What's Love....Got To Do With It?

I read this morning in the paper that December is the month where the greatest number of proposals for marriage occur.  Many would think that February and Valentine's Day would be the number one month for proposals, but according to the article and a quoted professional proposal planner December is five to six times more active in terms of interest in her services.  A jewelry businessman also stated that diamond engagement ring purchases were 50 to 60 percent higher in the month of December due to the expressed intent to propose marriage.

Now many would say without thinking that two people are in love and with Christmas, the winter wonderland some experience, the gift giving, family gatherings and the like that it is just a natural time to pop the question.  What I thought about, however, was deeper than the location, time of year or method of proposal.  From whence did love come?  We speak about love quite a bit - in music, with regard to foods we find particularly appealing, vehicles or new electronic gadgets we purchase and utilize and others.  We say we love many things, and in point of fact before proposing there has usually been an exchange of the very phrase "I love you" on numerous occasions.  But i'm not even talking about the statement of love, or the idea that love is a part of our every day lives.  What i'm concerned with is where did the whole concept of love come from in the first place.  We must preface the entire question with the understanding that love is a term that connotes more than just physical intimacy.  When we speak of love and marriage there is an implicit understanding of forever, of something that lasts, of giving of ourselves to another, of sacrificing for someone else.  Where did that come from?

It is hard to see from an evolutionary standpoint how it would ever have arisen.  For furthering a society, procreation is a requisite, and for safety it is well appreciated that gathering in groups is better for survival than going it alone.  It seems quite counter-intuitive to hold to a belief that the flourishing of human existence is maximized by sacrificing and suffering with another. It seems much more reasonable to hold to some sort of physical intimacy with whomever one chooses to be the best mate and more of a communal sense of responsibility toward rearing children.  No one particular set of parents, a group of adults all sharing in the responsibility of making each child the best possible specimen for the next generation of more advanced evolutionary bi-products.  Complex sociological concerns are not really the point of the post, but do bring light on the importance of the question.  If love as a complex set of emotions that drive human behavior away from the most beneficial evolutionary circumstances then it should be cast away lest humanity be passed over by another more capable of discarding such unnecessary notions.

Unless of course love is the ultimate expression of human existence.  What if love is actually the pinnacle of humanity, the core of what really makes human beings what they are?  As it turns out, my personal devotions for this month have me in the book of 1 John.  In the fourth chapter, and verse 4 it reads, "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God."  Wait, love comes from God?  The source of the pinnacle of humanity was imparted to us from our Creator?  Yes, it seems the only way to understand what love is, why it is so important when it seems to contradict human flourishing it to understand that it comes from God.  Not only do we find in 1 John the source of love, we also see what it is to love (an example for our benefit and use in copying behavior that expresses love).  See here chapter 3 and verse 16, "This is how we know what love is: Christ Jesus laid down his life for us.  And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers."  So here we have an action and an imperative.  Christ died for us, therefore we ought to lay our lives down for others.

This is repeated in Chapter 4 verses 7-12, "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.  Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.  This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.  This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.  Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.  No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

More tomorrow on 1 John and love, but I hope we will all be spurred on to think carefully and deeply about what it means to love, the origin of love in human existence, and how we ought to display love in our own individual lives each day.  Knowing God and atoning sacrifice are central here, as clearly read in the last verses, which will be a great topic for tomorrow...

A Cascade of Errors

It's amazing how some mechanisms in the human body work.  Blood clotting is one example that has always struck me as nothing short of miraculous.  Seemingly the whole system had to be in place from its onset because of the "cascade" effect of thinning and thickening required for a cut on the human body to heal over without either bleeding out or seizing up.  In some instances in human thought, however, the cascade effect is obvious and just as disturbing and the blood clotting mechanism is fascinating.  In an article in our local paper today originally published by the McClatchy News Service, author Shawn Lawrence Otto has written a book about the lack of scientific discussion by political candidates (particularly presidential candidates) in recent history. You can link to the article here. 

Mr. Otto begins innocently and correctly enough by postulating that there is a necessity in an efficient government  for a well-informed electorate.  He states that "Without the mooring provided by the well-informed opinion of the people, governments may become paralyzed or, worse, corrupted by powerful interests seeking to oppress and enslave."  He also plumps for decisions to be made on information based in factual reality.  Beyond these opening points, however, there is a cascade of poor reasoning.  He goes on to suggest that politicians in general, and the Republican party in particular, have jettisoned all acknowledgement and reference to science in making policy decisions due to the influence of religion.  He states that the Republican party has "gone anti-science" partially due to the fact that "evangelicals got involved in politics."  So apparently for those belonging to the Republican party, there is a pre-requisite or at least an overwhelming pressure to be "anti-science" because the party is "pro-evangelical."

