The Evils of Halloween . . . Jack Chick Style!

This was originally posted on Disturbed Christians yesterday.

Tomorrow, it will be Halloween once again. A time for carving pumpkins, dressing up, and trick-or-treating door-to-door. A fun innocent time, right?

Or is it?????? (Note the extra question marks for dramatic affect)

Join me as I go through this classic Jack Chick tract exposing the Satanic agenda that is Halloween (with MST3K commentary throughout).



Basil Bub? That alone should win the Most Obvious Use of Foreshadowing.


Here's the #1 rule of horror films: when you hear that such-and-such a place is the sight of a grisly murder, you will NOT be okay!

Performing a satanic animal sacrifice usually doesn't help, either. Also, what kind of serial killer forgets his chainsaw? I mean, that's just bad etiquette.

If that isn't the most bad-ass line since, "Say hello to my little friend," I don't know what is!

Well at least the cat got out safe.

Oh no, it's a campy cartoon Satan! Run for your lives!

The saints? You mean the New Orleans Saints? WHO DAT!

He looks more confused than shocked. Maybe Satan frequents that church a lot.

Getting rid of Satan is that easy? I'll have to remember that next time.

Wait, a couple of panels ago Satan said it was his birthday. Make up your mind, Jack!

Pastors had soul patches even back then?

For a guy who dresses like he's from Seattle, he sure looks like he needs a coffee fix!


You mean when I hand out Snickers to kids, I'm really giving them tickets to Hell? Holy crap!

Well I haven't read anything about spikes in human sacrifice numbers, so I guess we're okay for now.
FACT CHECK: Jack-O-Lanterns really come from the old Irish legend of Stingy Jack (source: Wikipedia).

So when kids come to my door for Halloween this year, I'm going to dose them with holy water. You can't be too careful, you know!



Interesting enough, the phrase "personal savior" is nowhere in the Bible.



There you have it, folks. So let's celebrate October 31st the Christian way: by nailing 95 theses to the nearest Catholic church's door!

How We View God

Ever notice how everyone picks up something different from the Bible? I mean, most of us agree on the basics, but I think there are certain attributes of God that different people pick up on more than others.

For example, when I started reading the Bible years ago, one thing that I really picked up on was the idea of God as the "father to the fatherless" (Psalm 68:5). My dad wasn't around when I was growing up, so the idea that God is the father I never had really gave me hope. Another thing that I immediately picked up on was the fact that Jesus' disciples weren't the righteous religious types who had their crap together--they were outcasts. Jesus passed by the temples of the high and mighty, and instead went to the prostitutes, the tax collectors, and the poor. For a teenage goth kid who equated Jesus with the high-and-mighty self-righteous types, this was definitely a new revelation!

Lately I've been studying liberation theology, and one idea from the Bible that is stressed a lot is that God liberates His people from oppression. One of the most well known examples is the Exodus story* where God, through Moses, leads the Hebrews to freedom. Later on in the Gospels we see God do the same thing through Jesus, but it's a different kind of oppression. When the Pharisees tell Jesus they've never been slaves, Jesus responds with, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). So God is still setting His people free, but this time it's from an internal oppression known as sin.

When you read the Bible, what are some things about God immediately that pop out to you?


*In fact, during the days of the Underground Railroad, slaves identified themselves with the Israelites escaping to freedom. Just look at the old spirituals like "Go Down Moses."

Another Opinionated Loudmouth

One of the best things about blogging is that it gives anyone the opportunity to voice their opinions. It gives unheard voices a chance to tell their stories. One of the worst things about blogging, however, is that it gives anyone the opportunity to voice their opinions. After a while, any smart-alack with wi-fi starts thinking he’s Mr. Know-It-All. And by “any smart-alack,” I mean me.

In case you haven't noticed, I sometimes act like I know more than I really do. Last year I tried to make it in the political pundit game, but that was a disaster. Then when I started reading biblical scholars like Scot McKnight, John Howard Yoder, and Marcus Borg, I suddenly thought that I was a brilliant theologian. Turns out I'm just an amateur theologian at best. I'm pretty good at writing about revelations I receive while reading scripture, but that doesn't mean I have enough know-how to tell people how to read scripture. And when I try to do that, I end up falling flat on my face.

The other day I got to thinking about a Bible verse I stumbled upon about a year ago:

“A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.” - Proverbs 18:2 (NIV)

Ever read something in the Bible that made you feel like God was trying to serve you a big old slice of humble pie? Yeah . . .

