"If it has been five years, is it really still a startup," she says in response to me describing what I do while driving to the restaurant on a first date.

I told her I had essentially been thinking the same thing for about six months. The fact the Allen Hunt Show was a startup project was why I enjoyed it so much; but at the same time, the fact it was still a startup increasingly was a point of vexation. A year later, that relationship ended, and so now is my relationship with the Allen Hunt Show.

If you haven't heard yet, we have come to the decision to cease syndicating the Allen Hunt Show outside of the Atlanta market as of May 31. This has been an amazing experience and I am eternally grateful to God and others that have enabled me to do something so inspiring over the past six years.

I remember sitting in Allen's office at the end of May in 2005 when he wanted to know if I'd like to help start a radio show. I simply responded with, "I have never worked in radio, and if I suck at it, please let me know and I will gladly step out, but I would love to try." I do not regret that statement for one second. Man it's been fun.

I am not really ready to publicize what my next step will be. I am highly confident I know what it is, but contracts haven't been signed as we hash through some last details. But I will say that I am very excited about it.

Also what I am very excited about is taking the entire month of June off. I graduated from college in Los Angeles on a Saturday in May of 2005, and by that Thursday I had moved myself across the country, got moved into my apartment, and started my job. It will be nice to have a break.

June will be spent in Indiana with CJ & Andrea having their 3rd child, at the lake in Michigan doing some wakeboarding, and probably England.

You will still be able to read my rantings on my blog at my personal site andyborgmann.com (soon to be switched to andy.borgmann.me). I look forward to our continued friendship as I move on from the Allen Hunt Show.

When I left Mount Pisgah in 2007, I wrote about the song "Life for Rent." In that post I stated, "I will take a full life that doesn't belong to me - but belongs to my Creator - any day over a life I own but comes up empty." 3.5 years later, I agree with that more than ever.

As I leave this time, it isn't "Life for Rent" that I have playing in my head. It's "Time of Our Lives" by Tyronne Wells. I'll sign off with this:

It's hard to walk away from the best of days
But if it has to end, I'm glad you have been my friend
In the time of our lives

Just got back from a working vacation out in California visiting my good college friend Angela. It was a great week of debating theology, smoking cigars, eating great food, watching NCAA March Madness (stupid Duke!), and discussing the greatness that is Dexter. But then I arrived back home and Prince William drops a bombshell on the world and all I can say is YESSSSS!

Apparently the charming Prince doesn't want to wear a wedding ring. I too have never had any desire to wear a wedding ring - even though I very much desire to be a husband.

• I don't wear jewelry
• I don't wear watches. Except during my flight training and it drove me nuts.
• I don't like wearing much while I sleep.
• I definitely don't like tight, hotel room sheets.
• I don't really like clothes to be honest.

If you can't tell, I don't really like anything on my body... well with one exception ;)

But while my personal argument against wedding rings is a claustrophobic one, over the years the conversation has morphed into a larger one about what it really means to be married, to be united, to be one.

Prince William is hardly much of a man. Taking 8-years to decide to marry Kate is just one of the many signs William fits in with most of the male 20-somethings of this era in their lack of ability to grow from boyhood to manhood. But he's not wrong about the ring. And the arguments against it, don't stand.

How will you know if one is married with out a wedding ring?
If the only way people know you are married is based on your wedding ring, a.) you don't have much of a conjoined life, and b.) he obviously doesn't talk very kindly about you. Ladies, you should be with someone who not only shares life with you, but also, who geniunely can't not talk about you in your absence.

Men with out wedding rings are just looking to cheat?
Yes, because the only thing stopping a man who wants to cheat, is that he doesn't know how to take off his wedding ring? Ladies, you should be with someone who has hundreds of reasons why they aren't cheating on you, not someone where you are depending on other women to "back off" when they see the ring.