My nature prior to my conversion to Christianity was to be sarcastic to the extreme.  I fight against the continued temptation to be snarky and sarcastic in any thought process or discussion.  In this instance I will go with a measured response only laced with sarcasm pointed directly at the idea just posited, not at Mr. Otto personally.  To wit:

"So the idea is that those who have a cogent and internally consistent answer for the four most important questions in human existence; those of origin, meaning, morality and destiny, and have among their ranks a host of the most prominent names in many of the most important scientific discoveries in human history, and have a good reason both to engage in the discovery of new empirical physical truths and an explanation for the ought of the usage and temperance of use and distribution of new discoveries should be expelled from the discussion because those who are politicians by career take advice from their advisors and political constituents policy decisions with an emphasis on scientific data less than would be deemed necessary by those who choose for their careers fields in the scientific - is that correct?"

It just seems so blatantly ridiculous to even bring the evangelical view into the discussion in the first place.  It seems the spectre of "separation of Church and State" raises its head to choke off serious consideration of deeply important topics any time politics and government is involved.  Of course science is important and should be considered as the data is available on policy issues in which science comes naturally to the fore.  However, it seems wildly irresponsible to accuse evangelicalism as the primary source of a lack of drive to enact laws relative to global warming (or climate change as it has now been articulated).  What I find most ironic is the charge that the one area of human reasoning that can even speak about the morality of laws being adopted, the only realm that can make decisions of ought that would hold abuse and corruption in check (namely the Christian world and life view) is summarily discarded because of its stand against science, which is in itself a complete misrepresentation and misapplication of any reasonable Biblical position.

I guess i'm just continually flummoxed by the inability to recognize that one recognize that science is absolutely critical for making empirical evaluations for the physical issues experienced and influencing all of humanity and that science must be tempered by religion because of its complete impotence with regard to the metaphysical and moral issues that run hand in hand with any scientific discovery.  The Bible is not a science textbook and was never intended to be such, and science has been and will continue to be fruitful in making amazing discoveries relative to the make-up and intricate workings of the universe we inhabit, but science cannot and will never be able to stand alone in providing any information whatsoever as to how we ought to engage in or properly utilize that information within the interpersonal reality of human existence.  It seems inevitable that the two must not be put at odds with one another, but rather be inextricably tethered, else monstrous results be manifest.

My First Present This Year

After five years of study, a year of writing and finalization of editing, I am now excited to say that I have received advance copies of my book (In, Not Of - Christian Relevance in 21st Century America) and can announce that the book is available in stores.  Clicking on the picture to the right will link to the Barnes & Noble website, and the book is also available through Amazon.com and can be obtained through any major book seller and Christian Bookstore.

I hope this book will be an encouragement to believers and an effective challenge to skeptics as it provides a brief but extensive overview of apologetic arguments for the existence of God, the God of the Bible as the One True God, and the authority of scripture and the divinity of Christ.  I hope it will be a challenge to believers and skeptics alike as it discusses at length the disconnect between an overwhelming ascription to Christianity in the United States and an equally overwhelming prevalence of non-Christian behavior actually lived out.  I hope it will be thought-provoking to all as it develops the Christian worldview as it relates to four essential topics of our day in comparison with other possible belief systems and incorporating current events and the arts.

In any case, it is a present come a few days early for me as I was able to put my hands on the fruit of that labor and see the physical manifestation of what the Holy Spirit had coalesced in my mind over many years of study and internal wrestling with many ideas.  I hope that God is glorified in the work, that all who are meant to read the book will find it both an encouragement and a challenge, and that the Lord will see fit to bless me with other topics on which to write as this experience has been one of the most trying yet rewarding of my relatively short life.

Understating the Case

December 14 and dateline Geneva, the Associated Press has published a story entitled Physicists close in on elusive subatomic particle in which praises are being sung for the real possibility that the Higgs boson will soon be discovered.  Richard Higgs is attributed with postulating the existence of a subatomic particle that explains the existence of mass in the elements that make up the atom.  Equations in physics that have been used and work out in the real world (i.e. correctly and accurately explain observed behavior) assume that electrons, for example, have mass.  Frank Wilczek said, "Since the equations have worked so brilliantly now for decades, it's really nice to dot the i's and cross the t's."  A theoretical physicist at FERMI has explained the Higgs boson this way:

"What hides the symmetry between the weak and electromagnetic interactions? That is the question we hope to answer through experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. When the LHC is commissioned, around the year 2005, it will enable us to study collisions among quarks at energies approaching 1 TeV, or a trillion (10¹²⁾electron volts. A thorough exploration of the 1-TeV energy scale will determine the mechanism by which the electroweak symmetry is hidden and teach us what makes the W and Z particles massive.

