I remember a few years back when a friend at work would passionately support the idea that there was a conspiracy behind the events of September 11. Even though I thought he was off-his-rocker, we had a number of impassioned conversations about the subject. The flaw I saw in his logic was the number of people needed to pull off such a stunt. It seemed to me at the time, and still does, that given the number of people needed to ‘cover-up’ this event, it is highly unlikely. I mean there was talk that workers came into the building and weakened the structure before the event and that the true planes were diverted to another airport and that the people are alive and living in secrecy.

I wish someone would come up with a formula or theorem for calculating the probability of a given conspiracy theory that takes into account the number of people required to keep a ‘conspiracy’ secret and the probability that someone would leak the information.

One of the allures of a conspiracy is that the lack of evidence becomes evidence for a cover-up. The problem is the lack of evidence is not evidence for anything, let alone a cover-up. The issue here is a good example of a prior bias. In other words, conspiracy supporters come in predisposed to believing there is a conspiracy and they see the lack of evidence as evidence for a cover-up. Those who tend to be more skeptical will, of course, come in with a bias of disbelief.

Some people will seemingly hold to the conspiracy no matter what evidence is presented to them. It may make sense to hold a position when there is no supporting evidence however, there is no logical reason to hold a position when there is evidence to the contrary, or the evidence to the contrary outweighs the evidence for.

In the same way, the skeptic needs only have one piece of evidence that there is no good answer to in order to reject the conspiracy. As Greg Kokul once said, “Just because it is possible to be mistaken about something that seems obvious doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to think we are. This is the skeptic’s error.”

If a conspiracy is true; and I believe there must be some that are; then what evidence will help us determine the validity of such claims. I think one way is to look at the probability. One thing to consider is the number of people involved in the cover-up. As the number involved in the cover-up grows, the likelihood that they will be able to keep it under wraps decreases. Another thing to consider is the resources need to pull off the conspiracy. This is why you often hear that some group of ultra-rich people is calling the shots. In order for some of these conspiracies to be true, you would have to have considerable resources. Who else but an ultra-rich and elite group would have such resources?

Assuming we have someone or some organization with the required resources, we still need to have a motive. Why did they want Kennedy dead? Why do they want to cover-up the UFO crash in Roswell? Why did they take down the World Trade Center? Even if someone had a motive, that does not mean they did it. Assuming they had a motive and opportunity (resources), it does not follow that they did whatever the conspiracy theory states. We still need some other type of evidence tying them to the act.

Assuming we can demonstrate the means, motive, and opportunity of a group of conspirators, can we show any other evidence of said conspiracy? We have to look at the conspiracy as a whole and try to determine the probability of such an event. At least, at this point, our belief, while not necessarily true, will at least be rational.

Bayesian Cognitive Science research is looking into questions like how much evidence to the contrary is needed for someone to move from their initial position to an opposing position. I think this research might have some promise on this front. Research has suggested that the brain may employ Bayesian inference, in other words the greater the number of evidences and the strength of those evidences leads to greater degrees of certainty. It seems it makes sense to go overboard on the evidence in order to convince the greatest number of people.

Of course, there is human emotion that brings in the irrational aspect that might just throw the potential conspiracy probability theorem out the door.

Post scriptum

As a side note, after I finished writing this post, I received the latest issue of Philosophia Christi (Vol. 13 Num. 2) and one of the articles caught my eye. Right away, I had to read John W. Montgomery’s article, “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion? Some Thoughts on Burden and Standard of Proof vis-a-vis Christian Commitment.” Although my post is about the requirement commitment to believe in a conspiracy, John Montgomery’s comments on burden and standard of proof are insightful and appropriate to my point. I have taken a number of his points and consolidated them into my topic of belief in conspiracies.

1. Dr. Montgomery points out then the burden of proof is on the believer to show that their belief is true and not on the unbeliever that the belief is not true. In the same way, I think the burden is on the conspiracy theorist to show the conspiracy is true and not on the skeptic to show the conspiracy is not true.

2. “Proof depends on probability – not on absolute certainty or on mere possibility.”[1] There is a spectrum for the standard of proof from possible to absolute certainty. For a court of law, the standard of proof does not use absolute certainty or mere possibility because absolute proof is impossible to obtain and anything is possible in our Universe. Just because something is possible it does not mean that it is also compelling.

Probability, in a United States court of law, has three levels; beyond reasonable doubt; clear, strong and cogent; and preponderance of evidence.

For the preponderance of evidence, you need only show the evidence for is more compelling than the evidence against. For moral certainty, we need to have no other reasonable explanation.

For conspiracies, it is unwise to ask for absolute proof or to give credence to mere possibilities. Instead, we must determine if we are comfortable with evidence beyond reasonable doubt or simply the preponderance of evidence.

[1] Montgomery, John W. “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion?” Philosophia Christi Vol. 13 No. 2 (2011): 449-460

I have recently noticed that some people, myself included, often have contradictory aspects to their worldviews. That is to say that when you look at their worldview as a whole, you will notice what may not be obvious close up, that aspects of their worldview contradict other aspects of their worldview. I guess some people have not taken the time to reflect on their worldview and how they apply it to various aspects of their life.

If they are aware of the contradictions, perhaps they balance these contradictory aspects in some sort of creative tension. Or, perhaps, they balance them by compartmentalizing different aspects of their life by creating artificial boundaries of reality. They may have one way of viewing the world at work, another at home, and still another with friends.

They have to do something or else suffer psychological discomfort form the ensuing cognitive dissonance.

For example, you will find some Christians who speak of hating the sin and loving the sinner. In practice, they shun people they feel are living in sin. I fail to see the love. Other times, you will find Liberal Christians complaining that the Conservative Christians are being intolerant. Not realizing they are being intolerant of the Conservative Christians.

By no means, is this limited to the halls of the cathedral. Secular humanists want their morality to be relative and their science to be objective. Often, they cling to untenable scientism. For the true relativist, scientific theories are neither true nor false. They see scientific theories as useful – agreed upon – stories or, at best, a description that helps. For the true naturalist, morals are objective. They are defined by genetic code and there is nothing relative about them.

It seems to me that people don’t think about how what they believe in one area of their life flows into all the other areas of their life. Instead, they go through the smorgasbord buffet of competing ideas, selecting what looks appetizing to them at the time. They assume their life is like a divided Chinet plate and that they can separate different aspects of their lives. They use this artificial compartmentalization to avoid the obvious and painful realization that they are living a contradiction. The reality is the gravy is going to get on your vegetables. In that case, pick the gravy that works with everything on the plate.

I have found that the Internet does give us unprecedented access to information. However, not all information on the Internet is worth having. Now that we have an election coming up, I am having a difficult time finding accurate, fair, and balanced information about candidates. What I find is a bunch of other people’s opinions about the candidates. Should I really base my vote on someone else’s opinion?