It's an outward expression or symbol of our love
Their is nothing wrong with this statement in and of itself. But the fact that the "ring" has apparently become the only accepted symbol is the problem. Like all relationships, everyone is different. And the fact that every single relationship is some how magically suppose to accept the same outward expression is just asinine. Ladies, you should be with someone who isn't relying on a ring to be the outward expression of your love.

All this to say, I don't think there is anything wrong with wearing a wedding ring. But I also don't think there is anything wrong with not wearing a wedding ring.

I know I will probably lose this argument when the time comes - just one more reason that shows I am the person she should be marrying - but here's hoping I don't have to.

As I stated earlier, my beef with most "Church theology" is that "they don't actually teach the entirety of the Bible. And I find the more a church "claims" they teach the Bible, most often times the less that church actually covers the whole Bible, but rather just vehemently focuses on the Scriptures that are important to them." So welcome to the long awaited post #2 on Why I Hate Church Theology.

Common Theological Statement Heard In Church: We are saved by grace alone.

I am a Protestant. I am a Protestant for a reason. I have nothing against my Catholic brothers and sisters, and I don't think their theology is heretical. I just don't theologically agree with concepts like purgatory, transubstantiation, being able to pray with the saints, the Papal lineage of Peter, etc...

But one thing Protestants are wrong about is the theological error of salvation by grace alone.

So where do Protestants get the idea of saved by grace alone? Let's start with Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.

But here's the problem with that. If you just quote those two verses (which most pastors do), sure, you can make a case for saved by grace alone. But you have to ignore the larger context of Ephesians to do it.

In the contemporary, many Christians will ask the question, are Jews saved if they don't believe in Jesus? But in the days of the early church, the question was quite the opposite. The real source of controversy was how in the world can Gentiles (anyone who wasn't Jewish) be saved. And if they can be saved, mustn't they become Jewish by circumcision and obeying the law?

Thus you have the larger context of Ephesians (and Galatians for that matter). Paul has to lay out the case to Ephesus and Galatia that the Gentiles are not brought into the kingdom by anything they do, they are simply brought into the kingdom because Jesus Christ gracefully allowed them in.

So if salvation were just an instant moment of entrance, yes, you could once again make the case for salvation by grace alone. But like all relationships, contracts, and covenants, the instant moment of entrance is just the beginning. Once in, there are guidelines on how to stay. Let's move on to Jesus.

In Matthew 25:31-46 we have the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. It is clear that Jesus has an expectation of his followers to take care of the hungry, thirsty, naked, and the lost. But more than just an expectation, He includes this statement at the end that takes it to another level:

Matthew 25:41-43 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.

Jesus himself makes it pretty clear that their are definitely works required if you look at salvation as an ongoing and eternal allowance into the kingdom.

So what's the balance? I am going to create my own parable to explain.

Let's say I have a wealthy friend named David. David comes to me one day and says, "Andy, I am going to pay you $50 million a year to do secretarial work for me. You haven't earned this position. The work required in the position shouldn't be worth $50 million. And you won't do the position perfectly. All I ask is that you try, and every year, assuming you try, because I love you, the $50 million is yours."

Now it is clear from the beginning that I didn't earn the initial position (you could say it was by grace alone, I received it). I was being grossly overpaid (you could say I didn't earn the fullness of my reward). And I wasn't competent enough to do it right (you could say my efforts would never be enough). The only thing that I could do to disqualify myself for the $50 million is to blow off my buddy David and say, I don't have to even try, he's going to give me the $50 million no matter what I do.

That's the balance between faith and works. That's what cheesy, simple, Church theology seems to miss.

And why does this even matter? Because of intelligent atheist and agnostics.

