I've been following the whole debate on global warming, aka climate change for some time, admittedly and purposefully at a distance. I have been interested not so much in the data (how it's presented, whether it is accurate or doctored, and other) but because of the bigger worldview implications implicit in the arguments. My personal sentiment on the issue can be summed up basically as: "What's all the fuss about?"
Even if one were to grant that the scientific community is correct in all the data presented thusfar, even include all the data sets where accusations of tampering or doctoring or deletion have been levied, what can the scientist determine from the data? Humankind is negatively effecting his/her surrounding environment. That's pretty much it. Graphs and charts and data sets can be presented to more clearly present to what extent the effect has been negative, but still in all the scientists task ends at the conclusion, prescribing what to do next is for another. Supposing we stipulate all the above, namely that mankind is negatively effecting the environment. What can be said following this? This is what I find fascinating about the discussion, what to do with the information.
We first must remember that the same scientists who collect, interpret and present the data say that God does not exist, that it is an intellectually lazy position to ascribe any information we don't have or can't explain to the work of a deity because if it exists in nature we will eventually be able to explain it with science. Everything that is here today is a result of time and chance, in fact we are here through a purely natural process of evolution and natural selection; a process which is accidental, thoughtless, purposeless and has been described as "blind, pitiless and indifferent". Why is that at all important? Well, it occurs to me that there are only three ways to look at human effect and concerns for the environment on a naturalistic or materialistic worldview.
First, strictly utilitarian, i.e. save the environment to preserve the species. This view is frought with horrible implications, however. What means are to be employed to save the environment? If saving the environment is the end, then any and all means prescribed by those experts who deem it necessary are right and binding on all humankind. People could be reduced to carbon consumers making carbon footprints. Who will make the decision on what steps to take? Who will monitor compliance? Perhaps a new division of the EPA akin to the IRS called the Internal Environmental Service (IES) that will require each individual to present documentation giving a truthful account of exactly how much energy that carbon consumer used in the calendar year. Does one recycle? How much? Credits for hybrid or electric transportation? How about the number of generational carbon consumers? How many credits would need to be earned, or what kind of penalties would have to be paid to introduce another consumer of energy into this world, after all today's innocent children will be tomorrow's environmental impactors. Could any of this ever really come to pass? Maybe , maybe not, but that's not the point. The point is all these things and more would be a logical outworking of the utilitarian view of the issue. One other point here, why are we so eager to save humanity? Evolution and natural selection gave rise to humankind, from whence came intellect, reasoning, the propensity to invent complex machines, to consume, to build bigger and better. If natural processes are all that exists, then what we are today is the inextricable result of a thoughtless process with no pre-ordained end result. In fact, it would have to be stipulated that we have been naturally selected to be exactly where we are right now. If humankind ends up using up all the natural resources and cannot evolve a way to live without them, then we become extinct. Nature will neither know, nor care. In any case, a utilitarian view of saving the environment could not be grounded on any transcendent absolute to be applied to all of humankind, it would simply be the imposition of means determined by an elite group of 'experts' on a mass of carbon consumers to achieve an arbitrary and capricious end. The flaws with this course seem to be obvious, but in my view is the most probable outcome if we remain on the current course.
Second, establish a new religion of environmentalism. Some would say this is already the case, but it would now need to be readily accepted, formalized and implemented globally. Nature would of course be established as god. It would be a strictly monotheistic religion, environmentalism, lest some supernatural essence be allowed to usurp the absolute authority of the natural. Govermental leaders would be the priests as they would be responsible for speaking in the media pulpits to instruct the laity of the guidelines and boundaries for behavior which binds each and every individual. Scientists would then be the apologists, giving a defense for the hope that nature brings and confirming the message of the governmental leaders. Those currently identified as "environmental activists" would of course be the evangelists, making their rounds to stir up revival in those areas where fervor and passion for environmental concerns had grown cold. Nature would be seen as transcendent over everything in the universe and worship and sacrifice to Nature would be requisite of all humankind. All the outworkings of point one would be put in place, only seen not as an imposition on society, but as a moral duty. I believe this approach to be the least cogent and supportable, but also recognize it would most likely be the most effective.
Third, personal choice. Recognizing the data as presented each individual must choose whether to see the environment as important and to what extent that choice will effect his/her behavior. This seems to me to be the most consistent and reasonable of the three approaches. If nothing is transcendent over all of mankind, then each one is left to his own to decide what to do. One may think it is important to care for the environment, another may not care a wit and desires only to indulge completely in whatever is convenient at the time. Neither right, nor wrong just making personal choices. Inevitably the position will come up that individual decision may negatively effect another person, and the effect to the society would be a mitigating factor for overriding or setting aside personal choice. But what action would be taken to stop behavior because it effects other people? Who decides how much effecting is too much and how that is to be monitored? We are back to the outworkings of point one.
Let me again stress that in presenting the above I have made a general assumption and stipulation that the scientific data is true and that humankind is responsible for negative effects on the environment. I have also stipulated the starting assumption that the natural is all that exists and that there is no transcendent view on things. I presented three positions that can be taken on the naturalistic/materialistic frame to support the need to save the environment. I hope it would be clear to everyone who would think carefully about the issue that all the positions posited here are not defensible. Moreover, it should be obvious that a transcendent view of the environment is non-existent and on the discussed worldviews the preservation of the environment or humankind may be desired, but cannot be consistent logically on the larger worldview.
