That Was Awkward...part 2

In part 2 of this post my goal is to give you some tools to put in your toolshed so that when you find yourself near or immediately involved in a conversation that you have interest in and/or deeply care about you will be able to get involved instead of standing on the sideline or in the middle of the road frozen like a deer in headlights, if you are the center of attention in the conversation.

Remember that we are going to put ourselves in the shoes of the lady on the West Wing video. We are going to assume that we have some convictions about the subject at hand, in this case homosexuality, and that we have just been challenged in a way that we have no idea what to do. We are also going to assume that we have the ability to ask questions and that we care about what the other person has to say.

So, the first tool that I want to give you to put in your toolshed is "Reality". That's right, every toolbox needs a good measure of reality and they need to know exactly where it is in your toolshed. It is usually going to be hanging on the hook labeled Humility which is hung on the board known as shut your mouth and open your ears. What I mean by "Reality" is that you must have an accurate picture of what you know and don't know in your toolshed. The lady in this video thought she knew some things about the Bible and about homosexuality, but as soon as she was challenged by someone smarter than herself she quickly found out that she didn't have as firm a grasp on it as she thought. Now if you're like I use to be, and can still be sometimes, then your "Reality" tool isn't hung on the "Humility" hook and your first reaction to what happened to this lady isn't going to be thoughtful. This is a consequence of your Reality tool being hung on the Pride hook which isn't nailed in your toolshed but instead is nailed in THIS place where all ideas are thought up as quickly as possible and almost always stink!

So the first thing I want to tell you is to know yourself. If you thought you knew something, but now you know that you did so only on a surface level then don't try to pretend and be that guy from the last post. Take out your reality tool and say to yourself, "Ok, this guy just walked all over top of what I believe. He brought up some valid questions that I haven't thought of before and have no clue how to answer. If I'm going to have a conversation with this person about this subject that I care about then I am going to have to think of something other than my standard responses because he just blew them all up."

The second thing that I want to give you to put in your toolshed isn't a tool, but instead is a sign. This sign should be hanging above the doors on your toolshed and it reads, "WHAT'S THE BIG IDEA?" When you are engaging someone in a conversation and they are saying things like the POTUS in this video they are expressing ideas. If you can learn to identify the ideas then you will be able to take all of the pressure off of yourself and place it where it belongs, and that is on the person expressing the ideas.

For instance even though the POTUS said a lot of things in this short video you can break down everything he said into a handful of very managable ideas and here they are:

#1. If you watch the video from 0:54 through 1:29 you will find the POTUS asking the lady a series of questions about her PhD and casts a shadow on her expertise on the subject she talks about on her show, i.e. homosexuality in this case.  So what's the big idea here?  The big idea that the POTUS is pushing is that unless you have advanced degrees in the subject you are expressing an opinion on then your opinon is worthless.
The key to this idea is seeing that it does not deal with the substance, or lack thereof, of what the woman was saying and the arguments she was presenting on her talk show.  Her ideas may be terrible, but it is not attacking the validity of her ideas and arguments, but instead saying that she has no buisness expressing her ideas or arguments because she's not an "expert" in the areas the POTUS thinks you need to be an "expert" in in order to give thoughts. It's much like saying that a man cannot have a say or even an opinion on abortion because he's a man and it's the woman who has to have the baby. The men aren't the experts in having babies, women are! This of course is true, but the BIG IDEA isn't having babies, but whether or not ending the life of an innocent human being is justified and you don't have to be a woman to have an opinion on that subject.

#2. 1:30-2:45 shows the POTUS rattling off parts of the Old Testament Law that are not followed by the lady or anyone else that she communicates with on her talkshow. So what's the BIG IDEA? The big idea is that if you are not going to follow ALL of the OT Law then you are not obligated to consider homosexuality an abomination or follow ANY of the OT Law.  The key to understanding this idea is that only parts of the OT Law were quoted. What about "you shall not lie with an animal...neither shall a woman give herself to an animal to lie with it, it is a perversion"(Lev. 18:23) or what about "you shall not steal"..."you shall not oppress or rob your neighbor"..."you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev. 19:11-18) or what about "do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute"..."you shall treat a stranger who sojourns with you as a native, you shall love him as yourself"..."you shall have just balances, just weights..." (Lev. 19:29-36). I could go on, and on, and on, with Laws like "no murder", "no adultery", "honor your parents", et cetera. Do you think the POTUS would want to ignore these laws as well or think that these laws were unjust and ridiculous the same way he did the others?

