these tend to open your eyes to certain things about yourself and the world around you. For example, my abandoned and comically inept attempt at suicide by garden hose. Play that scenario in your head for a few moments. Aspects of my humor are considerably darker and altogether different in their self-deprecation. I've never made light of anyone else's troubles with self-harm, but I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous mine was and has been. It does affect your perception of how others feel around you and makes you perhaps a little too sensitive toward others. There's a tennis game of raging pessimism and cynicism against idealistic Romanticism that's constantly going on in my soul. And yes, it is as verbose and convoluted in my head as it is in print. I make an effort to compartmentalize it to blogs, but it likes to bleed over onto facebook and some of my conversations. There's healing in being vulnerable and having candor. Solidarity has its benefits.

So there it is. Here's to a ten-year anniversary of a botched suicide attempt!

-L. Travis Hoffman

4/28/2015

"It Doesn't Affect Me"

We're all familiar with this phrase. I've heard it countless times as I'm sure you have, too. Heck, you might've even said it yourself. Either way, it's there.

"Gay marriage doesn't affect me."

I counter this statement by saying that if gay marriage doesn't affect you (that is, the person making the claim), then it shouldn't matter if it isn't legalized or accepted into culture. Which we all know is untrue. The person does care. It affects their moral, ethical, and political sensibilities.  Maybe it's merely a case of simple equal rights. Maybe it's an imperative to gain societal acceptance. But there is something there. So let's not kid ourselves or anyone else by saying that the status of gay marriage has no bearing on our lives.

Now that we've arrived at this conclusion, both sides of the issue can lay claim to a vested interest of where  gay marriage stands. I'll share my own personal views on the matter. It's my opinion that gay marriage is something that should be voted on at a national level. When the polls are in, then the issue is settled. It's either legal or it's not. No more lobbyist or supreme court intervention. There should be no attempt to undo what is decided, one way or the other. We respect the democratic process and the will of the people. Though I'm not someone who would vote in favor of it, I at least feel that both sides would (or should, ideally) be treated fairly and respectfully when all is said and done.

My initial reason for not supporting gay marriage was not because of the convictions of my faith (though I do have these), but rather it pertained to public health. Having read some medical journals, I have reason to believe that the body does not accommodate to same-sex intercourse.  Because of that, I have felt that legitimizing homosexuality, despite the health risks, would be dishonest and, ultimately, have a negative effect on society. It's one thing to engage in the activity, it's another to promote and claim that it is equally safe and healthy. This appears to have no impact on public opinion, which likely means that gay marriage will be legal in due time.

If this does turn out to be the case, then I would encourage fellow Christians to be respectful and compassionate. We must remember that God is greater than any obstacle or tribulation. My concern within our culture, however, is that this will not be enough to appease the mainstream. If same-sex marriage is passed, I do not want to be forced into supporting it under threat of legal retaliation or being blackballed from a career. I don't want to be told that my views do not have equal protection under the First Amendment. Many of those in support of same-sex marriage also support a separation of church and state. Though this is nowhere in the Constitution, I will entertain this position in order to make a point. If religion should not be the last word in the determination of law, then neither should the government have any place to dictate church policy. It was for this reason, in fact, that Thomas Jefferson used the phrase in his letters in the first place.  

I need to make another point. Freedom of Speech and Thought does not mean freedom without consequence. There are people who oppose same-sex marriage who want to express their views in absolutely stupid ways. An auto mechanic who altogether refuses to serve a homosexual is stupid because he's not being forced to support the customer's views. He's being asked to fix a car. A group of students who start an "Anti-Gay Day" and wear shirts with Bible verses and target fellow students who are gay, using offensive labels and bullying. They are stupid. This is not Christian and it's not compassionate. It's deliberately inflammatory and does nothing to honor God. It should not be tolerated within the Body of Christ. So if you are among those who are considering these things, stop. Just stop. Don't be an instigator and don't be an idiot. If we want our thoughts to be heard, then we will do it civilly and without intentional provocation.We must use prayer and the Bible appropriately.

I rarely discuss this issue with others. I'm less interested in debating and more convicted toward listening and being respectful. The majority of people aren't going to change their mind, anyway. But I want to leave giving little doubt that I at least care, regardless of the outcome.