So what might a solution look like? Again, I would have to say that I have not personally thought throught the procedural aspects of some step-by-step program or system to address the scientific claim that humanity is negatively effecting the environment. What I can say is what the Biblical-Christian worldview brings to the discussion. God created all that is, i.e. God created nature for His name sake. God created man, placed him on the earth and gave instruction that he was to subdue and take dominion over the earth. This discussion has been lengthy enough, so suffice it to say that man is to behave as a steward, a caretaker over nature on behalf of it's Owner (incidentally, since God gives us all we possess this same idea of a steward or manager applies to our gifts, abilities, money, time, etc.). So, as we have been given the earth to inhabit and to manage for God, then it is encumbent upon us to fulfill the position in which we have been placed and purpose to not treat with disdain that to which we have been blessed. By way of illustration think of it this way; were we to manage a restaurant for an owner, it would anathama for that owner to return to the place of business only to find it in shambles. Not only would it be justified to terminate us as manager, but pursued seeking restitution. In short, because we are accountable ultimately to God for how we treat what He has given us to manage, we each will give an account for what we have done with that to which we have been entrusted. I see this position as one that provides a genuine basis for the care of the environment, based on a transcendent Creator with the understanding of the universal expectation of stewardship to the ultimate end of glorifying God through obedience and faithful care of His possession. The particulars I leave to another, but we must at least begin with a legitimate foundation on which to believe and set our behavior. As I write today, I fear we are standing on a shifting foundation with no ultimate end in view and attempting to find some way to prescribe for all what we have an initmation must be the right thing to do, while at every turn sinking and wandering aimlessly.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Posture of a Father - Part Two
"But when you pray, go into your private room, shut your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret...your Father knows the things you need before you ask Him. Therefore, you should pray like this: Our Father in heaven..." Matthew 6:6-9
Perhaps one of the most incomprehensible portions of scripture in the whole of the Bible. Jesus teaching his disciples to pray to their heavenly Father. For the believer in Jesus, the one who adheres to the Biblical-Christian worldview, this is the starting point for the answer to the existential struggles relative to fatherhood in the family dynamic. Jesus spoke of His Father, and to those who believed in Him, He offered the same direction for address: heavenly Father. One of the greatest gifts given to the believer is the gift of sonship. A member in the family of God, adopted sons, heirs of God and co-heirs of Christ, with a heavenly Father that fulfills all the desired attributes so lacking here in this fallen condition. There are many ways to address the answer to the struggle we face, but I was jolted a few days ago by experience into seeing the issue in terms of posture.
After some disobedience in the home I had to address my three boys from a position of authority and discipline. Later, we read a story ("The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" by C.S. Lewis) before bed. It hit me like a punch in the face while reading that story and ending the day by praying over my boys and tucking them in the two opposite postures I had taken in the period of just a few short hours. I stood over my sons and chided them, which at 6'-4" and with a fairly deep voice (at least for young boys) i'm sure conveyed the sense of authority in the home, the gravity of the message and the urgency required in capitulation. I knelt with my sons to read and held their hands as always during prayer time and ended the day with a kiss, eye-to-eye and face-to-face which i'm sure conveyed the sense of love, care, protection and comfort needed for a restful night's sleep and assurance that the family was well in hand. My mind flashed to the postures God the Father and our Lord (as He taught that He and the Father were one) took while on this earth which give a picture of the posture He takes with His children, and can provide some cogent and meaningful answers to dilemma present in the family life in our contemporary culture.
In the Old Testament, God revealed many postures toward humanity. Even with extreme brevity we can think through interactions and see that God walks with His creation in the garden; He speaks to a stuttering murderer in the burning bush and on the mountain; He leads by way of a cloud during the day and fire at night; He stands in authority as He speaks of impending judgement through His prophets; He touches the very deepest emotions of the king who was said to be after His own heart; He allows terrible calamity over a man of purest character only to sustain and bless more richly after the period of suffering subsides; He eliminates those in defiance of His Holiness as the profane is paraded without shame. All these postures and more God the Father makes apparent in His Word. In the same way, with the coming of the Messiah and a New Covenant we see God the Son reflect the postures of the Father perfectly as He walks and talks with even the youngest and least of mankind; He kneels to be baptized by the one who came crying out in the wilderness; He stands in authority casting out demons, healing the sick, calming the stormy waters, forgiving sins, and raising the dead; He brings forth judgment as He charges through the temple driving out the cheats and swindlers; He takes the lowliest position of humble servant as He takes a towel and washes the feet of the men who called Him teacher; He hangs on the cross in suffering and death even for those who would encourage, demand and carry out such an act on an innocent man.
So it came flooding in, example after example of how our Heavenly Father illustrates in so many ways the postures of a Father. Positions of authority, love, discipline, training, security, forgiveness, mercy all flowing from the perfect, holy and righteous father. Contemporary society cries out for these attributes in those who would be fathers, but cannot find a justification for the behavior so much desired. Personal choice in contradictory at its core and by definition cannot be applied to all who fill paternal roles. Societal pressures, current trends and progressive attitudes again fall short of providing a platform of expectation for the traits we expect from fathers as those pressures, trends and attitudes are blown about by the wind. In the same way, tradition is incapable in itself of bringing about a culture-wide basis for demanding certain attitudes. Only God, an infinite, personal, creator God who has clearly illustrated in His own revelation and explicitly instructed fathers on how they should behave, which is an absolute requirement across the width and breadth of humanity can provide the non-contradictory framework to meet the expectations implicit in our very nature and answer the existential question of family and fatherhood.
As a father I have been challenged anew to look at the posture of God the Father and examine the postures I take daily with my wife and children. I am also reminded of my inadequacy and the infinitesimal ability I possess in myself to even approach the majesty and glory of the true nature of the Father. I am left to do what should be done in the beginning: go to my private room, shut the door and pray to the One who knows the things I need before I ask them in the way the Messiah taught..."My Father in heaven..."
Perhaps one of the most incomprehensible portions of scripture in the whole of the Bible. Jesus teaching his disciples to pray to their heavenly Father. For the believer in Jesus, the one who adheres to the Biblical-Christian worldview, this is the starting point for the answer to the existential struggles relative to fatherhood in the family dynamic. Jesus spoke of His Father, and to those who believed in Him, He offered the same direction for address: heavenly Father. One of the greatest gifts given to the believer is the gift of sonship. A member in the family of God, adopted sons, heirs of God and co-heirs of Christ, with a heavenly Father that fulfills all the desired attributes so lacking here in this fallen condition. There are many ways to address the answer to the struggle we face, but I was jolted a few days ago by experience into seeing the issue in terms of posture.