"The simplest guess goes back to theoretical work by British physicist Peter Higgs and others in the 1960s. According to this picture, the giver of mass is a neutral particle with zero spin that we call the Higgs boson. In today's version of the electroweak theory, the W and Z particles and all the fundamental constituents--quarks and leptons--get their masses by interacting with the Higgs boson. But the Higgs boson remains hypothetical; it has not been observed. That is why particle physicists often use the search for the Higgs boson as a shorthand for the campaign to learn the agent that hides electroweak symmetry and endows other particles with mass.  Chris Quigg in Scientific American 

So the quest that is stated to be coming to a head is actually finding the correct range of possibility and nailing down with some certainty the existence of a theoretical particle that explains why equations in physics actually work. Chriss Quigg says elsewhere in the same paper "Over the next 15 years, we should be able to find a real understanding of the origin of mass. The interest lies not just in the arcana of accelerator experiments but suffuses everything in the world around us: mass is what determines the range of forces and sets the scale of all the structures we see in nature.

This is very exciting stuff. Human beings able to "see" subatomic particles that explain the mass of all the structures we see in nature. Not it must be noted that there are other theories if all the supercollider experiments do not show the Higgs boson. The two most well accepted both assume there is not one single particle, but a number of as yet undiscovered sub-atomic particles that are associated with known particles. Supersymmetry assumes several Higgs bosons, while dynamical symmetry breaking assumes the Higgs boson is a composite that is made up of multiple constituents that will need to be discovered once the Higgs boson itself is observed. In any event, the use of supercollider technology to experiment at high energy ranges allows for discoveries at the subatomic level with great expectation for remarkable results.

As interesting as all the physics and possible discovery is the statement made by physicist Howard Gordon of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York when he said, "It's hard to find, not because it is especially tiny, but because it is hard to create." I would say that a decade of construction and research into a 17-mile tube charged to 1 TeV (trillion electron volts) would classify as hard. The really funny thing about this comment is that all this effort has gone in to discover the range in GeV within a range of statistical certainty the Higgs boson might exist within to declare it has been observed. Not really creation at all, is it. The Higgs boson is also called the "God particle" as it is hoped to explain why anything in this universe has mass and why after the Big Bang everything slowed down instead of just racing outward to infinity and all we know never came to be as we know it.

Supposing a range with statistical certainty is achieved such that the Higgs boson is "observed", or multiple Higgs bosons are "observed", or a whole range of new particles and their possible constituents are "found" what physics still cannot tell is where the first elements necessary to produce the "Bang" came from, nor why knowing any of these things matters (why there is something rather than nothing). Science is completely impotent regarding these matters. We certainly aren't creating anything, as all the elements and particles already exist and are "waiting" for us to observe them. We also continue to find more and more intricate interaction between elements and particles in science whether it be in particle physics, microbiology or other field of study. We know an astronomically detailed and complex series of particles and elements work independently and in concert with others in ways we cannot yet fully describe or understand but which must be so for our tests to even be performed in the first place. We should be excited about how far we have come in such discoveries, we should be amazed that even at the level of observation now possible there is still so much we do not know and must theorize about, and we should be humbled that there is no good reason for any of it to be this way and yet we are capable of participating in such exploration. As complicated and detailed the scientific discoveries will continue to be in the future we must remember that all these observed particles, elements and particles came from absolutely nothing (no energy, substance or potential) and the sum total of all scientific discoveries provides no meaningful answers to even the most basic questions of relationships between the discoverers and anything else in existence.

We need not pursue a "God particle", but the God who created all things and who holds all things together, and who provides a reason for human existence, a purpose for our existence, and the possibility of relationship with the One who is sovereign over all we observe and understand. Let us not understate the case, nor let us discover in vain.

Paying the Price

It was reported in the news cycle a short while ago that the British Embassy in Iran came under fire, and similarities were drawn as memories were taken back to the capture of American embassy workers years ago.  Those captured embassy workers were held captive for over a year.  I thought about this recently as I was asked if I felt that biblical texts concerning a ransom being paid should be taken literally.  It we are supposed to take that sort of idea literally, then to whom was the ransom paid?  In other words, to whom was God Himself beholden?