You talk to an honest atheist or agnostic and they will tell you one thing they don't like about the church is the bait 'n switch method of presenting the Gospel. Everyone "promises it is so easy." Just "pray and believe." And then WAM! After that, it turns into:

...you better stop being a drunk
...and you better stop screwing around
...and you better get in a Bible Study
...and a D-Group
...and a Sunday School class
...and you better take care of the poor
...and you better come to church every Sunday
...and you better be a good father
...and you better like Christian music
...and you better not go to R-rated movies
...and you better think Kirk Cameron is awesome
...etc
...etc

I chose a more honest conversation with what a real spiritual life is like than just "pray, believe and saved forever." Truth be told, it is easier than it should be, but harder than it is usually presented.

So what's the bottom line. We don't earn our initial entry into the kingdom, we can never fully earn our continued status in the kingdom, but we damn well better try our best to be obedient and let grace make up the rest.

As I stated earlier, my beef with most "Church theology" is that "they don't actually teach the entirety of the Bible. And I find the more a church "claims" they teach the Bible, most often times the less that church actually covers the whole Bible, but rather just vehemently focuses on the Scriptures that are important to them.". So welcome to post #1 of Why I Hate Church Theology.

Common Theological Statement Heard In Church: God doesn't change his mind.

The theory is that since God is perfect, and His will is perfect, then nothing needs to be changed.

But here's the problem. The Bible gives at least two examples of God changing his mind.

Exodus 32:14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

It LITERALLY says God changed his mind. Where are all the literalists now? Better yet, the story of Israel getting a king is another example of God changing his mind.

It is fairly clear that God didn't want Israel to have a king. He wanted to be their King. He wanted them set apart from other nations. Yet, we see in 1Samuel 8 that God relents and allows for a King after Israel demanded one.

1Sam 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
...
1Sam 8:22 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to their voice and appoint them a king." So Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."

So not only do we have a literal statement that God changed his mind (Ex 32:14) and an example of God changing his mind (1Sam 8), but maybe best of all is Jesus himself.

Arguably Jesus knew God better than anyone - partially because as Christians we believe Jesus was in fact God incarnate (let's not debate this for now).

Sure God's answer to this prayer was no - and inevitably Jesus was killed on the cross. But it is clear enough to me that Jesus thought that God had the ability to change His mind.

Matthew 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.

If God was unable or unwilling to change His mind, surely Jesus would have known this and surely He wouldn't have wasted His last moments on earth praying for something that was not possible.

So what now? How do those who claim to be "biblically-based" come to the conclusion that God doesn't change his mind? Let's listen to this and see the circles that one has to jump through to hold the belief God doesn't change his mind.



Let's ignore the fact that the anthropomorphism argument is a poor principle to stand on given it is clear God has something to which we understand as a "mind." If He has a plan, He has what we would understand is a will, and a will needs a "mind." Let's also ignore that if we are created in His image, and we have a mind, then there is reason to believe God has a "mind." But lets take a closer look at what Randy does here (which is quite common).

He states that, "The Bible teaches that God is immutable (doesn't change)." Yet he doesn't actually respect the text enough to quote where it says that. He just assumes that is common held theology and doesn't have to actually quote the Bible. He then goes on to quote from Exodus 32 and tells us why the Scripture is wrong (ok, he would say why our interpretation is wrong, but really what He is saying is that this passage of Scripture isn't saying what it is obviously saying).

Had Randy not been so flippant he could have at least quoted from Malachi 3:6 where it is states

Malachi 3:6 For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

So how does one balance what they read in Malachi (and elsewhere) with what we read in Exodus, 1Samuel and Matthew? Here's my best attempt (and open to others) at balancing both of these scriptures.

God in his character does not change. When God makes a commitment (which is what Malachi is referring to), he honors that commitment because breaking that would call into question His righteousness. But God most definitely changes his mind in His interaction with His people.

The best simple analogy I can think of is imagine for a second you have a dad who told you the family was going on vacation. He said we were going to Florida. But you and the rest of the kids want to go to Colorado. Through petition and communication (prayer if you will), he changed his mind and decided to go to Colorado. He still honored his commitment to vacation and to spending time with the family. But he was open to changing His plans. He still determined when vacation was, and if ultimately a vacation was taken. He still had the power to override and say nope, sorry folks, we are going to Florida. But he is at least open to change.