After some disobedience in the home I had to address my three boys from a position of authority and discipline. Later, we read a story ("The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" by C.S. Lewis) before bed. It hit me like a punch in the face while reading that story and ending the day by praying over my boys and tucking them in the two opposite postures I had taken in the period of just a few short hours. I stood over my sons and chided them, which at 6'-4" and with a fairly deep voice (at least for young boys) i'm sure conveyed the sense of authority in the home, the gravity of the message and the urgency required in capitulation. I knelt with my sons to read and held their hands as always during prayer time and ended the day with a kiss, eye-to-eye and face-to-face which i'm sure conveyed the sense of love, care, protection and comfort needed for a restful night's sleep and assurance that the family was well in hand. My mind flashed to the postures God the Father and our Lord (as He taught that He and the Father were one) took while on this earth which give a picture of the posture He takes with His children, and can provide some cogent and meaningful answers to dilemma present in the family life in our contemporary culture.
In the Old Testament, God revealed many postures toward humanity. Even with extreme brevity we can think through interactions and see that God walks with His creation in the garden; He speaks to a stuttering murderer in the burning bush and on the mountain; He leads by way of a cloud during the day and fire at night; He stands in authority as He speaks of impending judgement through His prophets; He touches the very deepest emotions of the king who was said to be after His own heart; He allows terrible calamity over a man of purest character only to sustain and bless more richly after the period of suffering subsides; He eliminates those in defiance of His Holiness as the profane is paraded without shame. All these postures and more God the Father makes apparent in His Word. In the same way, with the coming of the Messiah and a New Covenant we see God the Son reflect the postures of the Father perfectly as He walks and talks with even the youngest and least of mankind; He kneels to be baptized by the one who came crying out in the wilderness; He stands in authority casting out demons, healing the sick, calming the stormy waters, forgiving sins, and raising the dead; He brings forth judgment as He charges through the temple driving out the cheats and swindlers; He takes the lowliest position of humble servant as He takes a towel and washes the feet of the men who called Him teacher; He hangs on the cross in suffering and death even for those who would encourage, demand and carry out such an act on an innocent man.
So it came flooding in, example after example of how our Heavenly Father illustrates in so many ways the postures of a Father. Positions of authority, love, discipline, training, security, forgiveness, mercy all flowing from the perfect, holy and righteous father. Contemporary society cries out for these attributes in those who would be fathers, but cannot find a justification for the behavior so much desired. Personal choice in contradictory at its core and by definition cannot be applied to all who fill paternal roles. Societal pressures, current trends and progressive attitudes again fall short of providing a platform of expectation for the traits we expect from fathers as those pressures, trends and attitudes are blown about by the wind. In the same way, tradition is incapable in itself of bringing about a culture-wide basis for demanding certain attitudes. Only God, an infinite, personal, creator God who has clearly illustrated in His own revelation and explicitly instructed fathers on how they should behave, which is an absolute requirement across the width and breadth of humanity can provide the non-contradictory framework to meet the expectations implicit in our very nature and answer the existential question of family and fatherhood.
As a father I have been challenged anew to look at the posture of God the Father and examine the postures I take daily with my wife and children. I am also reminded of my inadequacy and the infinitesimal ability I possess in myself to even approach the majesty and glory of the true nature of the Father. I am left to do what should be done in the beginning: go to my private room, shut the door and pray to the One who knows the things I need before I ask them in the way the Messiah taught..."My Father in heaven..."
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Posture of a Father - Part One
I'd like to take a semi-departure from the more intimate and personal thoughts concerning the birth of my daughter and focus a bit more generally on the existential struggles we all deal with daily. Family is an essential component of human culture. No matter the worldview espoused, location thoughout the world or socioeconomic status it is undeniable that family is at the nucleus of a culture. From obvious to more subtle, the reasons for the central importance family plays. Until more recent technological procedures, family was the lone source of the continuation of the species. Family will impact and influence intellectual and emotional strengths and weaknesses of all members of a given society. Currently, Vancouver is a gathering place for athletes from around the globe. One of the points of similarity between all competitors is the presence of family for support. We hear from all segments at times of thanksgiving or acceptance of awards the gratitude given to parents or siblings that have been a source of inspiration.
Paternal roles and responsibilities are constantly of keen interest to me as the above observations at least give a sense of the importance of family and the influence imposed by family members upon one another. Fathers are represented in the news, in television, in movies, in music and in many other visible areans on a daily basis. Oftentimes the portrayal of the father in such outlets is best described as detestible. For good reason vitriolic castigation is routinely disbursed to commentators and those who opine on the behavior of "deadbeat dads", adulterous husbands, abusive fathers and those who show more interest in sports or work than their spouse or children.
I'm not going to attempt an analysis of the causal agents responsible for such behavior, the avenues to escape such a lifestyle, nor the attributes necessary for more acceptible actions. My concern for some time has been both why there need to be good fathers and what makes a good father which has turned out to be more of a journey than first anticipated. Why we feel fathers ought to be good is a pretty involved issue. On an atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic worldview there's really no reason for there to be an expectation of what would be routinely viewed as a healthy paternal role in the family unit. A man chooses to come together with a woman (in marriage in some cases due only to societal norms and choice) experiences the pleasure of initmacy and successfully passes on genetic information. His obligatory functions are hereby completed. One could possibly argue that he should continue involvement to provide shelter and care enough to ensure his progeny will be able to procreate, but not necessarily. This description of a fathers role, although consistant with worldviews that see evolution and natural selection as the single driving force of existence, it is certainly not an acceptible explanation for the undeniable view that crosses cultural boundaries that fathers should be good. Likewise, the makeup of a father that all cultures would see as good cannot be supported by a nontheistic position propounding personal choice as the single determining factor for good and bad.
And here we have the existential struggle for our day. We know that fathers should love their wives, care for their children, not abandon, neglect or abuse any member of their household; but why is this so? What reason can be given for this universal understanding? It cannot be personal choice, or a matter of majority rule; a democratic constitution for paternal behavior. This will not do; I choose to love my family another father does not, this is not binding on a culture. We have a multitude of laws on the books designed to severly punish perpetrators of this kind of activity and occurances are on the increase, so majority decisions or enforcement of current laws cannot be called on to answer this query. Likewise, tradition is not adequate. Family life a generation or two ago (Little House on the Prarie, The Waltons, Leave It To Beaver, Andy Griffith and the like) are looked upon with derision and laughter today as a bi-gone age completely out of touch with today's progressive attitude. In fact, the full brunt of vitriolic venom is unleashed on anyone who is tagged to hold "traditional values" on any topic whatever. No, tradition was a good enough reason a generation ago, but we technology has allowed us to move past this archaic notion.