#3. 2:46-3:01 shows the POTUS rubbing in his victory and saying that you shouldn't sit when the President stands.  So what's the BIG IDEA? The big idea is that you should show respect regardless of whether you agree or disagree with an individuals ideas and although the POTUS didn't show respect to the lady in making that point I give a hearty "Amen" to the idea that the lady should have been respectful to the POTUS instead of sitting to make a point.

So now you have a tool, "Reality", and a sign on your toolshed. If you can learn to use the Reality tool and find the BIG IDEAs then you almost have it licked. There's one more thing that I want to give you to put in your toolshed. This last thing is the most important of the 3, because it will allow you to be confident in your Reality tool and be able to see and appropriately use the BIG IDEA sign on your toolshed. 

Unfortunately it's 1am and I've got to get up in a few hours so you're going to have to wait until part 3 to find it out. You're going to want to find it out though because when you use this 3rd tool you will find that you will have the ability to be in control of any conversation at anytime that you want to be in control. You will find that there is no longer any need to be nervous about getting into a conversation. You will find that you will have confidence and the ability to have a good Reality tool. You will find that you will more easily identify BIG IDEAs. Lastly, you will find that you are able to give answers when you want to give answers and listen when you want to listen in any conversation. It is by far the most powerful of the three things that I will be sharing with you so I look forward to doing so in the near future.

That Was Awkward...part 1

Sometimes you will find yourself in situations where you are speechless. You express your ideas, thoughts, or convictions but the person you are talking to challenges you in a way that just runs all over top of those ideas, thoughts, or convictions. You were so confident about those things just 5 minutes earlier, but now you're not sure. They may have even talked about your ideas from an angle you never thought of before. Your mind is spinning and you just freeze because you have no idea what to say. You're still processing what the other person just said and are trying to figure out whether you even believe what you were arguing for 5 minutes ago.

THAT is a bad feeling. Trust me, that is a very bad feeling and I have experienced that feeling a few times in my life. I imagine the lady in this video had the same feeling.



Now I know this is a story from a fictional show, but if watch CNN or MSNBC when the topic is homosexuality I can almost guarentee you that you will witness this story playing out in real life because I've seen it many times. It's good to watch it though because you can learn from seeing the train wreck that occurs.

I posted this video on Facebook the other day and after being inundated with pleas to answer the challenges offered by President Bartlet I decided to blog about it. (By inundated I mean Heather Pack asked me to. :)

First you have to know how much you know about the topic. If you are ignorant the worst thing you can do is to try and fake a response by making it up or parroting ideas that have sounded good to you, but that you have never thought critically about.  Doing that is like being this guy when playing basketball.

Everyone knows he's no good as soon as he walks in the door and if they think he may be sandbagging it they know that he's not good by the time he takes two dribbles. If it's not basketball then just think about whatever it is that you are good at. When someone is pretending to be good at it or trying to pretend to know about it then you will know almost immediately that this person doesn't have a clue.

Also, you need to understand that it's not necessarily a bad thing to be ignorant. We are all ignorant, just in different subjects. It may just be that the issue has never been on your radar in a way that has challenged you as it is now and that's ok. What isn't ok is to be that guy!  Don't pretend like you know it all because so and so told you such and such back in the day. When you do that you go from being ignorant to dishonest and dumb, which is much worse. Trust me on this because I've taken this route before as well.

Not only this but you cast a shadow on your believability when you talk about other subjects that you may be more knowledgable about and may even care more about. If that isn't enough to get you to not take this approach then let me throw one more reason on the pile. If you take this approach you will cast the shadow of you bad arguments and reasoning abilities on people who are not ignorant of the subject and may have the best ideas and answers for the challenges. If you don't think that happens then watch THIS VIDEO and understand that if you do this on video then the people who will be called in to clean up your mess will probably not be advocates for your position.