We have a participative form of government here in the United States. If you think about it, we have the power. Who we elect will shape not only our future but the future of the entire world. I think we have a responsibility to vote wisely.

As we learn from Spiderman “With great power come great responsibility.” I actually believe, and for good reason, that I have a responsibility to vote and to be informed on the issues I am voting on.

I was just reading a piece today about a candidate and the article was nothing more that twisting the candidates statements out of context, misrepresentations, fear mongering and mudslinging. What followed were comments that followed that same vein.

I actually want to be educated about the issues and I can’t do it. It is as if there is an invisible force that makes getting educated on the issues nearly impossible. Do I really have to dig up my own source documents and research each point? When was the last time you heard from an accountant about the state or federal budgets? We always hear it from people who can’t balance their own checkbook, let alone the government’s budget.

Why is it when we ask for reasons why we should pass a law people attack you? They call you names because you don’t accept what they say and just believe that they have it right. Since when is it wrong to ask for reasons? This just happened to me last month on the gay marriage debate. I was asking a supporter of gay marriage about the role of government in marriage, asking for reasons why they think it is a civil right issue, etc…

I am not trying to be divisive; I am trying to be informed on the issues. I think, with any issue, we should know the pros and the cons and be able to ask questions without being attacked. Instead, you get empty rhetoric and unqualified, biased opinions.

After much thought, I have decided to pursue a Master’s Degree in Apologetics.  This decision was not made in a vacuum.  Seventeen years ago I was looking to go to seminary but it did not work out at that time.  Since then, I have grown in maturity and feel called to pursue that course now.

I am not giving up my career; I will continue along that path.  However, I have a desire to teach and feel that teaching is one of my gifts.  The funny thing about teaching is in high school, I said there were two things I would not want to do, one of which was teaching.  I now teach computer classes, but as I get older, staying on top of the technology industry is not going to be easy.  In addition, I want to teach something that will change lives.

I applied and was accepted at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  I chose their seminary because it was cheap and online.  However, after talking to my best friend and others, I decided I would look for the best school in the field I am most interested in, Apologetics.   Biola University is known for its apologetics program, and I just found out they have a distance learning option.  They are slightly more expensive per unit, but I think the quality is head and shoulders above the rest.  Liberty was going to be $12,000 total for a Master’s of Theology whereas Biola will be $17,000 for a Master’s in Apologetics.  Right now I don’t know how I will pay for it.  Your prayers and support are appreciated.

I have just started the application process for Biola, and I have until December 1st to get it in for the spring 2012 semester.  I will let you know when I get accepted.

Pastor Rick Moe from Golden Hills Community Church has agreed to mentor me as I progress though school.  My best friend, John, has given me over 1000 books that he used while he was in seminary.  His topic of study was apologetics, so the books are very appropriate.   John has taught at Morling Theological College and believes that I have the gift of teaching and should pursue further education.  I thank them for their support.

I have to thank my wife for her support as well.  She puts up with me having my head in a book all the time and the library of books that fills our home.

That’s all for now.  I will periodically send you updates on my progress and post them to my blog.

While reading this article, I noticed that it was nothing more than rhetoric and contained nothing scientific about global warming or climate change. I am undecided on the debate of global warming and do like to keep abreast of the latest developments in this field of study. While this article did not increase my knowledge in the area of climate change, the benefit I found in this article was a chance to exercise my critical reading and practice finding fallacious reasoning.

The thing I love about scientism is the appeal, the authority that is often claimed by “overwhelming scientific consensus”; we all agree, therefore, it is true. Which, in my opinion, does not count for much given the “overwhelming scientific consensus” is that nothing can travel faster than light. Given the speed of light theory might have recently been shattered. We await confirmation that the speed of light can be broken so let me use a different example. 60 years ago the “overwhelming scientific consensus” was that the sound barrier could not be broken. So much for the overwhelming scientific consensus, as it turns out, they were all wrong. The number of scientific claims that have been destroyed over the years is countless. Is global warming immune to such mistakes? Are we still so arrogant to think that we have all the answers in spite of constant new discoveries and paradigm shifts?

I also wonder how a consensus is a scientific methodology; it sounds more like a philosophy to me. Truth is truth no matter what the “consensus” came up with. I do grant that if the consensus is made up of qualified people, the likelihood that they are correct is greater, however, it is not a guarantee they are correct. In addition, knowing that the “overwhelming scientific consensus” may have been built on some facts which are now known to have been misrepresented at best and outright fraudulent at worst, statistically lowers the probability their premise is correct. If CO₂ omission is really the cause of climate change, they have done the greatest disservice to us all by their skullduggery.

If you deny the “overwhelming scientific consensus,” then you are a victim of the “well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine.” Seriously, a conspiracy? The conspiracy card can be played for or against climate change and each side could produce enough damning evidence. Poison the well and fling mud, don’t worry about the facts. The facts should be able to stand by themselves. Mudslinging is the recourse for a weak argument.

Notice this article does not address any claims or counter-claims that are relevant to the scientific discussion. It is nothing more than intellectual bullying and vitriolic attacks. Notice that most comments are nothing more than emotionally loaded rhetoric. Even if I was on the side of climate change, I would want well-reasoned arguments and not rhetoric.

Where has reason and logic gone that we must now accept rhetoric as golden truth?

Tribal Leadership

This is a good book. I recommend it to anyone with a job or a career. The book covers 5 levels of corporate culture along with suggestions on how you can help move your organization up a level or two. The funny thing is once you read this book you will see people in your organization at different levels. In addition, you will see that those people who are more influential in an organization will have a greater impact on the corporate culture than others within the organization.
(I use the term corporate not to mean a business per se; I mean a group of people with a common goal.)

• Level 1: The mood is ‘life sucks’ and the atmosphere is that of despairing hostility.
• Level 2: The mood is ‘my life sucks’ and the atmosphere is that of an apathetic victim.
• Level 3: The mood is ‘I am great and you are not’ and the atmosphere is that of a lone warrior.
• Level 4: The mood is ‘We are great and they are not’ and the atmosphere is of tribal (corporate) pride.
• Level 5: The mood is ‘Life is great’ and the atmosphere is about having a higher noble purpose.

The book gives examples of people and organizations at each of the levels. I can see in my career that I have worked for places at almost all of the levels except level 5. I also noticed that in my own life, on a personal level, I have progressed through many of these levels. Personally, I feel like I am between 4 and 5 but often find that my actions may at times dip down to level 3. I wish they made an app that could track my current level in real time. Wouldn’t that be nifty? It would change how we react and push us toward level 5.