So from now on I'm going to write what I know instead of what I want people to think I know. I'm still interested in learning about theology, but mostly I'm going to focus on listening instead of being another opinionated loudmouth.

Monday Morning Awesomeness: 10/25/10

Today's spooktacular Monday Morning Awesomeness is brought to you by Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven," as performed by Vincent Price

My Time Has Not Yet Come

"After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus' brothers said to him, 'You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.' For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Therefore Jesus told them, 'The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.' Having said this, he stayed in Galilee."--John 7:1-9

There He goes again, saying it's not His time yet.

In this passage, Jesus' half-brothers tell Him He should go to Judea and perform all sort of miracles. That ought to convince everyone (including His half-brothers) He's the Son of God, right? But Jesus says, "No, my time hasn't come yet. You all go on without Me." This is a common theme in the Gospels, that His time hasn't come yet. Throughout the Bible Jesus privately shows His disciples His glory, whether through healing people or the transfiguration on the mountain or whatever, but each time He keeps telling His disciples not to tell anyone. Why? Why not tell everyone about all the incredible things you've seen?

Because that's not how Jesus was going to reveal Himself. It wasn't until He was hanging dead on the cross that people said, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54). Jesus rejected world's definition of power and might, and instead showed His majesty by dying a criminal's death. What kind of king would reveal himself like that?

As I mentioned a while ago, the Kingdom of God is an upside-down kingdom. The disciples were expecting Jesus to establish His kingdom through violence and force, the same way other kingdoms are established. But in this upside-down kingdom, Jesus displays His sovereignty through radical subordination* on the cross. And it's only then that people believe in Him.


*As John Howard Yoder would call it.

Rest In Peace, Ari Up

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a huge punk rock fan. And not just the popular stuff like the Ramones and the Clash, either (although they are two of my favorite bands); I'm talking about bands like Bad Brains, Minor Threat, Minutemen, Wire, etc. Even though none of them sold many records, nine out of ten current bands wouldn't be here.

Without a doubt one of the most underrated punk bands--or any other band for that matter--is The Slits. They pioneered what later became known as "riot grrl" punk. If it wasn't for the Slits, there would be no Bikini Kill, no Sleater-Kinney, and no Babes in Toyland.

I mention this because I just found out Ari Up, the dreadlocked lead singer of the Slits, has died. And so in tribute, here is one of their most famous songs, "Typical Girls."



Don't create
Don't rebel
Have intuition
Can't decide

Typical girls get upset to quickly
Typical girls can't control themselves
Typical girls are so confusing
Typical girls - you can always tell
Typical girls don't think too clearly
Typical girls are all predictable

Typical girls try to be
Typical girls very well

Typical girls are looking for something
Typical girls fall under spells
Typical girls buy magazines
Typical girls feel like hell
Typical girls worry about spots, fat, and natural smells
Taking fake smells

Typical girls try to be
Typical girls very well

Don't create
Don't rebel
Have intuition
Don't drive well

Typical girls try to be
Typical girls very well

Can't decide what clothes to wear
Typical girls are sensitive
Typical girls are emotional
Typical girls are cruel and bewitching
She's a femme fatale
Typical girls stand by their man
Typical girls are really swell
Typical girls learn how to act shocked
Typical girls don't rebel

Who invented the typical girl?
Who's bringing out the new improved model?
And there's another marketing ploy
Typical girl gets the typical boy

The typical boy gets the typical girl
The typical girl gets the typical boy

Rest in peace, Ari.

Yes, Christine, There Is a Separation of Church and State

I've deliberately avoided talking Christine O'Donnell on this blog (although I've made fun of her a few times on Facebook), but after this debacle I just have to say something.



For those too lazy to watch the entire video, it's from a recent debate between O'Donnell and her Democratic opponent Chris Coons. At one point, Coons mentions that the U.S. Constitutions says the church and the state should be separated. O'Donnell responds, "Where does it say that in the Constitution?"

COONS: "It's in the First Amendment. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .'"

O'DONNELL: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

*record scratch*

Oh. My. God.

Now, I'm not an expert in the Constitution. I'm just a smart-aleck blogger. Nevertheless, let me try to clear things up to anyone else who might be confused.

First, let's start with the actual text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Emphasis mine)

True, the First Amendment does not literally say "separation of church and state." However, as Thomas Jefferson explained in an 1802 letter to the Danburry Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (Emphasis mine)

In order to protect religious freedom, the institutions of the Church and the State must be separate institutions with different functions. The State serves to protect rights and keep order, while the Church serves to nourish the soul. If the Church and State become one institution, you'll get either religious persecution or a theocracy. Or both. And I don't know about you, but I don't want either one!