If you are not ignorant on the given topic then feel free to exchange ideas, but for the sake of this post I am going to imagine that you find yourself in the same shoes as the lady in the video. You have convictions and you've even publically expressed them, but you aren't skilled at defending them or at being persuasive in presenting them in a challenging environment.

So, with that being said, and since this post is getting a little long winded, I am going to leave you to watch the videos and think about your own level of confidence, or lack thereof, if you were to find yourself in a similar situation.

In part two of this I will try to give you a couple of tools that I have acquired, from experience and men much smarter than myself, that will allow you to move through such conversations confidently, respectfully, and winsomely regardless of your level of expertise with the topic at hand.  There are only two requirements for being able to use these techniques: 1) You know how to ask questions. 2) You are willing to listen and care about what the other person has to say.

If you have those two skills then you are set. Looking forward to getting into the details with you next time.

Quick Question for My Non-Reformed Brothers & Sisters in the Lord

I have a question that I have had running through my mind today and so I thought I'd ask to see if I could get a good answer.

Is unbelief a sin?  In other words is refusing to believe the Gospel and accept salvation through Jesus Christ a sin?

Seems like the only answer to the question is "yes" and I would agree. However I think this creates a problem for most believers that I know.

Most believers that I know would say that Jesus died for every sin that has ever been, is being, or will be committed. If that is so then it seems to me that the only logical outcome is for everyone to go to Heaven, i.e. universalism, because Jesus has paid the price for every sin that everyone ever committed.

I have challenged a few people with that line of reasoning before and every single one responds with the same answer, "Yes, Jesus died for their sins, but they refused to believe and accept His offer of salvation." I have never asked the following question because I never thought of it until now.

Is refusing to believe and accept Jesus' offer of salvation a sin?  If the answer is yes then Jesus died for that sin and God has no grounds for punishing you for it since He already punished Jesus for it.

You might respond, "Yes, there is punishment for it because Jesus' payment for it was never accepted." To which I will respond, "Was that a sin for a person to never accept that payment?" If the answer is yes then Jesus paid the price for anyone's refusal to accept the payment of their sin. And now we start over.

If Jesus died for all sin at all times and unbelief and refusing to accept salvation through Christ is a sin I do not see how universalism is not true.

Looking forward to hearing the responses.

Bible Study

Doesn't theology matter?  Isn't it important to understand who God has revealed Himself to be instead of erecting an idol in our minds of a god that we are comfortable with and imagine how we think he ought to be?


I have been thinking the past few days about a monthly Bible study group that I attend. 


The thing that I appreciate most about these men that I have the privilege of meeting with is that they will not "go along to get along". They refuse to smile and nod when they disagree with me and they refuse to accept "that's just what I believe" as a satisfactory answer to any topic of discussion.
While this may seem an odd thing to appreciate I do and my appreciation for this is made possible by the spirit in which we disagree. We disagree in a pursuit of truth and not in the pursuit of being right and it is this dynamic, when shared among a group, that allows men to bond and grow closer as they passionately disagree about things they hold dear.


We all seem to believe that theology matters and rightly dividing God's Word as too important a task to be satisfied with a superficial unity. We all seek to persuade each other by appealing our cases to the arbiter of truth, the Bible.
While I haven't had any major theological shifts I have refined many of my ideas and convictions.  As I consider this group in relation to my traditions, beliefs, and ideas that I have taken for granted for so long Proverbs 18:17 comes to mind. "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."


Thanks for examining me men and for refusing to agree when you don't.


I know everyone cannot handle being challenged in this way, but if you desire to have your theological ideas and traditions questioned by men who only want you to rightly understand God and His Word you should consider joining us.  If you'd like to join us email me at caisonj@yahoo.com


It's hard to describe the dynamics of our group but I can assure you that we are not like this...although after going through our gauntlet you may wish to join a group like this! :)

Teach me who You are O' God! (Gen. 2)

The next time we find God speaking is in Genesis 2 only this time He is not describing Himself, but instead is speaking concerning the man He had created.