-L. Travis Hoffman

4/22/2015

Going Through the Motions

It's tough for me when it comes to reading the Bible. As important as it is to my life and as fascinating as I find it, I don't read it nearly as much as I should. I read about it and I read material pertaining to it, but the good book itself? Not so much.

It's not for lack of desire. I wouldn't even say that it's from lack of motivation. There's just those periods, those dry spells in my life, that make time spent reading to be fruitless. Nothing of value comes from it. I'm reading the words but nothing is sticking in my head. It's just me going through the motions so I can say that I read from my Bible today.

It occurs to me now that I'm approaching this from the wrong mindset. To say that nothing of value would come out of it would be a lack of understanding. I'm not saying that we should be content with just going through the motions, but we should understand that there is value in obedience. Reading the Bible, prayer, worship, etc. are all ways of expressing and communing to God. It's how we have a relationship with Him. And, like any relationship, we aren't going to be experiencing profound feelings of emotion or understanding each and every time. That's not how it works. If it did, it would make our relationships conditional and lacking in any genuine, meaningful love. God wants us to put in the work and show that He matters to us by obeying Him even when it's inconvenient, boring, or seemingly pointless. He always appreciates us for doing it, even if His love isn't felt in that very moment.

Let me reiterate that we shouldn't be content with going through the motions. We need to learn and change our ways and methods if we expect our relationship to have longevity. But we also need to recognize that hard work and loyalty does not always give instant gratification. If we can do this in our relationship with Christ, then we're certain to have success in other relationships.

-L. Travis Hoffman

3/17/2015

Where We Start and Where We Go

Part of one's beliefs as an adult are solidified by experience. Someone oppressed by Christian parents might leave the beliefs of their family. Those who are raised in a supportive or centralized culture may be more inclined to follow the practices and traditions of those around them. I'm no exception to this. I've been raised in a strongly observant Christian family from birth. Church, orthodoxy, and orthopraxy have always been in my life, however great the degree.

But our experiences at home aren't just the determining factor. Our outside experience is just as important. And whether negative or positive, they still have an impact. In some ways, I feel like it's stronger at reinforcing my faith. I've had some nasty encounters with atheists. Not all of them. Many, in fact, are quite pleasant and respectful. When I think about it, they're usually agnostics. But I've been around some of the most abrasive, condescending, closed-minded people who've identified themselves as non-believers.  Just mean-spirited and unpleasant.

I had to deal with a guy like that once. I was trying so hard to like him. In fact, I did like him. We had some common interests and laughed together quite frequently. But there were moments when he wouldn't shut up. It wasn't that I thought he shouldn't express his opinions and beliefs. I found it really interesting and informative. It was when he would denigrate my beliefs, my convictions, that I found myself biting my tongue. Occasionally, I would try to correct him on something he mistakenly claimed. Yeah, he didn't care. He believed whatever he wanted. After a while, I didn't even bother trying. I'd just nod my head and smile.

During this, and my many other ordeals I've gone through, I've concluded that I would never be that kind of person. My faith would find that conduct absolutely unacceptable. And, in the improbable event I became a non-believer, I would retain the respectful behavior of my former faith.

Now many non-believers would label me, this hypothetical atheist, as an enabler. The so-called "New Atheist" movement. Guys like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Men that believe they have no obligation against using polemics in their quest to eradicate the "evil" and "enslavement of minds" that is religion. Brilliant men, undoubtedly, but intellectual light-weights with regards to philosophy. If the New Atheists would require that from me, I'd rather not be one.

It's not like this doesn't go both ways. People of faith can be very aggressive and uncompassionate. Vindictive and judgemental. I don't blame those out there who have turned away. This seems no different than the New Atheists' attitude.

The Church cannot be this way. It is a spiritual and moral imperative. Truth without compromise, but truth in love. That cannot be stressed enough within the Body of Christ. A follower cannot condemn a person to an existence in hell while speaking of compassion five minutes later. It's blatant hypocrisy and it's wrong. We acknowledge our sins, forgive, repent, and help each other up. We don't deny hell, but we also recognize that we all deserve it when you get right down to it; no one can ever do enough good to measure up.

Through all this, I think about Pascal's Wager. For those who aren't in the know, I'll explain. Blaise Pascal argued that it is to one's favor to believe in God and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong. It's not a perfect argument by itself, but it serves the purpose to what I want to say. Some people won't find Pascal's Wager a compelling enough argument to choose a life in Christ. But, with the love and influence of the Church, we can tip the scales in His favor.