This doesn't mean that God always changes His mind, or even most often changes His mind. All this means is that God does in fact have the ability to change His mind - despite what church theology sometimes assumes we all believe.

To come to huge theological principles while ignoring the entirety of Scripture like Exodus 32, 1Samuel 8, and Matthew 26 is why I hate church theology.

For those with an RSS-reader like me, I am sure you awoke yesterday to it filled with stories about the Pew Research Study that shows Atheist and Agnostics know more about religion than those classified as religious.

While I had to chuckle a bit at the level of importance Pew puts on some elements of religious history - i.e. knowing Jonathan Edwards lead the Great Awakening is hardly foundational - the overall conclusion of the study is correct: Christians know little about what or why they believe. "Worse yet" is that Atheists and Agnostics know more about Christian beliefs than Christians.

Now this is hardly surprising to me. A simple look at society can tell you why they know more. In America, Atheists and Agnostics are Atheist and Agnostics for a reason. There is no societal pressure to just say you are Atheist. There is little tradition - family or otherwise - in their lives forcing guiding them towards being what they are. They thought about it. They actively made a decision. They know why they made that decision.

What I would find statistically interesting is if you compared knowledge levels of people who are Atheists to those who are Christians but grew up in Atheist (or at least nominally Christian) homes but actively chose to become Christians on their own.

But what this Pew study fails to address is what I have been saying for years Pew should be studying - which is the inconsistent teaching of theology in Churches.

There are 31,173 verses in the Bible. I have read all 31,173 verses in the Bible - on more than one occasion. I spent years studying not just the 31,173 verses in the Bible, but also the cultural contexts in which they were written, the communities written to and/or from, and how the entirety of the Bible fits together - even when it seems to contradict.

But as I step aside as a Biblical scholar, and put on the modern Anthropology scholar hat on for a second (read: pop-culture enthusiast), there is a stark problem with the modern church. They don't actually teach the entirety of the Bible. And I find the more a church "claims" they teach the Bible, most often times the less that church actually covers the whole Bible, but rather just vehemently focuses on the Scriptures that are important to them.

What Pew should do is a long-term, in-depth study on the amount of scripture that is used in sermons because I bet out of the 31,173 verses in the Bible - less than 3,000 ever get touched on by the majority of churches combined.

What the church really teaches is theology - but theology that is based on historically held beliefs, societal pressures, and more recently crappy worship songs more than actual biblical understanding.

In the coming days I am going to start a mini-series titled: Why I Hate Church Theology. I'm going to be far more biblical than I usually am on this blog. But I think even if you are Atheist or Agnostic you will appreciate the discussion.


Related post: Why do I like Atheists more than Christians?

Ok! Cheesy title I know. But hey. It takes you back doesn't it. Nothing like copying a copier. But A-N-Y-WAYS, I know it has been forever since I blogged. I am pretty sure that is going to change as I have a bit more time on my hands these days, but I have enjoyed being away that's for sure.

We have made a lot of changes to allenhuntshow.com and I wanted to brief you on some of them. So, feel free to watch this short video on about 6 or 7 additions to the site. Feel free to email me at andy@allenhuntshow.com if you have any other suggestions on how to improve allenhuntshow.com

And if you went away, be looking back more often as I will probably be writing once or twice a week. With out further ado, here's the video...

This will most certainly sound pretentious. Most often we think that we pick music, but every so often I think music picks us. Take Steve Winwood's "Back In The High Life."

If this song reminds me of anything, it reminds me of driving with the windows down with Dad in the old 3-series - and for some reason more particularly driving down Getz Rd in Fort Wayne, IN.

The last time I heard this song was June 18, 1996 (that probably isn't accurate).