I think one area the book should have touched on is non-profits. I can see that these pinciples are applicable for Churches, Veterans Organizations, and even government entities. The concepts of the book should be easy to extrapolate to non-profit organizations, but would have been nice to have the book cover them. I would be interested more in examples of those types of organizations and how they apply these ideas. I volunteer much of my time to Veterans’ organizations and, I have to admit, I see Veterans’ service organizations at all different levels.

This book will also make you rethink how you look for a new place of employment. Instead of looking at the money aspect (not that it is not important) you would look for employment at an organization that is at or beyond your level. For example, I would not want to work for a level 1 or 2 organization. Been there done that. I would be ok at a level 3 but I would really like to be with an organization that has a level 5 corporate culture. I say I would be ok with a level 3 only because the job market is competitive and I have living expenses to consider. The level 5 is, of course, where we would all want to be, even if we don’t know it. Everyone wants their work to have meaning and purpose. We all want our lives to have meaning and purpose. This is where we find true happiness.

In order to achieve high levels, the book talks about values and cultivating values for your corporate culture. In fact, they even discuss hiring people not only for their skills but also for their values. How many HR people evaluate a candidate’s values when they are screening applicants? One example given in the book is the team takes the candidate out for lunch and they all talk to the candidate to see if they will be a good ‘fit’.

What is interesting for me is this book has me reevaluating how I think one should look for employment and how an organization should look for candidates. It even challenges me to implement these ideas in the context of non-profits. Over all this book is good for anyone.

Take a look at Zappos Values as an example: http://about.zappos.com/our-unique-culture/zappos-core-values

The audio version of the book is available free and they have setup a companion website with additional information and supporting materials. www.triballeadership.net

This picture is from the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, VA.

Integrity

You are playing a ball game and you touch the ball before it is called out-of-bounds by the referee. The referee did not see you touch the ball and called the ball out-of-bounds against the other team. What do you do?

The Marine Corps Leadership Traits defines integrity as:

“Uprightness of character and soundness of moral principles; includes the qualities of truthfulness and honesty.”

The Knights Code of Honor defines integrity as:

"A Knight must be a man of his word with his actions seen and unseen governed by an inner code of honesty."

People often define integrity as always telling the truth. I think that is part of the definition. I define integrity as constancy of character. Your character is the sum total of all your values and actions. Honesty is one aspect of your character. When you consistently follow those values and your acts match those values all the time, you have integrity. To tell the truth some of the time is not integrity.

When you have integrity, people can rely upon you. They know that you will live up to your values even when no one is watching. Do you want to have friends that always tell you the truth or do you want them to tell you the truth some times? Would you rely on fiends who tell you the truth all the time, or are there for you all the time? Or would you rather rely on friends who flake on you all the time?

When I think of integrity, I think of steel. When we rate steel, we rate it based upon how well the steel maintains its’ form under stress. In other words, the steel does not bend because of the weight or stress on it. It maintains its shape and stays straight. When you build a bridge, you want it made of steel that does not bend under pressure. You would not want to cross a bridge that did not have integrity; you would not trust it to keep you safe.

“The one who lives with integrity will be helped, but the one who distorts right and wrong will suddenly fall.” Proverbs 28:18

"Let integrity and uprightness preserve me, for I wait for You." Psalm 25:21

How well do you keep true to your values when you are under stress, especially the stress of peer pressure? Do you say no when others are smoking pot or doing drugs? What if it is your friends and they are pressuring you? Can you maintain your values when your friends are pressing you to compromise? Do you do what is right no matter the cost?

Some people fold like blankets under pressure. You know, I have never tried building a bridge out of blankets. I really don’t think it would work well. I think I will stay with tried and true steel.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said:

"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment."

One of the best quotes I have heard about integrity comes from the Garth Brooks song titled ‘The Change’.

“I hear them saying, you'll never change things and no matter what you do it remains the same thing. But it is not the world I am changing. I do this so this world will know that it will not change me.”

Some videos on integrity that I found on YouTube:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-CHyWDky1Y
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYYOXTuUeQ
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioht4sSgibY

Why is it so difficult to admit when we are wrong? I mean when we have wronged a friend or loved one. It is easy to admit when you cut someone off in traffic. All you do is shrug your shoulders and give the “oops” face. You don’t know the person, it’s a minor offense and you are not likely to see the person again. So, it is easy to admit fault in that type of situation.

Now, when you hurt a good friend, it is often difficult to admit guilt. In fact, most people rationalize why it is ok to do whatever it was that was done. Let’s say a good friend asks you to help him move this weekend. You say ok, I will be there to help. Then you have another friend ask you to play golf the same day. You come up with some rational reason to golf rather than help your friend in need.

So what do you do? Call your first friend and tell them you would rather golf? I mean that is the truth. Of course, that is not the easy thing to do, nor is it what you want to do but it would be the right thing to do. Many people come up with an excuse, like “I threw my back out”. An easy way to solve problems like this is not to commit to something you don’t really want to. If you make a commitment, fulfill it. If you don’t, admit you are wrong.

When I was in middle school, I was picked on almost relentlessly. I was a dorky, awkward kid. It was a private school so must of my classmate families had money. My mother had to work two jobs to pay the tuition. So, I never had the right clothes. Kids are really mean at that point in their life, and I was the brunt of their attacks. You start to believe what they say about you. What can I say? I hated my life at that point.

To feel better about myself I did some stupid stuff. A new student came to class and the other kids had a new target and the verbal abuse was now directed at someone else. The stupid thing I did was joining in with the other kids. Yes, I became what I hated. What an ass I was. I should have stood up and helped her.

I regret to this day that I joined in on being a bully and not a defender. It is difficult to stand up for what is right. It is more difficult to publicly admit that you were wrong. It is not easy to do and I wish I would not have to admit my mistakes.

Lavey, I am sorry I joined in with the other kids who picked on you. I am sorry I did not do what was right and stand up for you when they verbally picked on you. I was wrong.

See related blog posts:
Emotions Can’t Tell Time
Reflections on My Redeemer

This is first in a series of posts about miracles. I have wanted to explore miracles for some time now. Lately, I have had some time to think about miracles while reading some materials preparing a class. This is a very interesting subject and there are a number of theories out there. People tend to hold to their theories very strongly. I am not sure why people hold their theories so strongly, given proving one way or another may be impossible. Proving any theory on miracles is out of reach at the moment. The best we can do is, objectively, explore the possibilities and see which one fits best with what we know.

