Yes, we need to forgive Trump.

Here we go again. Donald Trump has given us yet another reason to not want him as president. More foot-in-mouth action for all!

To be fair, this was in 2005. A person can change a lot in 10 plus years. In fact, his whole shtick in this election is based on that very idea. A man that was a leftist Democrat has had a change of heart and is now a (pseudo) conservative Republican.

I read a comment on facebook comparing Trump's sins to that of David. This analogy falls flat, however, when you consider that God chose David as king because of his character and strong moral fiber. It wasn't until later into his rule that he committed adultery and murder. It was because of his character that David sought forgiveness and lived on to be a great ruler. With Donald Trump, we have only his promise of reform in the face of an ugly history. Even with his alleged recent salvation, it doesn't inspire much confidence in this Christian.

His words were and are disgusting. I stand by my viewpoint that Trump is not the moral ideal choice where one's vote is concerned. The history of his character can testify to that. With all that being said, it would be wrong not to forgive him. He's apologized and asked forgiveness. We within the Body of Christ owe him that much. Whether he's deserving of the presidency is another question altogether. I believe he needs to show the country and the Church his sincerity first before asking for our vote. For him, that might mean waiting at least another four years.

-L. Travis Hoffman

10/9/2016

Vote like a Christian.

This will be the first presidential election in my adult life where the candidate's loss will be attributed largely to a  third-party vote. The Republicans or Democrats aren't willing to accept responsibility for the fact that their respective candidates are wholly unappealing.

They aren't getting off the hook that easily. Why should they? First we have Donald Trump, a man with a history of womanizing who has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth when it comes to women and the disabled. His views are also not particularly conservative and we have only his word to trust, which is asking a lot. Then we have Hillary Clinton, a corrupt career politician who prizes her job security over national security. She's also a rape-enabler, she cheated in the primary, and takes money from questionable people.

One of these two people will be elected as our president in November. The third-party nominees have no mathematical chance of winning. It's a fact. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider giving the latter our vote. Our Religion is not one that is founded on pragmatism. Neither should our voting.

Imagine a scenario where the two candidates were both pro-slavery and one of the third-party candidates was an abolitionist. Even if the latter had no chance of winning, would they not be the most moral choice in which to vote for? Of course they would.

Many Christians, sadly, have sold out their principles for a more certain outcome. That's right, I said it. Sold out. I'll grant that avoiding a Clinton dynasty by voting Trump is a tenable position, but it's a vote built on fear rather than faith.

Was David a certain outcome against Goliath? Was Moses a certain victory against Pharaoh? How about Gideon? Was Christendom itself a sure thing against virtually every oppressive government that's existed since its advent? We should be asking ourselves these questions. Most importantly, which candidate is best representing the values that Christ wants in our world? So what if the person doesn't win. We get and will continue to have ungodly politicians.We can at least go on with our day knowing that we have some integrity.

-L. Travis Hoffman

10/3/2016

The point of this entry is not to say, "Vote for ____." Rather, as I always try to do with my blog, is stimulate the Christian mind and spirit and hopefully get both working on the same page.

Where morality is concerned, your feelings don't matter.

"When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."

This quote that allegedly originated from Abraham Lincoln is frequently brandished as a credo for the irreligious. I'm just going to come out and say that I think it is the most asinine and, dare I say, immoral point of view for a person to hold to. It's  relativistic and yet still manages to be presumptuous of its own moral superiority.

Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Cheating on your spouse is wrong. These are things that are near-universally agreed upon as moral absolutes, yet there are people who hold these views and still have no convictions when they participate in these very same sins. More still, they may even believe they are being wronged when they fall victim themselves! You can't rely on your feelings to dictate morality. Emotions are fleeting and are no substitute for absolutes like truth or morality.

That isn't to say that conscience doesn't come into play. Conviction is an important component in our relationship to both God and our fellow man. The problem is when conviction takes a backseat to desire, which happens all too often. We have only Christ as both an ideal example of moral character and the teacher of said morality.

We rely far too often on our emotions to justify behavior. An unfaithful spouse says, "It just happened. I wasn't planning on falling in love with someone else." Abortion proponents talk about how choosing to terminate a pregnancy is a "difficult decision". Hogwash. When you choose to engage in an extramarital affair, you're doing wrong. When you choose to take an innocent life, you're doing wrong. No amount of emotional gymnastics makes it otherwise. A man is more than his emotions. He's the result of his life's decisions. In the words of Ben Shapiro, "Facts don't care about your feelings."

-L. Travis Hoffman

8/24/2016

The Double-Standard with Promiscuity (and How to Stop It)

You hear it frequently from women. Why is it socially acceptable for men to sleep around but women are floozies when they do the same thing? A reasonable question, to be sure. Heck, even our president mentioned it in a piece he recently wrote for Glamour. When the leader of the free world is bringing it up then you know it's got people's goat.

Well, I have great news for you ladies. I have a solution to this problem, and the best part is that you don't have to do anything! It's all up to us men.

It's very simple, gentlemen. We need only do two things:

1. Don't sleep around.
2. Stop glorifying people that do.

That's it. When we, the culture, diagnose promiscuity as a social ill, it no longer becomes acceptable behavior. When it's no longer acceptable behavior, it ceases to be a problem.

I remember my 9th or 10th grade year in high school there was a guy named David Spears who was obsessed with getting me a girlfriend. Being the lonely, ugly fellow that I'd been, I was down for it. But the more I spent that brief time around him, the more nauseous he made me with his disgusting sexism. His regard for women became crystallized for me when he wanted me to repeat after him that "Redford girls are no-good panty-droppers". Suffice it to say that I never spoke to him again.  I wanted a girlfriend so bad, but I wasn't about to demean myself or the fairer sex to reach that end. He was an awful human being that I promised myself never to become. I sincerely hope that he's changed.