I struggled with whether or not to put these types of instances of God speaking into this study because I don't want to get into the inference game, see 1st post for why that is.  I finally decided to do so because this study is about knowing who God is and in order to know something you need a "knower"....that's us if you didn't follow that last sentence. Since we are the ones learning what God has said about Himself I have decided that it would be wise and good to know what He has said about us as well. If we can understand ourselves accurately perhaps we can more accurately understand God as well.

In Genesis 2:15-17 we find God putting the man He had created in the Garden of Eden and giving him a command. We can see at least one reason why God put him there, to work and keep the garden. We also see what the consequence shall be if the man disobeys the command that God has given him.

In the next verse we see that God says that it is not good for the man He created to be alone and so God creates a helper that was suitable for him, a woman.

So what do we learn? We learn that God put the man He had created in the place where He wanted him to be in order to do what God wanted him to do. We also learn that God places a restriction on what the man can do and gives a clear consequence if the man disobeys.
We also learn that God has said that it is not good for a man to be alone and that God's solution to this problem was to take part of the man and create another human being, specifically a woman.

So what do we know about God so far?
1. God is the Creator of all things.
2. God is an "us".
3. God put the man He created where He desired for him to be.
4. God resticts what the man can do and promises a consequence for disobeying.

What do we know about man so far? (I would say what do we know about us, but it will be a while before we can 100% link us to this first man. I know that may seem like straining a little bit, but remember that we do not want to assume things just because we have always believed them.)
1. The man was created by God and in His image.
2. The man was put in a place where God wanted him to be.
3. The man was subject to the command of God.
4. The man was to die if he disobeyed the command of God.
5. It was not good for the man to be alone so a suitable helper was made for him.
6. The man's suitable helper was a woman.

Why I Will and Will Not be Voting For NC Constitutional Amendment One

Why I WILL be Voting FOR Amendment One

1. I have the opportunity to be apart of amending my state’s constitution in such a way as to reflect what the One who created marriage defined it to be.
2. If the state is going to bestow benefits on people who get married because it is observed as being a stabilizing influence on society and is beneficial to the perpetuation of said society through the children that are conceived and born in those marriages then there is no reason for the state to offer the same privileges to same sex couples because they can not produce these affects.
1. The question of heterosexual couples who can’t have children or choose not to has no bearing on this argument because governments make laws for the masses and not for exceptions to the general rule. Governments are trying to macro manage when they make laws.
3. Because I do not view government sanctioned marriage as a human right. If government sanctioned marriage were a human right then arguments concerning discrimination would be valid and correct.
1. If the government of the US and/or state of NC did not recognize or provide benefits for heterosexual marriage I for one would not be prevented from going before God with Amy and entering into a covenant relationship. That’s the marriage recognition I care about. I would only complain about the government if they arrested me and incarcerated me because I married a woman   

 