This will be a series of posts, as I don’t think I can contain all of my thoughts in one short post. Difficult topics are never easy or straightforward. As I explore this topic, I welcome your comments. I welcome them because that is how we learn and there is nothing an amateur philosopher likes more than to be challenged. ;-)

In order to have a meaningful conversation about miracles, we are going to have to nail down the theories of causation first. We have to start with causation because a miracle, by definition, is something unnatural, unwarranted and unexplained. In other words, the only explanation, or cause, is something beyond our normal natural experience. Since we don’t see an obvious cause, we then theorize about what the cause might have been. God is generally seen as the cause, however others may see the cause as something spiritual or even some type of non-cognizant power or energy. For this first post, I will limit my comments to God as the cause and simply note that I understand there are other points of view. I hope to address these other theories in future posts.

In western cultures, there are two opposing theories about causation, Supernaturalism and Naturalism.

Supernaturalism posits a Universe where God is the cause of all things. Supernaturalism holds that God is the immediate cause of all effect. In other words, if you place water on a gas stove it would not be the flames or heat that boils the water, it is God who boils the water. Supernaturalism in this sense is not necessarily the action of spirits, ghost or the paranormal. Supernaturalism requires one cause; multiple causes (various spirits etc…) would be causing different things in different ways and nothing would be predictable. However, our experience is predictable.

I can see three problems with Supernaturalism. First, scientific inquiry seems like it would be impossible. Science requires predictability. If God intervenes unpredictably or does not cause water to boil just once, science is rendered useless. Second, supernaturalism leaves us with a deceptive God because the universe appears to follow natural laws. Finally, if God causes all things, it is not the ax murderer who kills people, it would be God. In addition, there would be no such thing is free will. Again, we seem to have a free will and if we seem to and we don’t, we end up with a deceptive God again.

A key thing to remember about supernaturalism is that science does not disprove this position. Science and predictability would only prove that God, “the cause of all things” is consistent, as consistent as the laws of nature.

Naturalism, in the classic sense, posits a God who created the Universe, the laws that govern it and was the primal cause by starting all things. Think of a line of dominoes, you hit the first one and then the one you hit, hits the next one and so on. If we look at the last domino to fall we can determine that the cause was the previous domino falling on it. We can look at all the dominos and see that this cause and reaction are predictable. We call the predictability natural laws and they are and we can determine their immediate cause. You can make the case that you dropped the last domino though secondary causes or a type of causal change. God is the primal cause and thus the source through inheritance for all other causes. In creation, we call this causal chain the cursus communis naturae or the common course of nature.

One problem with naturalism is it seems to support either a deist or atheist position. In its extreme form, naturalism is a deist position. God, like a watch maker, winds up the universe and lets it run without intervention. Naturalism denies miracles and requires an, as of yet anunknown, cause for anything that is labeled as a miracle. This position militates against many religions and theologies that see God as intervening in the world.

These two theories are seen as extreme ends of a large continuum of intermediate positions. Through most of Church History the majority position has been that God created the Universe with natural laws to govern them and that, on rare occasions, God intervenes. These rear incidents are considered miracles because they don’t fit in the normal course of nature. This position squares better with what we know from our experience and revelation.

In a later post I will explore some different questions about miracles:

• What if a miracle has a natural cause? Is it still a miracle? 
• Can science explain all miracles? If we can show a scientific explanation or natural causes for miracle, does that disprove God?
• What about the objection that eventually our science will catch up to the point that we will be able to explain miracles. Just because it can’t now, doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
• What about some of the extreme positions on miracles?
• Do you have a question about miracles?

Bibliography
Principe, Lawrence M. "Science and Religion." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company Limited Partnership, 2006.
Williams, Thomas. "Reason and Faith: Philosophy in the Middle Ages." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company, 2007.

Book Review:

The Water That Divides (Mentor Imprint), by Donald Bridge and David Phypers

I have to say, this is an excellent book. It gives you the history of baptism and chronologically follows the changes of views on baptism throughout Christian history. Not only that, it gives you the context of the situations that played a role in the changes throughout the centuries.

For example, I did not know that the controversy between infant baptism and adult-only baptism goes back to the very earliest church fathers. The controversy is, by no means, a recent issue of contention.

I was also surprised to learn that the controversy between submersion and sprinkling is also not a recent debate; it goes back to the early church fathers as well. It is documented that they did both. For some early churches, baptism would often include exorcism as well as anointing with oil. You get the impression that baptism may have been unique to each group, maybe, based on their culture. You could make the case it is that way today.

This information has changed my point of view. Not that I have changed my view on baptism, but it has made me less dogmatic about my position. Many theologians, such as C S Lewis, G K Chesterton & James Packer, feel the different views should be held on creative tension and not destructive competition. I think that might be the answer. I mean, what about letting other explore the issue for themselves? Maybe a person’s baptism is part of their story, part of their relationship with God, and part of their unique journey and revelation.

"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas." "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." - Attributed to St. Augustine.

One of the important points brought out in the book was the use of the word sacrament in conjunction with baptism with the early church fathers. Because the term has very specific and legal connotations in ancient Latin, it may help us understand how the early church fathers viewed baptism.

The word sacrament comes from the Latin word sacramentumj which in ancient times, it was a deposit of money for a legal case held in escrow at a temple or it was also an oath of allegiance for soldiers. In either case, the word sacramentum involved a religious ceremony in a sacred place. Augustine defined sacramentum as 'a sign of a sacred reality'. By the second century, baptism was called a sacramentum. This is an import fact in understanding the early Churches view and understanding of Baptism.

This early understanding of the word flows through even to today. In the sacrament of Baptism in the Church of England, the ceremony follows like a Roman soldier's oath of allegiance. The person performing the Baptism will say:

"Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified."

In reply the person being baptized will say:

"Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world, and the devil, and continue his faithful soldiers and servants to the end of your lives."

This understanding of the word sacramentum supports the case that baptism is a response to faith in Christ and is a way people can signify their belief or pledge allegiance to Christ.

Does baptism have anything to do with a person’s salvation? If faith is most important why baptize?

To answer why we baptize is easy, because Jesus said too. (see Matthew 28:19) End of case on that question. However, it leaves behind an issue that many people feel strongly about. Mainly, that baptism, in some way, plays an important role in a person’s salvation. If the original meaning for baptism was that it was a sign or pledge, where did the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation come from?

Think of it this way, if you believe Jesus is the Messiah and savior and He says to go and make disciples by baptizing them, why wouldn't you? Baptism, then, is the obedience of faith so closely linked that you almost can't have one without the other. (Almost) Not that baptism bestows salvation, but that it is an evidence for salvation.

This intimacy between baptism and faith leads to some confusion. In the 12th century, sacraments, because they were so closely linked with faith, began to be described as a means of grace. This is often described as 'ex opere operato' or 'by the work being worked' or 'baptism saves you,’ which means that baptism automatically saves you. People often say that this is what Catholics believe. However, from the Middle Ages on, the Catholic Church has not held to this view. For Catholics today, belief in the doctrine 'non ponentibus obicem' (in case of those who place no impediment). This basically means that baptism brings God's grace so long as there is nothing to stop it, such as a lack of faith.