What then is the answer to our problem? To what or whom can we turn to provide some sort of concrete rule, law, or precept that goes beyond personal choice, beyond majority rule or democratic procedure, beyond technological advances and ancient traditions? Where are we to look for the picture of a father that we can apply to all families everywhere with confidence, a father-figure that will provide the model for fathers we know we want but cannot explain? Where indeed?
Paternal roles and responsibilities are constantly of keen interest to me as the above observations at least give a sense of the importance of family and the influence imposed by family members upon one another. Fathers are represented in the news, in television, in movies, in music and in many other visible areans on a daily basis. Oftentimes the portrayal of the father in such outlets is best described as detestible. For good reason vitriolic castigation is routinely disbursed to commentators and those who opine on the behavior of "deadbeat dads", adulterous husbands, abusive fathers and those who show more interest in sports or work than their spouse or children.
I'm not going to attempt an analysis of the causal agents responsible for such behavior, the avenues to escape such a lifestyle, nor the attributes necessary for more acceptible actions. My concern for some time has been both why there need to be good fathers and what makes a good father which has turned out to be more of a journey than first anticipated. Why we feel fathers ought to be good is a pretty involved issue. On an atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic worldview there's really no reason for there to be an expectation of what would be routinely viewed as a healthy paternal role in the family unit. A man chooses to come together with a woman (in marriage in some cases due only to societal norms and choice) experiences the pleasure of initmacy and successfully passes on genetic information. His obligatory functions are hereby completed. One could possibly argue that he should continue involvement to provide shelter and care enough to ensure his progeny will be able to procreate, but not necessarily. This description of a fathers role, although consistant with worldviews that see evolution and natural selection as the single driving force of existence, it is certainly not an acceptible explanation for the undeniable view that crosses cultural boundaries that fathers should be good. Likewise, the makeup of a father that all cultures would see as good cannot be supported by a nontheistic position propounding personal choice as the single determining factor for good and bad.
And here we have the existential struggle for our day. We know that fathers should love their wives, care for their children, not abandon, neglect or abuse any member of their household; but why is this so? What reason can be given for this universal understanding? It cannot be personal choice, or a matter of majority rule; a democratic constitution for paternal behavior. This will not do; I choose to love my family another father does not, this is not binding on a culture. We have a multitude of laws on the books designed to severly punish perpetrators of this kind of activity and occurances are on the increase, so majority decisions or enforcement of current laws cannot be called on to answer this query. Likewise, tradition is not adequate. Family life a generation or two ago (Little House on the Prarie, The Waltons, Leave It To Beaver, Andy Griffith and the like) are looked upon with derision and laughter today as a bi-gone age completely out of touch with today's progressive attitude. In fact, the full brunt of vitriolic venom is unleashed on anyone who is tagged to hold "traditional values" on any topic whatever. No, tradition was a good enough reason a generation ago, but we technology has allowed us to move past this archaic notion.
What then is the answer to our problem? To what or whom can we turn to provide some sort of concrete rule, law, or precept that goes beyond personal choice, beyond majority rule or democratic procedure, beyond technological advances and ancient traditions? Where are we to look for the picture of a father that we can apply to all families everywhere with confidence, a father-figure that will provide the model for fathers we know we want but cannot explain? Where indeed?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
When Things Just Don't Add Up
"Can I hold her?", "She is such a pretty baby", "Touch head, no, no". These were a few of the comments made by my six, four and two-year-old sons as my wife and I brought our new baby girl home from the hospital. With bright eyes and wide grins all three of them, along with my wife and I, sat in amazement at that new little life. Something occurred to me as I was watching all three of them on the couch and thinking about what we were all holding in our hands. What exactly did we bring home?
I know that sounds like a pretty silly question, especially from a man who has three children already, but after some more thought it's not only a good question, but an absolutely essential one. Contemporary culture in the United States is being driven more and more strongly by a secular mindset. Secular has been defined as that condition where religious ideas, institutions and interpretations have lost their social significance. In other words, religion is seen to be outdated and the overt attempt is being made to systematically expunge it from all areas of life: politics, education, media, and on and on.
Changing over to a secular society, however, does not come without ramifications. And so we come back to the question at hand, what exactly did we bring home? I have spoken with many non-theists, or anti-theists and those who are most consistant with their beliefs have confirmed the outworking of the exclusion of a Biblical-Christian worldview. According to the antitheist what my wife and I brought home was simply a successfull procreative attempt where our genetic material was passed on to another homonidic organism. Further, the only obligation my wife and I have to that organism is to provide just enough food, shelter and care necessary for future procreation, with the only boundaries being those set by local law enforcement and current societal norms.
Don't we all know that that explanation of a new child's life must be absolutely wrong? Even modern movie-makers see how short that understanding falls. Think of the number of movies where the protagonist is a hit-man, a tough cop or just a doggedly independent man whose whole life changes because of the introduction of a child into his life. Isn't it undeniable that children are more than just a bundle of biological drives and reactions, more than just successors of genetic material? We know that is the case, but what is the explanation?
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
These are familiar passages which, along with countless others in scripture, tell us that we are more than just a mindless collocation of atoms, more than just genetic materials on this earth by pure chance. She is my daughter, she is a miracle. What my wife and I brought home, that has changed all our lives, is a precious gift from Almight God who we are to be caretakers over and have been instructed to train up to be a woman of God. We are to love her, care for her, and provide for her as a faithful steward, or caretaker, of the precious gift that she is. This has been the case for each of our four children. As a structural engineer who delights in the consistancy of mathematics, in this case one plus one plus one plus one amounts to more than just four.
I know that sounds like a pretty silly question, especially from a man who has three children already, but after some more thought it's not only a good question, but an absolutely essential one. Contemporary culture in the United States is being driven more and more strongly by a secular mindset. Secular has been defined as that condition where religious ideas, institutions and interpretations have lost their social significance. In other words, religion is seen to be outdated and the overt attempt is being made to systematically expunge it from all areas of life: politics, education, media, and on and on.