-L. Travis Hoffman

2/24/2015           

The Christian Cursing Conundrum

Another divisive issue. Cursing. Swearing. Four-letter words. You know about them, whether you keep them in your vocabulary or not. And it's stupid. I'm not talking about the words, I'm talking about there even being an issue, altogether. It's such a minor quibble in the scheme of things. I'm not saying we can't tackle multiple problems at once, but should this really have any serious priority?

I know people who live to both extremes and it is quite obnoxious. I knew someone who would cover their ears every time someone around him swore. Infantile. If I come out of an R-rated film with my parents, it's expected for my mom to say, "I could've done without the language," to which I end up rolling my eyes. I also know people who use F-bombs for every other word and it is extremely obnoxious. Oh, and they usually do it in public places and around children. That infuriates me to no end.

Now we can quote the usual scripture about not letting "unwholesome" talk come out or using words that edify others, and I agree with those verses. I don't, however, adhere to legalistic, watchdog nonsense. Context, ladies and gentle-fellows. It means a lot when it comes to scripture.

Consider what might've been viewed as unwholesome conversation during the early days of Christianity. Did you do it? Okay, now what do you look at as unwholesome today? I'm pretty sure poop and fart jokes would've been considered bad taste and sexual topics would definitely be taboo. How about the words "crap", "suck", and *gasp* "piss"? Offensive in 2015? Not so much.  I'm not saying we have carte blanche to use curse words up and down without any sort of conviction. I'm saying what I said before. Context.

If edifying language is the ideal, then unwholesome would likely be the exact opposite. Praising God vs. cursing Him or using His name frivolously. Words of encouragement vs. tearing someone down. Giving blessings vs. telling someone to go to hell. That, my friends, is context.

We should be respectful, though. Even though they might detest salty language, I have the love and respect to not do it around my parents, family, or friends because I value them enough not to make them uncomfortable. Certain friends and co-workers, I do. Many of them don't care and neither do I. No children, though. It's rude.  And I'm not frivolous about it. Mostly because I like showing off my impressive vocabulary.

"If you wouldn't say it in front of God, you shouldn't say it all," my mom would say. To which I respond, "Rubbish" (with due respect to Mom). There are a lot of things I wouldn't do in front of God. Going number two. Making love. Picking my nose. Dancing and singing alone when no one is home. None of these things are bad in and of themselves, but I'd rather in those moments have God looking away for a couple of minutes, had I the choice. I'd say the same idea applies here.

I'm not presenting any real solution here. Those who read this likely won't change their opinion. I get that. I'd say to just take someone else's point of view. Be respectful and use your language appropriately. I've found it very rewarding around my peers.

-L. Travis Hoffman

2/19/2015

Logic's Place in the Christian's Life

Some things just don't make sense in Christianity. They seem contradictory or improbable or downright impossible. Like the Trinity, for example. Or an existence where predestination works hand in hand with free will. I can understand if skeptics find themselves overcooking their noodle over certain concepts within the Bible. My mind can't wrap itself around these ideas, either. I'm left taking it on faith.

See, there's kind of the problem. What is faith? We don't seem to ever have a consistent, clearly-defined meaning for the word. And, depending on the interpretation, the skeptic may or may not be applying faith of some form in their own lives, further complicating the issue. We can't even settle on whether or not faith and reason are compatible or diametrically opposed to one another. Pascal and Kierkegaard supported the latter while Descartes and Thomas Aquinas believed in the former; all of these men were great thinkers and contributers to Christian thought.  Frankly, I'm at a loss as to what to believe.

Not that taking a side is somehow a deal-breaker with Christ or anything. I do wonder, however, whether one's relationship with Christ would be more rewarding intellectually. But then, something occurred to me. What if these elements in our faith, among others, are perfectly within a reason outside our reach?

In high school, I had an Earth Science teacher who told us once or twice that our knowledge of the universe is only as great as the technology that's available to us. Now I never got the impression that she was someone of faith, but her words have always stuck with me. It's a perfectly obvious fact that's lost on us.