Thus, calling baptism a sacrament, gives us some insight into the intended meaning of those who used the word so long ago.

X-Men First Class, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/) is one of those movies that is penetrating with deeper meaning. For example did you notice the interaction and philosophical differences between Professor Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) regarding the situation and rising tensions between humans and mutants? Erik, a victim of the Nazi holocaust, believes that mutants should force humans to accept them and further sees the mutants as a superior race. I find this ironic in light of the fact that he was a victim of intolerance and hatred by people claiming to be a superior race. Erik takes the approach that the ends justify the means and might makes right. Charles, on the other hand, focuses on the peaceful solution. Not joining humans necessarily, but protecting them and treating them as equals. He takes the high road, or what we might call high ethical standards.

I see parallels in this tension between Magneto and Professor X’s worldviews and the civil rights movement here in America. If you parallel Martin Luther King Jr. with Professor X and Malcolm X with Magneto, you may begin to see what I mean. I am reminded of a great play I saw in college. I forget the name of it, but the play was a mythical meeting between Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and the discussion that followed. Each one of them arguing (or better debating) passionately for their solution to the problem.

One oddity of this parallel is the "X" in their names is in opposition. Professor “X” taking the pacifist approach and Malcolm “X” the by all means necessary approach.

X-Men the First Class movie explores these same tensions and debates. With this story, it starts with them working together for a greater good. Later, they see that their philosophies are not compatible and they part ways. Knowing the rest of the story and what follows, we see they become enemies. This is because they realize their two approaches are incompatible.

Check out the movie and let me know what you think. If you have seen the movie, do you see where I am coming from?

On my recent trip to Atlanta, Georgia, a friend and I were walking around exploring the city. Our walk took an unexpected turn when a Good Samaritan requesting spare change asked us if we were going to the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial. We had not planned to because, for some reason, I thought the memorial was in Alabama. I am not really even sure why I thought it was in Alabama. At any rate, we found out it was there and we decided it was a must-see. It seems that divine providence guided our path.

As I passed through what appeared to be a rundown part of town, we happened upon a pan handler whose only request was food. I always feel hesitant to help out aggressive pan handlers, especially when they open with the line, “Don’t worry, I ain’t going to mug you.” We know he would not be buying booze if we bought him the food rather than give him cash. We obliged his request and went to a little chicken restaurant and bought him food. He led us to the restaurant and, for that reason I did sense danger and was wary. I am in security and I was calculating my risk, continuously. However, with a little prayer and thinking thoughts like Matthew West's song "The Motions" or Josh Wilson's song "I Refuse," we proceeded to serve our fellow man, my neighbor.

After we completed the purchase, we left the restaurant and reentered the rundown neighborhood. In less than a block, the neighborhood changed dramatically. As I entered into the National Park and Preservation area I felt as if I was moving from hostility to a place of peace. The pot-holed, dirty streets and rundown buildings were replaced with well-trimmed lawns, maintained buildings and clean streets. The symbolism of that place and my soul were in sync.

We were exploring the grounds when I saw a very recognizable blue and white sign with the words Ebenezer Baptist Church. I couldn’t wait any longer; I eagerly made my way to the church. I was taken aback when I entered the church. It was such a humble place, simple and small. It had decorations such as stained glass however, the overriding aspect was functionality. It was a humble building that you might otherwise take as run-of-the-mill, yet this church was the epicenter for the civil-rights movement.

I walked into the church and took a seat on one of the pews. I sat there in quiet reflection. Yes, it is a simple building. Then, I realized it is not the building that made a difference, it was a man with a dream that made all the difference in the world. I sat that and wondered what it would have been like one Sunday morning listening to a man with a dream some said was too big.

“Everybody can be great, because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve… You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve… You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. And you can be that servant.” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I realized this place and, more importantly, a poor preacher from Atlanta are significant to African American history, United States history and Church history. How many people can you say that about? I know Protestants don't have saints, but if they ever do, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. needs to be on the top of the list. I have to admit that I am happy to see that our government recognizes the significance of Martin Luther King Jr.

For me, I won’t forget the day I sat where he once preached the true Christian principles of love and peace instead of hate and revenge. When I see him in heaven someday, I will thank him for his service. He has inspired me, I hope he inspires you.

By nature, I tend to think very logically. I don't mean like Spock from the original Star Trek. Emotion can sway me. I mean, I am a person who has difficulty if things don't fit or they contradict other known facts. I work in Information Technology so I understand causation. Add to that, I am an IT auditor so like to analyze things. I have been accused of being obsessive and a little anal about certain things. For example, I have a library and I will go though and make sure all the bindings are aligned on the shelf and the books are properly cataloged and categorized. Yes, I have a data base of all my books, too.

I really can't watch a movie without analyzing it. I don't accept the face value of claims of the paranormal. I always look for alternate explanations. I try to see things as systems; like how things connect and their interrelationships. I am even willing to change my opinion or beliefs if I have new insights, information or understandings. In fact, I have done so many times in my life. I guess, in a way, that makes me a bit of a philosopher.

On the other hand, I also realize that logic isn't the end all, be all, for truth. I am a very logical person, but, sometimes I have to suspend my analytical tendencies. That is not to say that I follow illogical paths of thinking; it simply means I recognize our human limitations. It would be the height of arrogance to presuppose my logic is perfect, that I have all the facts, that I have considered every potential, or that bias does not influence my thought patterns, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I see more and more, as I get older, that it is important to recognize our limitations. I grant the human race has accomplished many great things like putting a man on the moon and harnessing the power of the atom. I even think we will do things we cannot even imagine. Granting that, we will never cross the chasm to an all-knowing state. There will always be something we do not know.

What a downer. How can we know anything at all then? How do we operate with less than 100% certainty? What level of certainty can we obtain and still operate effectively? How much skepticism should we have?

In light of this, I think it is logical, prudent and perfectly appropriate to proceed with caution, charity and with as little dogmatism as possible. I do this, typically by viewing things as a probability of being correct or true and not black or white. For example, for all I know we can all be in the Matrix, however, I do find that while it is possible, it is not probable. If I had to give it a number, I would give it less than one percent, maybe like 0.01%.

I am not holding two contradictory beliefs, I am recognizing my limitations. After all, isn't that the most logical thing to do?

Update: Facebook Comments

DT: You write very, very Don! I enjoyed this piece on logic. Yes, you are logical, which I find to be a great quality, as well as organized and highly articulate. You are also a systems thinker like I am, seeing patterns, commonalities, and the whole as well its parts. You ask good, thoughtful questions. I like what you say about probability and caution and that is important to realize our limitations and not be dogmatic. Very, very well said, Don! Thanks for sharing!