Changing over to a secular society, however, does not come without ramifications. And so we come back to the question at hand, what exactly did we bring home? I have spoken with many non-theists, or anti-theists and those who are most consistant with their beliefs have confirmed the outworking of the exclusion of a Biblical-Christian worldview. According to the antitheist what my wife and I brought home was simply a successfull procreative attempt where our genetic material was passed on to another homonidic organism. Further, the only obligation my wife and I have to that organism is to provide just enough food, shelter and care necessary for future procreation, with the only boundaries being those set by local law enforcement and current societal norms.
Don't we all know that that explanation of a new child's life must be absolutely wrong? Even modern movie-makers see how short that understanding falls. Think of the number of movies where the protagonist is a hit-man, a tough cop or just a doggedly independent man whose whole life changes because of the introduction of a child into his life. Isn't it undeniable that children are more than just a bundle of biological drives and reactions, more than just successors of genetic material? We know that is the case, but what is the explanation?
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
These are familiar passages which, along with countless others in scripture, tell us that we are more than just a mindless collocation of atoms, more than just genetic materials on this earth by pure chance. She is my daughter, she is a miracle. What my wife and I brought home, that has changed all our lives, is a precious gift from Almight God who we are to be caretakers over and have been instructed to train up to be a woman of God. We are to love her, care for her, and provide for her as a faithful steward, or caretaker, of the precious gift that she is. This has been the case for each of our four children. As a structural engineer who delights in the consistancy of mathematics, in this case one plus one plus one plus one amounts to more than just four.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A Proud Father
A few minutes past noon on the 5th of February I had the awesome privaledge to witness (for the fourth time) the birth of a child. On three previous occasions I held my wife's hand as she delivered my sons, on this a precious daughter. We are overjoyed and still in the very early stages of processing such a tremendous and life-changing experience. I've got a lot to share in the next weeks as i've been thinking very hard on a number of topics all closely related and most pertinent with respect to parents and children in particular, and life in general.
Psalm 127 is most often attributed to Solomon. Regardless of its authorship, the two-stanza song is challenging in its message and glorious in its truth in application. Verses 3-5 are what i'd like to focus on herein:
"Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate."
In studying this passage I focused on two words, namely heritage and reward. Solomon chould have chosen any two words he wanted in this song, so why these two? One singles out sons and the other a reference to all the "fruits of the womb" as it is put in another translation. For those of us who see the Bible as the inspired Word of God it becomes even more encumbant upon us to answer why it is that these two words are used. First a brief word study:
Heritage - in the original the word was nachalah (nakh-al-aw) whose basic understood definition is inheritance or blessing. The root for the word means to receive the ability to control, possess and direct. So, sons are described as a blessing or inheritance which we are given the ability to control, possess and direct. Another description of inheritance that I found was "in the day he causes his sons to inherit that which is his." So, when verse 3 opens, the text is saying that God has caused the parents to inherit the blessing that is his and with it the ability to control, possess and direct the life of the son.
Reward - in the original the word used is sakar (saw-kawr) for which I found only one definition and that was a wage or benefit under contract of maintenance. So, all children are a blessing that carry with them the understanding of upkeep or responsible charge.
Two points jump out immediately from this brief study.
First, children are a blessing from God. It is said that you can tell everything you need to know about a culture by looking at what they do with their children. This is the point concerning life that I see as being completely unfathomable from a worldview standpoint. Even if members of a culture are completely deluding themselves in believing the Biblical-Christian world and life view they would have an infinantly high regard for children (it is understood here that children also encompasses unborn children, i.e. from conception). On the other side, however, for the antitheist the very best life can be is a successful procreative effort where genetic information has been passed to a subsequent generation. In the case of the Christian the parents bring home a son or daughter; the antitheist bring home a homonidic organism. Granted, this is a purely existential point, but with potentially horiffic outworkings.
Second, there is a responsibility for the parent to direct another life. Parents are to train their children with a direction in mind. My mindset has always been that I am not raising a two-, or three-, or four-year-old, but that I am raising a man (and now a woman) and they happen to be four right now. Every day, my responsibility as a father is to train my children to be men and a woman of God, pleasing in His sight, glorifying His name with their life as they make their choices and prayerfully become disciples of Jesus Christ, and strive to love God with all their hearts, mind, soul and strength and love other people as themselves. The picture given in the Psalm of the warrior with the bow and arrow is also special as any warrior does not just draw back his bow and shoot aimlessly. He selects a target, draws the arrow back, takes careful aim and when the time is right, releases that arrow. Again, for the antitheist there is a problem; namely, life is meaningless and the only goal is to pass on genetic information. So, to be true to the worldview the atheist would have to say their only responsibility is to pass on enough information, and to give only enough protection and care necessary for their offspring to procreate (taking into account of course the current requirements of local law enforcement and social standards which are the only standards of right and wrong, and are subject to change at any time). Anything beyond that is pure choice on the part of the parent.
Being a parent is an awesome privaledge, a blessing from God that parents have the responsibility to possess, order and direct. A very wise man once said that every father is an example for his children, he will either be a good one or a bad one. My prayer is that I will do an adequate job in understanding the blessing that my children are, given to me by Almighty God, to train up to be Godly men and a Godly woman in service to their God and their fellow man. It is a tall order to fill, and the only thing I know for sure is that that task will be impossible without the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through my life for my family.
One thing I have come to know is that God never gives the gift and the responsibility without also giving the strength and the grace. May God help me and all other fathers to think hard about these things.
Psalm 127 is most often attributed to Solomon. Regardless of its authorship, the two-stanza song is challenging in its message and glorious in its truth in application. Verses 3-5 are what i'd like to focus on herein:
"Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate."
In studying this passage I focused on two words, namely heritage and reward. Solomon chould have chosen any two words he wanted in this song, so why these two? One singles out sons and the other a reference to all the "fruits of the womb" as it is put in another translation. For those of us who see the Bible as the inspired Word of God it becomes even more encumbant upon us to answer why it is that these two words are used. First a brief word study:
Heritage - in the original the word was nachalah (nakh-al-aw) whose basic understood definition is inheritance or blessing. The root for the word means to receive the ability to control, possess and direct. So, sons are described as a blessing or inheritance which we are given the ability to control, possess and direct. Another description of inheritance that I found was "in the day he causes his sons to inherit that which is his." So, when verse 3 opens, the text is saying that God has caused the parents to inherit the blessing that is his and with it the ability to control, possess and direct the life of the son.