My short answer is an emphatic yes, a ransom was literally paid.  I can say that with confidence and still completely deny that God was beholden to anyone.  How can I say that without contradicting myself?  I'm so glad you asked.

ransom - 1. the redemption of a prisoner, slave, or kidnapped person, or captured goods, etc. for a price.  2. the sum or price paid or demanded.  3. a means of deliverance or rescue from punishment for sin, esp. the payment of a redemptive fine.  4. to redeem from captivity, bondage, detention, etc. by paying a demanded price.  5. to release or restore on receipt of a ransom.  6. to deliver or redeem from punishment for sin.


The reason that there is no contradiction with holding to a literal ransom is that the idea that we are held hostage by another party and that the only thing God can do is pay them off for our release is not accurate and is not the only usage of the term ransom, and therefore simply does not apply.  What is clear from scripture is that sin leads to death.  God tells Adam and Eve in the Garden that in the day they eat of the fruit they will surely die.  We are told explicitly that the wages of sin is death.  We are told that all men, all women are sinners, whose hearts are desperately wicked, incapable of any good thing, that we are all of us slaves to sin.  We are told that God's wrath is against all those who sin.

What is explicitly clear in scripture is that we have a gravely serious problem, namely that we are deserving to have the wrath of God levied against us (and rightfully so by our volitional disobedience and life contrary to the purpose for which we were created) as those who are slaves to sin.  We are enemies of God and can do nothing about it ourselves.  God's Justice and Holiness demands that this wrong be made right.  To suggest that God simply overlooks our acts is to deny His perfect Justice and Holiness.  But isn't God supposed to be Loving and Gracious and Merciful?

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9:15)


One would rightly read the above passage and ask, "For what reason?"  When Christ came as high priest o the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle taht is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.  He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.  The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.  How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:11-14).  Jesus died, His body broken, His blood shed to deliver, rescue, redeem us from the punishment of sin we deserve.  Death is the wages of sin, and death was the price to redeem.  Christ paid that price, and therefore was literally a ransom for us so that we might have the spirit of sonship, an eternal inheritance.  The bible describes what we already know, that there is no greater love than if one lay down his life for another; especially if the life is laid down for those who are enemies.  God is Love.

To say that Christ was not a ransom because God couldn't remain God while being required to pay someone else off to buy us back is foolishness because it is a complete misunderstanding and misreading of the clear and explicit teaching of scripture.  To deny that Christ died, or that His blood was shed for efficacious reasons is to diminish His Grace and Love as well as His Righteousness, Justice and Holiness.  Is the situation exactly like a hostage situation, no, but Christ literally gave His life as a ransom just the same.  In short, where the Bible is clear and explicit we need not seek after some other meaning.  It is enough to acknowledge the fullness of the Truth, not suppress it, and be forever grateful and determined to live a life wholly committed to glorifying God who is perfectly Holy, Just, Righteous, Gracious, Merciful and Loving based on His Sovereignty and how much He loved us while we were yet in our sins.  

Imports, Exports and International Commerce

Today's paper was replete with striking reports of happenings in the world.  An editorial by Thomas Sowell entitled Gingrich and immigration spoke of how the United States is proving it's convictions relative to immigration either by plumping for amnesty for all peoples currently residing in the US whether the have legitimate citizenship documentation or not, or whether we promote a house by house manhunt for all without papers and summarily dump them on the other side of the border.  Mr. Sowell's main point was that an equivocation was being made where people saw the immigration issue the same a importation of goods, namely that there should be open and free trade of goods worldwide so likewise there should be a free coming and going of all people worldwide with no restrictions.  Mr. Sowell described the differences, however, in a good and a person who brings a culture with them and procreates to create a furtherance and increase of that culture.

In another article by the McClatchy News Service entitled Nigeria's Senate votes to criminalize gay marriage had the Senate leader claiming that gay marriage was an import from the West.  He said, "The whole idea is the importation of foreign culture, but this would be one freedom too many.  We cannot allow our traditions and value system to be eroded."  This statement implicitly states that the United States' value system has already been eroded, since we are now freely exporting such as a commodity.  There again are obvious differences as much of Nigeria has not proposed any resistance to the criminal law passage as the country enforces Sharia law to punish same-sex relations by stoning.  Opponents to the law have similar arguments, however, as one spokesperson for rescinding the law said that outlawing gay marriage was a "gross violation of fundamental human rights."

Finally, in an article by the Associated Press entitled World's central banks act to ease market strains it seems that amid a constant parade of national bailouts the world is jumping from crisis to crisis and gaining confidence not from widespread stabilization of worldwide national debts and currency valuation based on a fixed point of reference but rather on how quickly the world community acts to prop up ailing nations so they can limp along until the next crisis.  Most troubling is the fact that the World Bank was only able to provide the bailout after China reduced bank reserve levels to make more money available.