I will NOT be Voting FOR Amendment One…

1. Because not doing so will legalize same sex marriage in NC. There is already a law on the books for that purpose and so those who are trying to scare people into voting for Amendment One for that reason should be ashamed of their dishonesty. Likewise those who use that fact as an argument for not needing a constitutional amendment should not ignore the fact that if North Carolinians want to keep that law in place it is necessary to have redundancy in the state’s constitution. The judicial activism you have applauded in other states has rightly taught North Carolinians who are for marriage being kept as a legal privileged status for one man and one woman that a law on the books is not enough.
2. In order to define marriage for North Carolinians. People can only define what they create and if they did not create it then they can only discover, recognize, and accurately describe what has already been created. Since North Carolinians did not create marriage then we cannot define it, we can only recognize and describe it. The question is whether or not we will describe it accurately.
3. Because Christians believe marriage is sacred. Although individual Christians may believe marriage to be sacred we do not as a group. If Christians, as a group, believed that marriage was sacred for the reasons we claim it be so then the divorce rate among our people would not be the same as the rate of those we are trying to convert. If Christians, as a group, believed marriage was sacred “no fault divorce” couples, individuals engaging in sex before marriage, and adulterers would be biblically dealt with in the Church instead of ignored. We are rightly labeled as hypocrites when we focus on homosexuality but ignore heterosexual sins. I dare say I will not be seeing Christians rallying for state laws that would make “no fault divorce”, adultery, and fornication illegal.
4. Because I believe the Church needs the State in order to prevent homosexual or polygamist unions. Marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and God. The State is not necessary for this equation. If I’m not mistaken on my history this was the view of people in western cultures until the state run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in who could and couldn’t get married in order to have control over the institution and help raise revenue through issuance of licenses. This evolved over the centuries and was continued after church and state was separated in the US in order to prevent slaves from marrying. It was continued to be used in order to prevent interracial marriages until it was deemed unconstitutional in 1967 by the US Supreme Court. If we are honest the Church was pleased over these centuries to give the institution of marriage to the state in order to legalize marital racism.

I have more reasons, but I do not have time to write them all out.  I am happy to discuss any/all of my reasons with anyone who agrees/disagrees with my reasons. If you have a question or counter argument your comments are welcome. If you have a rant then your comment will be deleted.

Teach me who You are O' God! (Gen. 1)

Here we go...2nd part of a 586 part series! :)  Makes me think about this video.



I know it's hard to be serious after watching that video, but alas we shall try.  In Genesis chapter one we see God beginning time as we know and understand it. We see God creating the heavens, the earth, and every physical thing that exists in them. We learn that God is the Creator of all things and that without Him and His decision to create the heavens, earth, and everything we experience would not be. We also learn that God commands and blesses the things He creates.

We learn some things about what God is creating, but since our focus is on knowing who God is, those things lay outside the periphery of our vision.  We could also infer some things about God through what we learn concerning the nature of the things He is creating here in Genesis 1, but that also is counter productive to what I hope to gain here because it complicates the process. What I mean by this is that I want to focus in on what God is saying about Himself and not what I can infer about what He is doing and how He is doing it. Although that is a legitimate way of gaining knowledge about God I don't want to have to worry about constantly backtracking on my inferences to make sure they are consistent with each new piece of information I learn along the way. I could be wrong about an inference I make, but it becomes much more difficult for me to be wrong if I stick to understanding God by understanding what He directly says about Himself.

With that in mind we learn a very profound thing about God here in chapter one, namely that God is an "us". God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." in verse 26. Verse 27 goes on to restate that God creates man in His own image.

So God is an "us". How confusing this fact must have been for the Israelites. I know I'm jumping way ahead here, but I just can't help but to wonder what would have gone through my mind if I were an Israelite and all I had were the books of Moses. Learning daily as a child the Great Shema, "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." and then learning that God is an "us". God is one, God is an "us", God is one, God is an "us", God is one, God is an "us". I imagine that I would have had one thought pulsating through my mind at all times, "This is a contradiction, God cannot be one and an "us" at the same time!" But as an Israelite, at this time, my life and many generations of Israelite lives after me would have come and gone without any resolution to this conflict. More revealtion from God is required to solve this problem but many of God's people never had that revelation.

In my life I have found a couple of those types of issues in the Scriptures as well. It seems impossible for me to understand how two pieces of information that are opposed to each other can be reconciled. Is there a contradiction here? Can I be intellectually honest and continue to believe? I've struggled with these things and still have some that I have not reconciled in my mind and so I too, like the Israelites, wait for further revelation from God. Will I ever get an answer to my questions? Probably not, I'm not expecting God to send someone to write more Scripture and so unless the problems are solved by further study then I too will die without answers to my questions.

When I think about the plight of my questions and the plight of the Israelite wondering how God can be an "us" and one at the same time I remember and am heartened by God's word. "without faith it is impossible to please Him..." -Heb. 11:6.

Much more could be said about intellectual honesty and faith and what it means for our lives but that is another conversation and not the focus of this study. 

So God is an "us"?  That's interesting.