RR: Lately, I've been reading about confirmation bias; that phenomenon where rational people subconsciously filter out data that does not fit with their bias. Or, rather, give higher priority to data that does.

RR: I've also been reading about cognitive dissonance where people, step by step, rationalize their way past the discomfort of having two conflicting opinions in their minds. This, it is opined, is one way people work their way into cults and what we call wingnut beliefs like the notion that judgement day will arrive on May 21, 2011. Or that Christ will return at any day, for that matter. We work our way around the tough, chewy bits, one rationalization at a time. We are logical, reasonable and rational and yet lacking. At the end of the day, life is full of scary shit. We need to believe there's a plan, even if we don't like the plan (see Joker with Harvey Dent, Dark Knight); we need to put order to what is, essentially, an often senseless and meaningless experience. That's not to say we shouldn't try. But, at some point, it makes sense to give in to the senselessness. Sometimes the effort to make sense out of the chaos only produces a different form of chaos.

DT: @RR, in response to your first posting: that's easy to do! We all see things through our own paradigm. Anais Nin wrote that "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." So true! I think we seek out that which we agree with as a way of validating ourselves, which is much simper and easier than being open to new, opposing information which we may need to think through, analyze and come to terms with from a new paradigm.

DT: @RR, to your second posting: Buddhists call what you talk about as 'giving in to the senseless' as "non-attachment" and yes, it does make sense at some point to embrace things as they are, to un-attach, if you will, from giving some things meaning and our time, rather than cause ourselves suffering (from the Buddhist perspective, samsara), or what you cause 'chaos.' (See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/samsara.html)

Me: I didn't think I would have inspired such a stimulating discussion, great thoughts.

SC: Finally had time to read this. Thank you. For a long time I pursued conviction as a way of understanding the world/existence, meaning I sought intricate logical constructions that I would convince myself explained reality. As I got older though, I realized each time I achieved a mental equation that explained everything ... events the next day refuted my equation, however carefully constructed. This disillusion is somehow amplified by parenthood. With time I have come to understand that explaining everything is impossible and the burden of attempting logical explanation of everything is quixotic at best, and distracting at least. With time I began to understand that the world unfolds around me, largely as a mystery, whether I impose logic on it or not. And looking at it from that angle, I began to more and more appreciate the mystery rather than to ruthlessly impose logic on it. Certainly there are core convictions and truisms that we must live by, but those tend to be simple and deep, requiring little logic. Beyond that lies a world filled with mystery that in time I have become convinced that I can never fully understand. The mystery that surrounds me is the purview of God. And I am comforted by that. **Thanks for helping me think like this on a Thursday night a midnight ... really.

DT: I appreciate and enjoy the deep thinking that has happened in these postings! Thanks everyone!

Me: ‎DT, Me too. SC, Sorry for keeping you up at night. I hate trying to fall asleep and then get into some deep thinking because I never get sleep them.

Have you read lately on a billboard or in a magazine ad that the Judgment Day will be May 21, 2011? I have so many issues with this I don’t even know where to begin.
According to a pamphlet I picked up at a gas station, God has given us a head- up on the Day of Judgment. According to the pamphlet:

“..The Holy Bible tells us that Holy God is a God of great mercy, compassion and love. That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment.”

The Bible does state that God has great mercy, compassion and love. However, the pamphlet does not say where exactly the Bible says that He give us the exact time of the Day of Judgment.

As you read further, you find that they quote 2 Peter 3:8 and as soon as you see that, you know where they are going with this. They take the passage, literally, to mean that one of God’s days is 1000 of our years. But if you read further to 2 Peter 3:10 it states the day will come like a ‘thief’. Given the context of the discourse, I would tend to lean toward a metaphorical figure of speech for understanding 2 Peter 3:8. Be that as it may, let’s read further to see what they do with a literal, out of context, interpretation of this passage.

Next, the pamphlet takes God’s warning of impending judgment from Genesis 7:4 and Genesis 7:10-11, where God says he will make it rain for 40 days and nights, to mean that in 7000 years God will destroy the earth with fire for good. (Side bar: 2 Peter 3:7 says that the first destruction was by water and was Noah’s flood and the second destruction would be by fire.) Here is what the pamphlet says:

“Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day.”

Issue 1 Context
Here, the passages are taken completely out of context. It is obvious to the casual reader of Genesis 7:4 that the seven days were seven, literal, 24 hour days before the rain would start. Genesis confirms this understanding in Genesis 7:10-11 when it states that it ‘came to pass’ that the rains started exactly seven 24 hour days later. What the pamphlet does to get around this is to imply that there are two fulfillments to Genesis 7:4, one, literal, 24 hour days and one, metaphorical, 1000 years per day.

Issue 2 1000 Years
First, I have a difficult time reading 2 Peter 3:8 literally that a day to God is like 1000 years to us. I think when you look at it literally; you have to ignore that God is eternal, which is to say He exists outside of time and space all together. (Read a past blog post on eternal) Time was created and is part of our universe, and as Einstein proved and current astrophysics teaches us, time is relative.

Second, are all those years 360 day years or 365.25 days? Originally, the earth’s orbit was 360 days and at some time in the BC era (I forget when) there was a change in the orbit to 365.25 days. For more information on prophetic years of 360 days I would recommend the book ‘The Coming Prince’ by Sir Robert Anderson; He demonstrates in his book that by using 360 day years you can take, at least on prophecy, from the Old Testament about the first coming of our Messiah to the exact day it was fulfilled in the New Testament.

Issue 3 The Bible as Whole
In order to buy this premise, you have to ignore everywhere else in the Bible that says we won’t know the day or the hour of the end. Here are a few passages: Matthew 25: 13 and Matthew 24:44.

Final Thoughts
This isn’t the first Church or group to give a date. I am betting these guys are wrong too. The problem is, it gives all Christians a bad name. Just look at the comments to a blogger’s post on the Christian obsession with the end.

I do know one other little tidbit from the Bible. In Deut. 18:20-22 the punishment for a false prophet is execution. If the End is May 21, 2011, I am ready. If the End is not May 21, 2011, are they ready?

One of the problems I have found with some Christian apologists is the propensity of some of them to be disingenuous, at best, when characterizing Satanists. Many of them fall into the trap of the informal fallacy of composition. In logic and reasoning, a fallacy of composition is when someone makes the assumption that what is true of a small portion of a population is true of the whole population. A composition fallacy is like asking one student in a classroom what their favorite color is and then making the assumption that it is the favorite color of all of the students in the classroom.