However, that's not to say that people of faith cannot vote based on their values. Far from it! I believe, as people of faith, we should speak out about issues we feel strongly about. As Martin Luther King once said, "The Church is neither the master of the State, nor the slave of the State, but the conscience of the State." We should keep the two institutions separate, that's all.

Hopefully that clears things up.

Monday Morning Awesomeness: 10/18/10

This week's spooktacular Monday Morning Awesomeness is brought to you by the Crazy World of Arthur Brown.

Say it with me now: I AM THE GOD OF HELLFIRE, AND I BRING YOU FIRE!

Blog Action Day

As you may or may not know, today is Blog Action Day. On this day bloggers from all over the world write about one subject in order to raise awareness for social issues. This year’s topic: water.

If you’re like me, you don’t have to worry much about when and how you’ll get your water. Just walk over to the kitchen sink and pour yourself a glass. Or even get a bottle of it at a soda machine. Unfortunately, people in developing countries, such as Rwanda and Bangladesh, aren’t so lucky. According to Charity:Water:

Millions of women and children in developing countries walk over three miles every day to collect water. And sadly, often the only water they have is sitting stagnant in contaminated ponds and flowing through streams and rivers polluted by cows and human waste.

Unsafe water and a lack of basic sanitation causes 80% of all disease in the world and kills 4,500 children every day. And the time spent collecting water keeps children out of school and women from pursuing economic activities.

In a world that’s 75% covered by water, something ain’t right!

Fortunately, there are ways to help:

-Click on the widget on the right hand side bar (you’ll actually have to go to my blog to do this, if you are reading this on Google Reader), and sign the petition for the UN to provide safe, clean water to developing countries.

-Make a donation to organization such as Charity:Water, Blood:Water Mission, and Water World Council.

As Christians, we are called to care for “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40), so I think it’s time to give everyone clean, safe water.

A Tale of Two Narratives

As you may remember, earlier this year I spent a few weeks discussing Brian McLaren’s new book A New Kind of Christianity. While I enjoyed the book a lot, there was one thing that I had trouble wrapping my head around: the so-called “Greco-Roman” narrative. According to McLaren, most Christians read the biblical narrative as this:

1. Creation: God creates a perfect world.
2. Fall: Mankind disobeys God and falls out of paradise.
3. Condemnation: Every human being afterwards is totally depraved and condemned to Hell.
4. Salvation: God intervenes to save mankind from Hell.
5. Afterlife: The saved elect will go to a perfect paradise called Heaven, while the unsaved will go to a burning lake of fire called Hell where they will be tortured for all eternity.

According to McLaren, this narrative comes more from Greco-Roman philosophy than the Bible. Here’s how he describes the narrative according to Greco-Roman philosophy:

1. Creation: Plato said that true reality is non-material, eternal, and unchanging. So in this stage, Theos (the Greco-Roman god) creates a perfect platonic world where everything is eternal, and nothing changes.
2. Fall: Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed ultimate reality is material, and it is always changing. So in this stage in the Greco-Roman narrative, we go from a perfect non-material/unchanging reality to a material/always-changing reality.
3. Condemnation: Theos hates change, so now he’s up there on a cloud with lightening bolts in his hand, and he’s ready to get his smite on!
4. Salvation: Theos has a change of heart (which is ironic for a guy who hates change), and provides a way for humans to reach that non-material/unchanging state of being.
5. Afterlife: The saved go back to that eternal non-material/unchanging state of being, while the unsaved go down to the pit of Hades.

(Keep in mind that this is McLaren’s account of the narrative according to Greco-Roman philosophy. I don’t know much about Greek philosophy, so I don’t know if he is right on the money or way out of left field.)

According to McLaren, the biblical narrative is more of a three-dimensional story-line with three themes repeated over and over again. The first is Creation: God made heaven and earth, and continues to make all things new. The second is Liberation: God frees us from both external oppression (Pharaoh) and internal oppression (sin). The third is the Peaceable Kingdom: God’s Kingdom will come to earth, and He will teach us to beat our swords in plowshares (Isaiah 2:4).

On one hand, I think McLaren’s Greco-Roman narrative theory is a bit of a caricature. Except for a few charismatic/fundamentalist/legalistic loonies, most Christians I know don’t believe that material/changing reality is the root of all the problems in the world--sin is. Plus, as Scot McKnight asks, where’s Jesus in this Greco-Roman biblical narrative?