Think of yourself as a child. You look at the world and see so many things and you have no idea why they work the way they do or their function. Yet we are completely aware that the adults around us do know these things and, as we grow more mature, we come to learn and understand the world.

I think that's mankind. Maybe the Trinity falls within a completely logical, rational means and we just haven't grown enough in spirit to understand it. Maybe we just need to be one on one with the Lord so He can explain it to us. And I'm okay with that. I think that's fair. It doesn't necessarily mean that the answer isn't available to us in this life. For all I know, God could reveal the answer tomorrow. I doubt it, but it could happen. I guess maybe that's where faith comes in.

-L. Travis Hoffman

2/15/15

Manhood and Complimentarianism

Men and women are not equal. Now before you grab your pitchforks and torches, allow me to elaborate. Men and women are equal intrinsically. God values and loves both sexes and wants everyone to accept the gift of salvation. But they are not equal in terms of purpose. Men and women are physically, mentally, psychologically, and spiritually different and no one debates that. As I continue, please keep that statement in mind to give you perspective.

Equality is a loaded word within today's culture. It's almost always associated with politics, often with volatile response. That's not the equality I'm referring to, although both types affect one another. Instead, I'm speaking of gender roles and responsibilities.

I'm a man. Well, I'd like to be one. I have a lot of work to do in order to achieve manhood. True manhood. Most men aren't men at all. They might do things that our culture defines as "manly", but that doesn't mean they're mature. Promiscuity, self-indulgence, hubris, selfishness, and aggressiveness are not what exists in the heart of a true man. A man is loyal and values the people closest to him and respects others. He defends and he honors while thinking before acting. He sacrifices his time and resources for the sake of those he loves. He admits his faults and apologizes when he's wrong. He listens and has sensitivity. He respects and honors femininity while appreciating and cherishing it. These are the things a man should aspire to.

Unfortunately, we don't. Guys look at these things as touchy-feely and more in the nature of a woman. And that's exactly the problem with guy culture. It's indicative of how complacent we've become. And we wonder why the divorce rate is so high? Really? Rather than make the effort to better ourselves, we make excuses. We resign ourselves to an existence of mediocrity and romanticize it and say that it's okay. And women accept it as being okay. No, it's not.

My dad is a model of true manhood. He isn't perfect and we quite frequently don't see eye to eye, but I don't doubt the quality of his character. He works hard to provide for his family, sacrificing his time and his resources so we could (and can) live comfortably. He's respectful of others. He treats women as a true man should. He makes mistakes, but he has the humility to own up to it. He loves my mom with everything in him. He helped raise my siblings and I and did a fair job of it. I love my father dearly. If I ever become half the man he is, I'll be grateful.

Likewise, my mother fits the definition of a woman. It's in her nature to be nurturing. She works hard. She put her energies into raising us. She valued her children enough to choose them over a career or just making extra cash. She sacrificed time and what little money she had to provide. She cultivated our character and taught us values. She kept us healthy. In matters where my dad is totally clueless, she takes the lead. She loves my dad and respects him and appreciates what he does for her.

Some of you who read the previous paragraph might be infuriated and feel that, in comparison, my mom is depicted as contributing less. And you would be absolutely wrong. In fact, spend a day with any decent mother and you'll discover how incredibly hard-working they can be. Women work hard, but they do it in a different way.

Allow me to reference scripture.

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." -Ephesians 5:22-24

Okay, so this sounds like scripture is telling women that they are below men and are there to be glorified slaves. But keep reading.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..." -Ephesians 5:25

Now we have some context. The first passage instructs women to submit to their husbands, but the second passage commands men to love their wives just like Christ loved the church. Christ submitted himself to the Church. He sacrificed himself and humbled himself for the Church. He died for the church. 

Just like it says wives should submit to their husbands, husbands should submit to their wives. They are just different in their ways. Not one better or lesser than the other. Allow me to make another comparison. The brain and the heart are two of the most important organs in the human body. One cannot survive without these organs. Yet they perform very different functions.  

We shouldn't resist or belittle our gender roles, but embrace them. No one is perfect, but no one should expect to be. We should still acknowledge the strengths of each sex and utilize them. I don't know when I'll achieve true manhood. I also don't know when my future wife will become a woman in the eyes of God. I do know, however, what I should aspire to be and that's enough for now. 

-L. Travis Hoffman

1/14/2015