Reward - in the original the word used is sakar (saw-kawr) for which I found only one definition and that was a wage or benefit under contract of maintenance. So, all children are a blessing that carry with them the understanding of upkeep or responsible charge.
Two points jump out immediately from this brief study.
First, children are a blessing from God. It is said that you can tell everything you need to know about a culture by looking at what they do with their children. This is the point concerning life that I see as being completely unfathomable from a worldview standpoint. Even if members of a culture are completely deluding themselves in believing the Biblical-Christian world and life view they would have an infinantly high regard for children (it is understood here that children also encompasses unborn children, i.e. from conception). On the other side, however, for the antitheist the very best life can be is a successful procreative effort where genetic information has been passed to a subsequent generation. In the case of the Christian the parents bring home a son or daughter; the antitheist bring home a homonidic organism. Granted, this is a purely existential point, but with potentially horiffic outworkings.
Second, there is a responsibility for the parent to direct another life. Parents are to train their children with a direction in mind. My mindset has always been that I am not raising a two-, or three-, or four-year-old, but that I am raising a man (and now a woman) and they happen to be four right now. Every day, my responsibility as a father is to train my children to be men and a woman of God, pleasing in His sight, glorifying His name with their life as they make their choices and prayerfully become disciples of Jesus Christ, and strive to love God with all their hearts, mind, soul and strength and love other people as themselves. The picture given in the Psalm of the warrior with the bow and arrow is also special as any warrior does not just draw back his bow and shoot aimlessly. He selects a target, draws the arrow back, takes careful aim and when the time is right, releases that arrow. Again, for the antitheist there is a problem; namely, life is meaningless and the only goal is to pass on genetic information. So, to be true to the worldview the atheist would have to say their only responsibility is to pass on enough information, and to give only enough protection and care necessary for their offspring to procreate (taking into account of course the current requirements of local law enforcement and social standards which are the only standards of right and wrong, and are subject to change at any time). Anything beyond that is pure choice on the part of the parent.
Being a parent is an awesome privaledge, a blessing from God that parents have the responsibility to possess, order and direct. A very wise man once said that every father is an example for his children, he will either be a good one or a bad one. My prayer is that I will do an adequate job in understanding the blessing that my children are, given to me by Almighty God, to train up to be Godly men and a Godly woman in service to their God and their fellow man. It is a tall order to fill, and the only thing I know for sure is that that task will be impossible without the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through my life for my family.
One thing I have come to know is that God never gives the gift and the responsibility without also giving the strength and the grace. May God help me and all other fathers to think hard about these things.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Cultural Shift, Majority Rule or Might Makes Right?
In reading the local paper this morning, I came across the following headline: "Cultural shift driving change in military's gay policy." This was an associated press story, and the link to the entire article (dated February 3, 2010) is provided below, along with a previous piece dated February 2, 2010):
AP Article - Change in Military's Gay Policy
AP Article - Signs of Cultural Shift
My intention here is not to deal with the merit of men or women who have adopted and espouse a homosexual lifestyle actively serving in the military, whether under "Don't ask, Don't tell" or otherwise. Rather, my concern is more to how we are making decisions in this nation on important moral, ethical and lifestyle issues in our contemporary culture.
Even up to the near recent past, homosexuality as a lifestyle was considered wrong. Morally wrong as a lifestyle because it was considered sinful, and hurtful to the individual and to the society at large. This feeling was largely based on the stance on such issues from a Biblical framework. Biblically the behavior, lifestyle and/or practice is never condoned and is in every case condemned as abhorrent and profane. The position was clear, the behavior was morally wrong.
In the two articles, however, the idea of right and wrong is absent from the text. In its place are peppered phrases like, "attitudes and circumstances have changed", "gays and lesbians have been given comprehensive legal status as a protected class", "59 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military", and "the US census has for the first time begun tabulating information about gay couples who live together." It begs the question, "What does this have to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong?"
The more I pondered the topic, the more I began to think that the articles did say something about right or wrong. Perhaps in our contemporary culture whatever is popular culturally at any given time is the right thing, morally, ethically or otherwise. Perhaps the comments about attitudes, opinions, and circumstances are the pure determining factor as to good, right and truth.
If this is the case, if what is good, right and true is determined by culture then there are some ramifications that must be acknowledged. If that is the case, then we in America have chosen to call God a liar, or at least have told Him that He cannot exist. We will have arrogated to ourselves the responsibility of deciding that which is right and that which is wrong. Whatever God has called good and right is heretofore irrelevant in our society. We are choosing to expel God and instead ourselves be the pure measure of all things. Maybe that's the way we want it, maybe we see this as our culture to do with as we wish, maybe we like having the power to decide for ourselves.
I can only say, beware. We have seen, and we have been told before how that kind of experiment will turn out. If God does not exist, then we have no excuse and must live up totally with the cultural outworkings of that kind of ideology. If popular opinion is the litmus test for right and wrong, if God does not exist and is irrelevant in moral choices and we are nothing more than a mindless, pointless collocation of atoms existing only to pass on genetic information then nature read in tooth and claw is the only way, and what remains is not good or bad, objective right or wrong, but might makes right. First the majority will rule, and decide how culture will go. Then a popularly elected body will decide for everyone how things will go. Eventually one man (or woman) will decide how things will go, and those who sound the victory bell now will hear the death knell of freedom and liberty and cry out for answers as to why it all came to pass.
Is this synical, maybe. Is this extremist fear, hardly. We have countless accounts through the years of the dangers of a culture driven by the winds of cultural "attitudes and circumstances". The founders of this nation were keenly aware of the precipice on which this democratic republic stood, and how a religious backdrop was absolutely necessary for morals and the established government to function. Not Church control of the government, but a society (public, private, government or otherwise) submitted and obedient to an absolute Governer.