But on the other hand, I do think McLaren has a point. When chatting with some Christians (not all, of course, but some), I often hear two things come up again and again: 1). nothing on earth matters because God’s gonna destroy all the elements someday, and 2). Christianity is just fire insurance, and nothing else. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I’m not denying that Jesus saves us from condemnation, or that God will create a new heaven and earth in the end (Revelation 21:1). But I think fire insurance approach to the Gospel doesn’t tell the whole story. Based on what I read in the scriptures, here’s how I would describe the biblical narrative:

1. Creation: From a word out of His lips, God makes earth, the heavens, the seas, and everything in between. The first job He gives to mankind was is to take care of the earth.
2. Fall: Mankind decides not to listen to God, and therefore God’s good world falls into despair.
3. Oppression: In this fallen world, mankind is oppressed both externally (the Pharaoh) and internally (sin). Fortunately, God is getting ready to do something big.
4. Salvation: God comes to earth as a man to liberate us from oppression. He does so in the least likeliest way: by dying on a cross. But after three days, Jesus emerges from the tomb, conquering sin and death.
5. Restoration: Through Jesus and His people, God begins to restore the world He created. On the Last Day, His Kingdom will be complete. There will be no more sorrow or death or war or pain. (Of course the Bible is quite clear that those who reject Jesus and His message will not enter the Kingdom.)

There’s probably a lot of stuff that I forgot to mention, but from what I understand about the Bible that’s pretty much the overarching biblical narrative. It has hints of both the Greco-Roman narrative and the three-dimensional narrative, but it’s all boils down to this: God is making all things new.

The Wedding in Cana: Foreshadowing Good Friday and Easter?

If I can be honest, sometimes I get lazy about reading the Bible. I figure I've read the stories so many times that I already know what God's trying to tell me, so why bother? That's usually when God points out things I hadn't noticed before.

For example, this morning I was reading the story of the wedding in Cana. Most people remember this as Jesus performing a magic trick to keep the party going (in David Cross' version, the disciples also ask Jesus to turn sage into pot). But as I read the passage, some things stood out to me:

"On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, 'They have no more wine.'

'Dear woman, why do you involve me?' Jesus replied, 'My time has not yet come.'

His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.'

Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water'; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, 'Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.' They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, 'Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.'"--2:1-10)

First, take a look at the first four words: "On the third day. . . ." Third day? Hmm, where have I heard that before? Second, when Mary tells Jesus that the wine is gone, He responds with, "My time has not yet come." That's pretty cryptic. What does He mean by that? I've heard commentators say He meant it wasn't time for Him to reveal Himself on the cross yet. But what does the cross have anything to do with wine? The third thing I noticed was Jesus didn't make wine out of any kind of water. As John points out, this is the water the Jews used to make them ceremonially clean. I also couldn't help but remember what Jesus said during the last supper when He took the cup: "This [wine] is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

So put all these things together--the third day, the ceremonial washing water, the blood of the new covenant--and it seems like this isn't just some magic trick Jesus did to keep the party going: Jesus was foreshadowing His own death and resurrection.

What do you think?

Monday Morning Awesomeness: 10/11/10

For the next few weeks I'll be posting Halloween-themed videos for Monday Morning Awesomeness. To kick things off here is Screamin' Jay Hawkins.

From Conservative to Moderate and Back Again

Yesterday Scot McKnight blogged about Christianity Today’s cover story on Albert Mohler. McKnight noted that the story is a good indication of the changing face of Evangelicalism: it’s shifting more towards conservative theology. Excerpt:

Today’s scene is not what it was. It’s a new era. When Al Mohler is on the cover of CT, when he represents the shrewd and powerful takeover of a former liberal-to-moderate seminary, when he has publicly claimed any form of evolution is inconsistent with the gospel, and when he is seen as the voice of American evangelicalism, a new world stands before the American evangelical. It’s actually an old world.

During my ten years of following Jesus, I, too, have noticed a change. Around 2000-2004, Evangelicalism was leaning towards fundamentalism. You had ultra-conservative theology mixed with ultra-conservative politics, and you often didn’t know where one ended and the other began. For example, the Left Behind book series preached an eschatology that made people believe the war in Iraq was part of God’s plan to start the end times. In other words, if you didn’t support the Iraq war, you obviously didn’t want Jesus to come back and take everyone to Heaven. This sort of eschatology also discouraged any environmental stewardship because, hey, Jesus is gonna come back anyway and blow up the planet, so why bother with trying to save the planet?

(And yes, I’m still jaded from those days.)