I'd argue that the worst thing to come from the Baby Boomer generation is the Free Love movement. With it came abortion, teen pregnancy, STDs, a 50% percent divorce rate, and an epidemic of single-parent families. It all comes back to what we, as a culture and society, choose to have as values. When you value freedom without responsibility of consequence, you get these social ills. It can't be fixed by law. It starts at home and with the Church. Don't be like that slime bag from high school. Value sex as a marital gift and respect womanhood.

-L. Travis Hoffman

8/8/2016

My Problem with Christian Rock

I don't like Christian rock. I really don't like religious music in general, save for traditional hymns which I appreciate more for their cultural and historical importance. It's probably better to say that I don't like mainstream Christian music, but Christian rock in particular. You're asking me to explain myself, I'm sure. The reason is this: it's not rock. You heard me right. Christian rock is not rock and roll. It might share elements of the latter genre, but it doesn't fall under its umbrella.

It's not like I'm a huge rock fanatic or anything. My tastes in music are fairly narrow, limited to a couple of bands and solo artists. But I hear a Christian rock song and I can't help but cringe because of what a pale imitation it is to the real thing.

There's one key element lacking in Christian rock that I believe really defines rock and roll as its own unique class of music. Rock is subversive. When you look at the genre's history, you can't avoid the controversies that emerged from its rise into mainstream popularity. Rock and roll was about rebellion in its myriad forms. Many in the Church said that rock music was demonic in origin because of its suggestiveness.

Christian rock is not subversive. It hasn't been without its share of criticisms, but it's never been rebellious. It's pretty white bread. It favors the establishment. It's safe. Now is it just me or does this description seem very unlike what Christianity is supposed to be?

If Christian rock wants to live up to its name, then it needs to be less touchy-feely and more about rebellion. That even means that sometimes musicians should rock the boat with their core demographic. These artists need to challenge the status quo and say something meaningful about the world and Christian life. The genre need not be pigeon-holed in its subject matter. Let it explore social issues. Allow it to be about imperfection, ignorance, and consequence. Let the artists bleed and show their sins.

Christian rock needs to get under the skin of the world. However, artists of the genre need a degree of authenticity if they want credibility. Some might take umbrage to that word; authenticity. I'm not fond of it, either. The point I'm making is that there needs to be some transparency involved where the music is concerned. I'm not saying that sin should be embraced or affirmed by an artist, only acknowledged as a flaw in one's life.  It's the chaffing that a Christian must endure as he walks through life. Some days are more harmful than others.

That's not to say that this will be easy. Christian culture will likely balk at it and look on it as a selling out or "being of the world" rather than in the world. But that's good. Let Christians get uncomfortable. Let there be rebellion. If it means furthering Christendom, I'm all for it. Plus, we can get some remarkable music in the deed.

-L. Travis Hoffman

7/31/2016

Yes, Religion Should Take Precedence Over Politics.

I hate politics. I try to take it in stride, but it seems like it always results in people talking about how horrible the opposition is. I'm passionate enough about defending the Star Wars prequels and that in itself can take a lot of energy. Hating or disliking or whatever seems like such a waste. Why expend all the energy just to be angry and miserable? Oh well. Not much I can do about that.

As for my own political views, they're a bit nuanced. Liberals would likely say that I'm too libertarian. Libertarians would say I'm too conservative. Conservatives would likely label me as a post-modernist but still like having me around for my personality. I'd never call myself a centrist, moderate, or an independent because that's just code for a closet liberal. I'm anti-party and anti-politician. The former seems to do nothing but cause unnecessary divisiveness and the latter is a civil service, not a career path. I don't trust the government with my tax dollars because they frequently waste it on excess. Then there's the endless list of programs they want to implement because they're already so efficient at running even the most basic of services. This last part, in particular, is what inspired this blog post.

I'm pro-life. No exceptions. Or anti-abortion, if you're on the other side. Technically, if an abortion could be done without harm to a fetus or woman then I'd likely get behind that. As it stands now, I'm against abortion. I think it's barbarism masked as compassion and female empowerment. We de-humanize a life to be nothing more than the property of a woman. "My body, my choice," the pro-choice groups cheer. Substitute body with slave and you have a curious parallel with fetal value and the Three-Fifths Compromise.

It's at this point that the pro-choice movement will say something along the lines of, "Keep religion away from my decision" or some equally trite and simplistic bumper sticker slogan. My response to them is, "No."

Should religion have been kept away from slavery? The Abolitionists were a largely religiously motivated movement. Frederick Douglass and William Wilberforce were both passionately Christian in their convictions. They believed that treating others as property was a sin. What about the Civil Rights Movement? Martin Luther King was inspired by loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek, both principles of non-violence taught by Jesus Christ. Religion was clearly of benefit in reforming society and establishing human rights.

So you can be darn sure that my Religion will intrude on your decision if it is immoral. It will be done without violence. Christians can make their voices loud and their convictions louder. We can influence policy. Even with my skepticism of government efficiency, perhaps we need tax-funded day care centers. That right there is my Religion taking precedence over my political views. We should push for paid and extended maternity leave. Most importantly, the Church itself can provide aid in all its resources. The Body of Christ must lead the charge in helping those in need, not the government. However, that can't happen if we aren't willing to let our Religion out into the world to bring change.

-L. Travis Hoffman

12/16/2015

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