Worldwide, Lakewood has an orphanage in Africa, as well as a Medical Ministry serving the continent. We support Ministries all over the world with Missionaries everywhere.

A few years ago after hurricane Ike, Lakewood led in ice and water distribution for those struck in the Houston area, with Pastor Joel and Victoria themselves handing out ice and water in the hot days following the storm.

Joel is an humble person who rarely toots his own horn. Lakewood supports Prison Ministries, among many, many others, and offers members all types of counseling, financial, substance abuse, anger, marital, bereavement, etc. Unless you get into the Church, you haven’t a clue about all Lakewood is into because we don’t make all our accomplishments a part of the sermons. Joel doesn’t wear his service to God on his shoulder like so many out there do.

Our Church is not only about the Television Ministry, but helping people all over the world. I personally believe Lord Jesus would be very pleased with all of the accomplishments of His body–the Church, through Lakewood.

Please come visit our Church. Talk to Joel and Victoria and find out what-all we are doing worldwide, then write about what you think. If you have visited, maybe you didn’t have a chance to meet with Pastor to find out everything Lakewood is doing around the globe for the betterment of all humanity.

God Bless You!

I have much higher than 2% body fat

Johnny, its not a theocracy (thank god). Fortunately for the sake of Democratic preservation and the sustainability of American freedom, the radical and unduly inept people who share your opinion will never see this “Jesus-State” come to fruition.

However, I encourage you to persevere until the afterlife, where all your notions of authoritarian government will have purpose and meaning.

(I hope this conversation is not closed; I realize I’m responding rather late in the discussion.)

Regardless of the lapse of time, my first point is that I am concerned with your grammar, Concerned Student, namely your usage of the semicolon.

Please, this is distracting.

Yet, I do thank you, for you have given me a lead-in to my response regarding the article.

Let us look at the policy again, specifically the phrase in question:

“Activities and attitudes should be consistent with . . . Christian commitment.”

Bear with me as I take us back to middle-school grammar class, for we must pay attention to structure and form in order to understand content, as form is what makes meaning:

Here we have a compound subject: “activities” and “attitudes.” According to the sentence, both of these nouns are what should “be consistent.” The nouns are qualified by “academic integrity” and then “Christian commitment.” If we are getting really nit-picky here (and I certainly am going in that direction), the activities and attitudes are what should be consistent with Christian commitment, not academic integrity consistent with Christian commitment. Yes, academic integrity and Christian commitment are joined by the conjunction “and,” but they are not the same idea. They have been married together due to phrasing, but we must note they are distinctly different.

My point so far is thus: The phrase in debate is not suggesting academic integrity and Christian commitment are the same, nor do they qualify one another. Of course academic dishonesty, the worst of sins (thank you, Steven, for using diction in which most Christians at Samford can relate) and Christian commitment are different. One would be unintelligent or simply lazy to suggest otherwise.

This argument has a gaping hole in it. Of course, there is no “right” answer to any of Mr. Thomas’s initial questions about policy or the role of Christianity on a Christian campus, or any campus for that matter. The heart of the issue is that we should believe what we believe and not apologize for it nor proselytize anyone for believing contrarily.

Of course my worldview, whether that be Christianity, Islam, atheism, or agnosticism to name a few, is going to seep into my writing. How could it not? The argument is not whether the classrooms at Samford have been unfavorable to learning because belief gets in the way, but rather it is that you must believe something, or nothing, with sincere passion. Even if all you believe is learning, be committed. Let us not enforce our arguments by declaring “this might be wrong.” Stand firm, friends. Commit yourselves to your argument!

The Samford experience is unique because, taken to its fullest advantage, it instigates relationships and thought-provoking conversation (“activities” and “attitudes”). I believe there is a disciplined way in which to discuss any belief system in a classroom without infringing on anyone’s rights as a student. If you find someone contrary to your own personal beliefs, why not take that conversation outside of the classroom, let’s say for coffee (after all, caffeine addiction is the avenue towards a new and better conversation)? Openly, without prejudice, ask them why and how they believe the way they do. You might be surprised to meet some really great people with some incredible life experiences. Do not be surprised, for most assuredly you will be shocked, challenged, or left in doubt. As Concerned Student mentioned above, “doubt” and “skepticism” are the “exact antithesis of faith” as the “drivers of exploratory thought processes,” yet if we do not doubt, we become stagnant, and that, friends, is not how we pursue academic endeavors or integrity.

Therefore, I am calling “shenanigans,” but for the sake of a well-disciplined argument, let us return to our grammar books, not our Bibles, for the answers (though quoting Colossians 3 will certainly reinforce the Christian’s commitment to a work ethic aimed at pleasing God, which is certainly a valuable endeavor, never-the-less is not quite in the right forum).

If we are questioning this particular clause in the policy, I have another topic to introduce. The first sentence of the policy claims, “A degree from Samford University is evidence of achievement in scholarship and citizenship.” Citizenship? May I infer that scholarship and citizenship are one and the same? Can this be so? My mind is befuddled. I must ask the following question: What’s the deal with all of these new, foreign-exchange Chinese students?

But every movement or protest or things of the like do need intellectual stamina. My sense is that most of the protesters lack this. That was the sole point of my article.

The economic fallacy I wrote about has little to do with a laissez faire vs. government-regulated economy debate. The fallacy they seem to have is that one person’s wealth exists at the expense of another. While this is true in some cases (such as bailing out using taxpayer funds), it is not true in absolute. Wealth, like jobs, is not some static thing. It’s really an abstract concept that is constantly changing and fluctuating. The fact you have a job (or vice versa, just a hypothetical) is not a cause and affect. Neither does one man or woman’s wealth necessarily come at the expense of another.

If you do want to talk about a free market, I have no problem admitting that markets do fail. They do not always breed the most efficient or the most moral outcome that would otherwise exist in utopia. But the free market is more efficient – and I would argue more moral – than a government-regulated economy. I’m not speaking about good contract laws, good property laws, or good tort laws. But most other regulation provides more of a cost (economic and moral) than benefit (not to mention that such regulations are inherently unconstitutional, but that’s a different topic).

I have no problem with wealthy helping other people. I actually believe that it is long-term beneficial for them to use their resources to help others. I don’t buy the “greed is good” argument, from a moral or economic standpoint. But if we can’t trust the wealthy man who ideally earns his money the right way, I’m not sure why we should trust politicians (who often bail out the big banks anyway). I’m also not sure that whining about poverty is the best avenue. At the end of the day, we live in an imperfect world. There will always be some level of income inequality. It is why we are told not to covet. I know I don’t, and probably never will, have as much as many people. I try to be happy with what I have and work hard. If the protestors can come up with something legitiment to gripe about other than just income inequality in the abstract, then I’ll listen.