Around 2005, however, things begin to change. Many of the conversations within the emerging church movement started spilling over into the mainstream. Suddenly Evangelicals were talking about fighting poverty, caring for the environment, fair trade, and loving “the other” (including gays and people of different religions). Many Evangelicals even voted for Obama (although still disagreed with his position on abortion) in 2008. Evangelical Christianity--both theologically and politically--was going in a more moderate direction. We were finally discovering a middle ground between far-right-winged fundamentalism and “anything goes” liberal theology.

Within the past couple of years, though, Evangelical Christianity has been leaning back towards conservatism. Politically, the Tea Party movement once again made following Jesus all about being pro-gun and pro-capitalist. And thanks to the Neo-Calvinist movement, Christians are back to debating about gender roles and predestination. There’s also a bigger emphasis on doctrine; loving people is good, but you gotta have the right theology first. It seems like that middle ground is slowly disappearing.

Now I don’t want you to think that I’m suggesting conservative theology is bad in and of itself. Some of my friends are more conservative than I am, and we still get along great. But the thing that worries me is will reach a point where we say, “If you don’t interpret scripture my way, you’re not a true Christian?” Will we cling onto our doctrines so tightly that we forget how to love people? Will politics trump grace? I’m seeing this with some Christians I meet online, and it’s scary to think that some people are more concerned with being right than with sharing God’s love.

What do you think? Can there be a middle ground?

Stupid Facebook Memes (A Short Rant)

If you're on Facebook, you may have noticed you're female friends are posting weird status updates beginning with, "I like it on the. . . ."

"I like it on the couch."

"I like it on the kitchen table."

"I like it on the floor."

Turns out they're not talking about where they like to make whoopie--they're talking about where they put their purse at home. And, just like last year's bra color meme, it's all to raise awareness for breast cancer.

And here's my question: WHY?????

What do bras and purses have to do with breast cancer? If you really want to raise awareness for this horrible disease, why not just talk about breast cancer? Since I'm currently trying to raise awareness for teen suicide, should I start a meme asking people what kind of razor they use to shave with?

Stop the stupid memes and DO SOMETHING!




Okay, I'm done with my rant. Who wants pancakes?

Theology Thursday: Liberation of the Cross

Last week while we talked about Penal Substitutionary Atonement, I mentioned briefly that while I believe it was one reason why Jesus had to die, I don’t believe it was the only reason. I think the Gospel narrative is a little bit more than the common “Romans road” narrative most Christians use*. Let me explain.

For the past couple of months I’ve been re-reading the four gospels and taking notes. There’s one theme I keep seeing pop up in the Gospel: liberation. In Luke, Jesus first proclaims the good news when He reads this passage from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (61:1-2, emphasis mine)

From what I’ve read, first century Jews would have recognized this passage as a reference to the Messiah liberating Israel from its oppressors. And since the Jews were under Roman rule at the time, Jesus’ disciples were sure that He was going to violently throw Caeser and his goons out of Israel.

Well, things didn’t exactly turn out the way the disciples expected. The Romans captured and crucified Jesus. It seemed like the revolution was over. But then something miraculous happened: Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus brought liberation, but not the kind of political liberation the disciples were expecting**. The liberation Jesus brought was an internal liberation: liberation from sin and death. As Jesus explained to the two men on the road to Emmaus, the Messiah had to take on sin and death in order to liberate mankind. The oppression of sin died with Jesus on the cross, and now we are new men and women, free from the oppression of sin and death.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.



*Interestingly enough, Jesus never mentions mankind being separated from God because of Adam and Eve’s sin.

**Although I don’t believe the Gospel is entirely apolitical. See John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus for more info.

Monday Morning Awesomeness: 10/04/10

Today's Monday Morning Awesomeness is brought to you by Pedro the Lion. Enjoy!

Introducing Hope Exists

If you either follow me on Twitter or are friends with me on Facebook (links to both on the side menu), you've probably noticed this new thing I've started called Hope Exists. For a while I've felt God call me to do something to reach out to people who are feel alone, unloved, lost, and completely broken. I've pushed it aside for months, but with the recent death of Tyler Clementi I feel like God is telling me, "Do it now!"

So I've created Hope Exists, which is a place where people can come, tell their stories, and have hope. It's broken people supporting other broken people. I know that with my trials and tribulations, I would not be here if it wasn't for people supporting me. So I've decided it's time to return the favor.

The blog can be found here.

The community Facebook page (which includes a message board) can be found here.

And you can follow Hope Exists on Twitter here.

Hopefully it will save a life.