When someone hears the term Satanist, they cannot help but imagine blood sacrifices, ritualistic murder, demon summoning and all sorts of other wild magical things. This perception of Satanism is actually taken from a very small minority of Satanists that have been popularized by the media and disingenuous apologists. The truth about most Satanists is much less exciting than the perception and, as it is in the newspaper business, not worthy of print. Most people don't know what a true Satanist is or even have a true perception on one.

John Smulo demonstrates this point in his article in the Sacred Tribes Journal called "Spiritual Warfare Profiles of Satanism: Are They Misleading?” John asks the question, are Satanists fairly portrayed in work by popular Christian authors? John then demonstrates that the truth is, most Satanists are actually atheists, and they don't even believe in an evil entity named Satan or Lucifer. A vast majority of them do not engage in animal sacrifice or conjure up demons.

We may wonder then, why do they choose to call themselves Satanist if they don't believe in Satan? When Saul D. Alinsky dedicates his book, Rules for Radicals; to Lucifer what does he really mean? Does he believe in the devil and sacrifice goats? Doubtful. Satan is an icon for Satanists and other people. Satan is an icon that, in their minds, stands in drastic opposition to the western culture and the Judeo-Christian ethic we call the “golden rule;” do unto others as you would have them do to you or love your neighbor as yourself. Satan stands as an icon of selfishness, self-fulfillment and do unto others before they do unto you.

Satan becomes an icon of their worldview and philosophy. He is viewed as a nonexistent representation of their philosophy. Notice how he is characterized in the Satanic Bible:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer." Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Why do Christian apologists tend to paint with a broad brush when characterizing Satanists? If I was only to read their books and then I ran in to a real live Satanist and started asking them about conjuring demons and animal sacrifices, they would look at me as if I was crazy. I would have lost all credibility I had up until that point. They won’t care what I have to say after that. I don’t know why some popular Christian apologists make such generalizations, but, if I am not careful to check their facts, I could end up looking like a fool.

We characterize people and make the assumption that the real difference between us is they worship a spiritual being called Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. In reality, the difference is one of philosophy. It is important to make sure we know where they are coming from if we want to engage in any type of meaningful dialog.

One of my Christian friends commented that my issue is just one of semantics, because Satan is still behind the philosophy. I don’t disagree that Satan is behind it because, technically, from a Christian point of view, Satan would be behind all the world’s false religions and teachings to one extent or another. However, the issue is how Satanists view themselves and their beliefs. We have to addresses them from where they are.

Check out my past blog on the Domains of Spiritual Warfare

Osama bin Laden is Dead
Now what? He is dead but al Qaeda is still alive and well. The question is, does his death change anything? Will it make him a martyr? Will that increase anger at the US? These are definitely some really tough questions. Should we all be happy that he is dead? I am given pause when I remember Proverbs 24:17.

“Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice” (NIV)

A question that always pops into my mind when people judge people is, “How does Jesus view that person?” I am reminded of that question in this situation as well. How does Jesus view Osama bin Laden? Jesus sees him as a man in need of a savior. He sees him as someone He died for. He sees him as someone He loved. The obvious question then is, how should I see Osama bin Laden? I can’t help but think that had bin Laden experienced true Christian love, his life would have been radically different and that even the events of 9-11-01 may have been avoided.

I think we forget that our enemy is not ourselves (the human race). In this instance, our enemy is a philosophy; a philosophy of hate and revenge and selfishness on both sides. The only weapon against such an enemy is love. I know it sounds like a 1960s’ clich, but it is, logically, the only answer.

So, who is our real enemy?

Investigation Baptismal Regeneration in Mark 16:16

I am going to look at a number of passages in their immediate context and then later in a broader context. I have to make a comment upfront and acknowledge that the authenticity of the longer ending or Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is questioned by many scholars. I do not intend to address this issue, rather, for argument sake, I will make the assumption that this longer ending is authentic. However, if we did find any significant meaning in a disputed section of scripture, we must be extremely cautious in building doctrine on questionable scripture.

ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. (Mark 16:16) [Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition]

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” - Mark 16:16 HCSB

Let’s take a look at this passage logically and see what we can determine.

1. According to Mark 16:16 who will be saved?
2. According to Mark 16:16 who will be condemned?

When you read this passage, you will note that the passage talks about those that are saved and those that are not (condemned) and that there is an imbalance in the statement.¹  The question is, did the author of Mark imply that both belief and baptism are required to be saved and not condemned or did the author imply that only belief was needed to be saved and not condemned. This, then, raises the question as to why baptism was mentioned. Many possible explanations can be given from baptism being our response to our salvation to a work out of faith. However, this passage does not address this issue and anything we propose is speculation.

When we take the passage and balance the statement in order to determine the intent of the author, we have one of two possible meanings:

• Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned
• Whoever believes will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned

Because the statement is ambiguous, we must infer the intent of the author from one of two possible meanings. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration (the need of baptism for salvation) will insist that inference A is the correct meaning. While those who support sola fida (salvation by faith alone) will insist that inference B is the correct meaning.

Because the author of Mark gives no indication in this portion of the discourse, we cannot assume either possible meaning. If we infer either possible meaning, we run the danger of putting meaning into the text or taking meaning out of the text.²  With that in mind, this passage by itself is neutral to either possible meaning. It neither supports baptismal generation nor rejects it.

To understand what God has for us, we will need to take the scriptures as a whole.³

1. This is sometimes referred to as a negative inference.

2. The general exhortation in Revelation 22:18-19 and the command in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 warns us not to add or subtract anything from God’s Word.

3. With the assumption that the Bible is God inspired we have the principle of non-contradiction. Meaning that God inspired the words in the Bible and as such there is a logical consistency across 66 books with over 30 different authors.

Your Emotions Can't Tell Time

The other day I was browsing Facebook when I noticed a suggested friend who was someone I went to school with long ago. The problem was this 'suggested friend' was a schoolmate who was a total jerk to me. I noticed very quickly I remembered what he said and did to me and I found myself upset and angry as if he had just done it or said it to me.

This is the problem with emotions. In order to trigger them, you just need to remember or think about something that made you feel that way once before. Then, bam! The emotions are back just like that. Even if, intellectually, you forgave the person or you now realize it was minor or long enough ago to not matter anymore.

After a few seconds, I realized that kids are mean and that what he said and did was mean, but it was over 20 years ago. Does it matter to me now? Not at all. However, emotions don't understand time they just react to what you are thinking.

You will find another example of this with actors. Good actors will draw on thoughts to create the emotions they need for the scene they are in. If they need anger, they will focus their thoughts on something that angers them and if they need to show love, they focus on thoughts of love.

I wonder if this means we can control our emotions based upon controlling our thoughts?