I am not addressing here whether or not homosexual men or women should be allowed to serve in the military. I do not fear or hate any homosexual man or woman. What I do know is that if such weighty and important moral and ethical questions are to be left to public opinion, to majority rule, to an ideal of might makes right then our nation is not on the proverbial slippery slope, but has rather stepped off the edge by inverting reality by denying what God has deemed good and right and true and instead arrogating to ourselves that solemn duty.
AP Article - Change in Military's Gay Policy
AP Article - Signs of Cultural Shift
My intention here is not to deal with the merit of men or women who have adopted and espouse a homosexual lifestyle actively serving in the military, whether under "Don't ask, Don't tell" or otherwise. Rather, my concern is more to how we are making decisions in this nation on important moral, ethical and lifestyle issues in our contemporary culture.
Even up to the near recent past, homosexuality as a lifestyle was considered wrong. Morally wrong as a lifestyle because it was considered sinful, and hurtful to the individual and to the society at large. This feeling was largely based on the stance on such issues from a Biblical framework. Biblically the behavior, lifestyle and/or practice is never condoned and is in every case condemned as abhorrent and profane. The position was clear, the behavior was morally wrong.
In the two articles, however, the idea of right and wrong is absent from the text. In its place are peppered phrases like, "attitudes and circumstances have changed", "gays and lesbians have been given comprehensive legal status as a protected class", "59 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military", and "the US census has for the first time begun tabulating information about gay couples who live together." It begs the question, "What does this have to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong?"
The more I pondered the topic, the more I began to think that the articles did say something about right or wrong. Perhaps in our contemporary culture whatever is popular culturally at any given time is the right thing, morally, ethically or otherwise. Perhaps the comments about attitudes, opinions, and circumstances are the pure determining factor as to good, right and truth.
If this is the case, if what is good, right and true is determined by culture then there are some ramifications that must be acknowledged. If that is the case, then we in America have chosen to call God a liar, or at least have told Him that He cannot exist. We will have arrogated to ourselves the responsibility of deciding that which is right and that which is wrong. Whatever God has called good and right is heretofore irrelevant in our society. We are choosing to expel God and instead ourselves be the pure measure of all things. Maybe that's the way we want it, maybe we see this as our culture to do with as we wish, maybe we like having the power to decide for ourselves.
I can only say, beware. We have seen, and we have been told before how that kind of experiment will turn out. If God does not exist, then we have no excuse and must live up totally with the cultural outworkings of that kind of ideology. If popular opinion is the litmus test for right and wrong, if God does not exist and is irrelevant in moral choices and we are nothing more than a mindless, pointless collocation of atoms existing only to pass on genetic information then nature read in tooth and claw is the only way, and what remains is not good or bad, objective right or wrong, but might makes right. First the majority will rule, and decide how culture will go. Then a popularly elected body will decide for everyone how things will go. Eventually one man (or woman) will decide how things will go, and those who sound the victory bell now will hear the death knell of freedom and liberty and cry out for answers as to why it all came to pass.
Is this synical, maybe. Is this extremist fear, hardly. We have countless accounts through the years of the dangers of a culture driven by the winds of cultural "attitudes and circumstances". The founders of this nation were keenly aware of the precipice on which this democratic republic stood, and how a religious backdrop was absolutely necessary for morals and the established government to function. Not Church control of the government, but a society (public, private, government or otherwise) submitted and obedient to an absolute Governer.
I am not addressing here whether or not homosexual men or women should be allowed to serve in the military. I do not fear or hate any homosexual man or woman. What I do know is that if such weighty and important moral and ethical questions are to be left to public opinion, to majority rule, to an ideal of might makes right then our nation is not on the proverbial slippery slope, but has rather stepped off the edge by inverting reality by denying what God has deemed good and right and true and instead arrogating to ourselves that solemn duty.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Which Values are Those?
Typically following a State of the Union address I will listen or watch the address real time and then go back and re-read the speech from the transcript available on the government website. This year was no different; I listened to President Obama deliver his speech and then revisited the address yesterday afternoon late. As usual the same set of comments that caught my attention during the real-time delivery jumped out from the written transcript. It's something different every time and this year it occurred toward the end of the address and centered around the topic of "American values." Following is the quote from the transcript and a link for the transcript in its entirety:
State of the Union Transcript
"Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."
I was fascinated by this paragraph, especially the part about how we find unity in our diversity. I have posted on this before and how this has always been the ultimate search; namely how to find unity in diversity. We have universities across this nation looking for knowledge to unite diverse ideas; on our coinage we have the phrase E Pluribus Unum (out of the many, one; or from the many come one); even in ancient Greek the search was for the fifth essence that would unite the other four. The unity does not exist within the diversity, there is an outside source that provides the unity within the diversity; that unity in diversity comes from a unity in a diversity in the first cause embodied in the community of the Trinity.
As the Declaration of Independence is the preamble to the Constitution then we do see that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with those inalienable rights. But inalienable means it is contingent only on the Creator, no man gives them and no man or institution may molest them. Why then the if-then statements that followed: "if you abide by the law you will be protected by it, if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else." Whether or not you abide by the laws of the land, life remains inalienable; even if you don't adhere to the values common to the many, liberty remains inalienable. This is the beauty of the Biblical-Christian or Judeo-Christian worldview on which this country was founded, and on which the Declaration and Constitution were established. We are created by the Creator with that Imago Dei in the image of God and it transcends actions or behaviors, that is the reason why all are treated equally, not because they agree with us.
"In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. There American values."
And there it was jumping out at me; American values. And the question arose in my mind, "The American values that the country began with, or contemporary American values?" Are they in fact the same? This State of the Union ended as all speeches tend to, with the familiar line: "Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America." The God of the Bible is eluded to throughout the speech although not explicitly stated. I'll leave the question open for dialouge and leave with just a few quotes from those signers of the Constitution who established the framework for this nation. Perhaps we could think seriously for more than a few seconds about their words and if in fact the American values posited and promulgated by the founders of this nation continue to be interwoven with life in contemporary American culture.