While looking for Ryan Hood's Back Into Blue about two months ago (which by the way is impossible to find), I stumbled onto "Back In The High Life" on iTunes. Played the sample. Brought me back. Downloaded it.

Of course as a child I never really listened to the lyrics that closely. As I listened again, it was like listening for the first time. I was taken back by the opening lines.

It used to seem to me
That my life ran on too fast
And I had to take it slowly
Just to make the good parts last
But when you're born to run
It's so hard to just slow down
So don't be surprised to see me
Back in that bright part of town

I don't know about you, but for me I am not sure there is a song that describes life better.

The past three months have been back in the high life. I am now officially a pilot per the FAA. Started a beautiful relationship. Relaxed at night more with friends. Gone to the beach a few times. Climbed a "mountain" here in Georgia. Went to the Orchestra and the Theatre and the Braves game. Guest hosted the Allen Hunt Show. Ate great food. Spent time with great people.

It's strange how you have to fight for that sometimes. You'd think it would be easier to choose the "good parts." And maybe for most of you it is. But I find life almost naturally forces you to ignore the good parts. To keep pushing forward faster and faster even though your not sure what exactly your pushing forward towards.

I'll be writing a bit more now that pilot lessons are over and a few projects are out of the way. I know a lot has happened in the past couple of months. I need to admit I was wrong about my predictions regarding healthcare. I need to post my annual Presidental taxes blog. And I'll get to that. But for now, it's nice to be "back in the the bright part of town."


Photos of the past couple of months can be found here
Flight tracker of the piloting can be found here

Let me guess the question you may have been asking during my two month absence on the blogosphere: where the hell have you been?

I have written and re-written this post at least five or six times over the past two weeks and I can't quite figure out how to communicate what I want to say openly with out sounding pretentious/arrogant/ridiculous so I'll just say this. The simpler answer to that question is: living.

After a very rough fall, and a great conversation with Dick Pritchard - a professor of mine who was visiting in November - I started to make some changes in my life.

Changes in work. Changes in relationships. Changes in priorities.

But single-handedly the greatest thing that I have finally stopped putting off and just took the plunge to do was getting my pilots license. It's been a dream of mine since I was 12. 15 Years later I am going for it. Maybe just a tad earlier than I feel financially comfortable doing so. But I am going for it.

But that in and of itself was part of the change. Rarely are my decisions based on the moment. Nothing is done just "because I want to."

Some of you dwell in the past. Most of you are probably fairly balanced. Me? I am obsessed with the future. And while much of that will never change as it is a part of who I am, the conversation with Dick corrected the path a bit.

I'll still be writing on here some, but probably not as much as I did in the past. Partially because I have lost some of my zeal and passion for this particular area of my life. For a while I have been "forcing it." But also because fast tracking the pilots license and some of the other changes have left little extra time. And I am perfectly ok with that.

If you want to follow the flying progress you can do so at www.andyborgmann.com/Flight/. It's kind of boring now (although I did go to Thomasville and Huntsville), but I promise in the next month it will get a bit more exciting. I've only almost killed myself twice, so I feel like so far that is a good record :) As they always say, "any landing you can walk away from is a good one."

Christmas is coming and I hate Christmas shopping. Truth be told, I was more excited about the 787 taking it's first flight today than I am about Christmas. Does that make me Scrooge? Ehhh...so be it.

But I have to admit I love the new Gap commercial for "comfy sweaters." Scratch that. Like Racked NY said, the phrase "I love my comfy sweaters" simultaneously fills me with joy and yet also makes me want to put a bullet in my brain.

If you haven't seen it yet, well then I am pretty sure the CIA needs to talk to you because you obviously have been living in the cave Osama Bin Laden is living in. But just in case here you go...


But then it got even better. What's better than cute girls excited over Christmas? That's right: 20-something boys imitating cute, excited girls. Enjoy!



Enjoy the holiday fun. I'll be sure to write something more thought provoking later.