Here is a related quote:

“Words can never adequately convey the incredible impact of our attitudes toward life. The longer I live the more convinced I become that life is 10 percent what happens to us and 90 percent how we respond to it.” - Charles R. Swindoll

When researching the topic of spiritual warfare, one of the problems you will run into is the vast majority of books on the topic center on what I call the spiritual dimension with things like witchcraft, demonology, possession and Satanism. The problem with this narrow interpretation is that it focuses on only one of the domains of spiritual warfare.

What are domains of warfare? In modern combat, the US military has determined that there are five (5) domains of warfare. You may have heard of air, land and sea as the 3 traditional domains of war. Recently, the US military has added space and cyberspace as new domains of war for the 21st century. Having been a Marine and understanding the basics of combat and warfare has led me to the conclusion that spiritual warfare is far larger than a single domain.

Have you ever thought about missions as spiritual warfare? Every time we bring the good news to a lost person, the adversary risks losing one of his tortured souls. When a person becomes a Christian as a result of a missionary or evangelist, the adversary loses ground and the Church gains ground. Missions and evangelism are offensive military actions against our enemy. There are no two ways about it.

Have you ever struggled with sin in your life? You are battling the sin-nature that seeks to take you out of the fight. If it can’t take you out, it seeks to neutralize you on the battlefield. If you overcome the sin, the adversary loses his hold on your life. If our adversary can't take us out, the next best thing is to render our actions ineffectual.

In combat, the first thing to do is understand the battlefield. I have come up with three (3) domains of spiritual warfare. You can view spiritual warfare as being internal, external or spiritual.

• The internal battlefield is your mind and will, the sin-nature we are born with. As Paul puts it, “For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” Romans 7:18 (NIV)
• Next, we have the battlefield that is external to us. This would be things like false ideologies, people, injustice, etc. These are the areas we encounter every day. “Jesus said to them, ‘Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!’" Matthew 16:6 (ISV)
• Then finally we have the spiritual, the non-corporeal realm or dimension, where the dark adversary resides. This is where we see witchcraft, demon possession and exorcisms. As Paul puts it, “For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:12 (NLT)

Like it or not we are at war. Understanding the domains of spiritual warfare will aid us in better understanding the war that we are in. It will help remind us not to focus on one domain of warfare to the neglect of the others.

Remember: If the enemy is in range, so are you.

I've thought of three domains of spiritual warfare. What are some others that you've thought of?

Notes of a Baptist Exorcist: New Testament Teachings and Examples for Exorcising Demons Today
by Dr. Roderick H. Pyatt Ph.D.

I really liked this book and the balanced approach of Dr. Pyatt. The problem of most Protestants is they tend to gravitate to the extremes on the topic of possession and exorcism. Either they ignore the topic politely out of some sort of embarrassment or concern of how they will look to others or they see demons in everything and anything bad that happens to you is a direct action of the devil. Neither of those positions is supported by scripture. Dr. Pyatt addresses the topic in a manner that is biblical and not to the extreme. The book is more or less his notes on the subject. I think it would get better reception if it was more academic. For example, I would like to see it include footnotes and endnotes and if he spent time teasing out some of the finer points.

Characteristics of Possession

Pyatt also relates one way in which people can be possessed. Demons have to have some type of entry, in other words, they are invited. Often people will consult items such as Ouiji boards for some selfish reason. The items do not necessarily have power, for example the Demon is not in the Ouija board. He does however recommend disposing of such items. Not because they have power but for the sake of others.

Dr. Pyatt’s relates the following characteristics of possession. People, while possessed, will speak in a voice that is not their own. The demons typically show themselves intermittently with no set schedule. Demons will have some type of entry, typically using the spiritual or paranormal for selfish reasons. During active possession, the person is usually locked out by the demon that is in total control. The activity, duration and intensity of possessions are variable. When the demon is not active, we don't know if it leaves or becomes dormant. Dr. Pyatt’s position is that locations can be possessed (or infested [my word]) in addition to people. Does that mean animals can be possessed? He also believes that ghosts are disembodied human spirits and that ghosts can be tormented be demons. In one story he relates a story of a ghost that was hiding from what the ghost communicated was the "Dark Man" (demon). When a demon is present, people can sense an instant subtle change in the atmosphere of the house or location. Once a demon is cast, out it may return and may bring friends. Dr. Pyatt also believes that property can be possessed.

Pyatt's Approach to Exorcism

Pyatt believes people can have the God-given gift of discernment. With this sense of discernment, people can sense when demons are near and when a person or property is possessed. We should look to God for guidance on all things, including exorcism. Catholics require diocese bishop approval "Official Permission" to perform exorcism. Dr. Pyatt feels all Christians have the authority. In contradistinction to Catholic exorcism, ritualism is not Biblical. In the Bible, exorcisms were plain and simple. For Pyatt, Christians don't need anything more than Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not by our power but the power of Christ, simple faith on what Jesus promised He would do for us. Likewise, he views Holy or blessed items, such as crosses or Holy water, as having no innate power. In addition he feels knowing the name of the demon has no bearing what-so-ever on the success or failure of an exorcism.

For Pyatt the purpose of exorcism is to bring glory to God and not the exorcist. He warns anyone who uses paranormal or metaphysical powers for selfish means or profit should be avoided.

Pyatt has a Shot-gun exorcism (his definition) he uses when there is no definite target. He asks the Holy Spirit to touch everyone in the room. He references God as the One to whom he represents, the One who is with him. When he addresses the demons, he talks to them as if they are human adversaries. He takes the fight out of them by making them expend lots of energy by getting them angry and upset. Not sure if it is the demon that gets tired or the host. This may take many hours. Typically, the demon will leave suddenly and everyone will notice a sense of lightness in the room.

Demons

Pyatt relates a number of characteristics of demons in his book. First off, in secular paranormal genre, they are often referred to as elementals or poltergeists. Demons have a hierarchy. Prime demons are the most powerful of the demons and the subordinate, or lesser demons are less powerful. In spite of popular belief, demons are not in Hell. They are roaming around hunting. Not only do demons have the ability to speak but they have a will, intelligence, emotions and they are self-aware. Demons can make mistakes and have negative reactions.

Pyatt's Take on Ghosts

Pyatt does not have a problem with ghosts being disembodied spirits, although Some Churches teach the belief that ghosts are demons. There is no proof-positive either way and there is nothing pro or con in the Bible about ghosts being departed humans. Pyatt also makes the claims that ghosts cannot be exorcised because they are not demons.

Pyatt’s take on Sensitives

People that are 'Sensitive' can sense demons and ghosts. He warns us to be wary of them and extremely cautious because many are charlatans. He says there is nothing wrong with someone who is a sensitive. The only wrong part is if they use their gift for personal gain.