"It pleased God to write his law upon the heart of man at first. And the great lines of duty, however obscured by their original apostasy, are still so visible to afford an opportunity of judging what conduct and practice is or is not agreeable to its dictates. Such authority hath natural conscience still in man that it renders those...inexcusable in the sight of God (Rom. 1:20-2:14)...The pollution of the heart brings a corrupt bias on the judgment, in the man's own case...whereas in determining the character of others, this bias is less sensibly felt." John Witherspoon, New Jersey
"...the establishment proposed by this Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them...
...It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. The duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe. And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association; must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegience to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." James Madison, Virginia
"The depravity which mankind inherited from their first parents, introduced wickedness into the world. That wickedness rendered human government necessary to restrain the violence and injustice resulting from it. To facilitate the establishment and administration of government, the human race became, in the course of Providence, divided into seperate and distinct nations. Every nation instituted a government, with authority and power to protect it against domestic and foreign aggressions.
It is true that one of the postitive ordinances of Moses, to which you allude, did ordain retaliation or, in other words, a tooth for a tooth. But we are to recollect that it was ordained, not as a rule to regulate the conduct of private individuals toward each other, but as a legal penalty or punishment for certain offences. Retaliation is also manifest in the punishment prescribed for murder-life for life. Legal punishments are adjusted and inflicted by the law and magistrate, and not by unauthorized individuals. These and other positive laws or ordinances established by Divine direction, must of necessity be consistent with the moral law. It certainly was not the design of the law or ordinance in question, to encourage a spirit of personal or private revenge." John Jay, New York
"One great Advantage of the Christian Religion is that it brings the great Principle of the Law of Nature and Nations, Love your Neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you, to the Knowledge, Belief and Veneration of the whole People.
...religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.
There is no such thing [as morality] without a supposition of God. There is no right or wrong in the universe without the supposition of a moral government and an intellectual and moral governer.
No other Institution for Education, no kind of political Discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary Information, so universally among all Ranks and Descriptions of Citizens. The Duties and Rights of the Man and the Citizen are thus taught from early Infancy to every Creature. The Sanctions of a future Life are thus added to the Observance of civil and political, as well as domestic and private Duties. Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude, are thus taught to be the means and Conditions of future as well as present Happiness." John Adams, Massachusetts
State of the Union Transcript
"Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."
I was fascinated by this paragraph, especially the part about how we find unity in our diversity. I have posted on this before and how this has always been the ultimate search; namely how to find unity in diversity. We have universities across this nation looking for knowledge to unite diverse ideas; on our coinage we have the phrase E Pluribus Unum (out of the many, one; or from the many come one); even in ancient Greek the search was for the fifth essence that would unite the other four. The unity does not exist within the diversity, there is an outside source that provides the unity within the diversity; that unity in diversity comes from a unity in a diversity in the first cause embodied in the community of the Trinity.
As the Declaration of Independence is the preamble to the Constitution then we do see that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with those inalienable rights. But inalienable means it is contingent only on the Creator, no man gives them and no man or institution may molest them. Why then the if-then statements that followed: "if you abide by the law you will be protected by it, if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else." Whether or not you abide by the laws of the land, life remains inalienable; even if you don't adhere to the values common to the many, liberty remains inalienable. This is the beauty of the Biblical-Christian or Judeo-Christian worldview on which this country was founded, and on which the Declaration and Constitution were established. We are created by the Creator with that Imago Dei in the image of God and it transcends actions or behaviors, that is the reason why all are treated equally, not because they agree with us.
"In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. There American values."
And there it was jumping out at me; American values. And the question arose in my mind, "The American values that the country began with, or contemporary American values?" Are they in fact the same? This State of the Union ended as all speeches tend to, with the familiar line: "Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America." The God of the Bible is eluded to throughout the speech although not explicitly stated. I'll leave the question open for dialouge and leave with just a few quotes from those signers of the Constitution who established the framework for this nation. Perhaps we could think seriously for more than a few seconds about their words and if in fact the American values posited and promulgated by the founders of this nation continue to be interwoven with life in contemporary American culture.
"It pleased God to write his law upon the heart of man at first. And the great lines of duty, however obscured by their original apostasy, are still so visible to afford an opportunity of judging what conduct and practice is or is not agreeable to its dictates. Such authority hath natural conscience still in man that it renders those...inexcusable in the sight of God (Rom. 1:20-2:14)...The pollution of the heart brings a corrupt bias on the judgment, in the man's own case...whereas in determining the character of others, this bias is less sensibly felt." John Witherspoon, New Jersey
"...the establishment proposed by this Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them...
...It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. The duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe. And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association; must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegience to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." James Madison, Virginia
"The depravity which mankind inherited from their first parents, introduced wickedness into the world. That wickedness rendered human government necessary to restrain the violence and injustice resulting from it. To facilitate the establishment and administration of government, the human race became, in the course of Providence, divided into seperate and distinct nations. Every nation instituted a government, with authority and power to protect it against domestic and foreign aggressions.
It is true that one of the postitive ordinances of Moses, to which you allude, did ordain retaliation or, in other words, a tooth for a tooth. But we are to recollect that it was ordained, not as a rule to regulate the conduct of private individuals toward each other, but as a legal penalty or punishment for certain offences. Retaliation is also manifest in the punishment prescribed for murder-life for life. Legal punishments are adjusted and inflicted by the law and magistrate, and not by unauthorized individuals. These and other positive laws or ordinances established by Divine direction, must of necessity be consistent with the moral law. It certainly was not the design of the law or ordinance in question, to encourage a spirit of personal or private revenge." John Jay, New York
"One great Advantage of the Christian Religion is that it brings the great Principle of the Law of Nature and Nations, Love your Neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you, to the Knowledge, Belief and Veneration of the whole People.
...religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.
There is no such thing [as morality] without a supposition of God. There is no right or wrong in the universe without the supposition of a moral government and an intellectual and moral governer.
No other Institution for Education, no kind of political Discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary Information, so universally among all Ranks and Descriptions of Citizens. The Duties and Rights of the Man and the Citizen are thus taught from early Infancy to every Creature. The Sanctions of a future Life are thus added to the Observance of civil and political, as well as domestic and private Duties. Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude, are thus taught to be the means and Conditions of future as well as present Happiness." John Adams, Massachusetts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)