In all three cases there is a common theme, there are people not willing to do what is hard to address problems effecting all mankind.  With regard to immigration it is hard to stand up and acknowledge that although people occupying a nation are in fact people and cannot just be loaded up on a ship and dropped off in a dingy in the ocean en masse, aliens do bring a culture with them and although all are not criminals no nation can accommodate a free border system and reasonably expect to provide security for it's citizens.  Something serious must be done that most people won't like but is right.

With regard to homosexual unions it is hard to stand up and acknowledge that marriage reaches beyond tradition and culture and cannot be addressed satisfactorily in a purely legal process while also being aware of the obvious logical fallacy that celebrating any lifestyle one chooses is equal with being denied food and water or other fundamental human rights.  There must be a standard for the very existence of fundamental human rights on which such "value systems" are based and then determine the legitimacy with which behaviors are celebrated or disavowed.  Making a stand for a standard by which to measure any "value system" and the precipitating statement of illegitimacy for relations outside those that align with the standard won't be liked by most people but it is right.

With regard to worldwide economics it must be acknowledged that many people will suffer if national banking collapses or is rendered functionally impotent while at the same time recognizing the obviousness that a nation cannot spend more than it produces or just print more currency that is not equally valuated against a fixed point of reference and continue to flourish.  For the US in particular either a return to the gold standard or some other fixed point of reference and/or major cuts where spending falls far below production so that legitimate debt obligation can be met the real crisis will hit and suffering on a much larger scale will result.  Something serious must be done that most won't like but is right.

In all cases the right thing must be done or serious consequences will be the result.  The question for all is what is right, and is there even such thing as right that applies to all people in these matters?  What standards are there for a value system that governs immigration, marriage and economics?  It is absolutely critical that those questions be answered with confidence and singularity.  I am confident in the singularity that can successfully address all those issues and all other effecting humanity.  What about you?

Reminders of Gratitude

Yesterday was a great day.  Lots of food with family and friends, my youngest son's birthday, beautiful weather and a day without work to enjoy it all.  Thanksgiving is a great Holiday mainly because it is a day set aside to be thankful.  OK, that is quite obvious and implicit in the title of the Holiday itself.  But I wonder if sometimes we don't stop to really think about the implications of thanksgiving.  There are two aspects in particular that seem too often to be lost in the shuffle between cooking, cleaning, traveling to multiple family gatherings, football games, planning for shopping trips the morning after (or more accurately these days, immediately following supper): the issuance of thanks and gratitude.

As implicit in the Holiday title as that the day is for giving thanks is the notion that thanks is being given...to...whom?  In every day life we say thank you in many different ways in many different forms, but one common theme is that we don't give thanks to inanimate objects and we don't give thanks to empty nothings.  We tell people thank you for volitional acts that have been helpful or beneficial to us in some way.  So, it bears spendig some time thinking, then, about all the talk about being thankful for family, or the weather, or the day together with friends.  Who gave those things for our benefit?

This questions shows how the issue of gratitude begins to emerge.  If there is no personal God, concerned with our livelihood then what becomes of gratitude for any of the things in life we enjoy?  Our health, a beautiful day, great relationships, anything we don't make with our own hands are nothing to be grateful for if there is no God.  But wait, some may say, I really am glad that the weather was good today.  And that is all that's left when gratitude disappears - personal pleasure.  Happiness replaces gratitude and existentialism rules as people are not grateful for such things but rather define their very existence by such things.  A turn that is deserving not of Thanksgiving, but of despair.

It is a great time to be a believer in Christ Jesus.  As these trends continue and despair begins to reign supreme people will begin to look at those who are disciples of Christ and ask form where the joy, gratitude, thanksgiving and hope comes.  We can be ready to tell of a personal God who blesses without prior action and makes available not only pleasure for the moment but joy for eternity, all available for those who acknowlege and accept the gift that has been offered.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Brilliantly Foolish

The Associated Press reported today in my local paper a story, entitled More surrender in SAT scandal, dealing with students cheating.  This report tells of not just a couple of kids getting caught passing notes during a class examination, but of twenty (20) current or former high school students paying money to have local college students bring fake ID's to the SAT or ACT examination site, pretend to be the paying customers, and complete the test for them.  These are no regular tests, but college entrance exams - and not just typical high schools, but top flight schools that already have college acceptance rates of almost 100%.  What we are talking about is well-to-do, intellectual high school students with the ability to pay between $500 and $3,600 each to these college students (totals that presumably do not include the cost of production for a fake ID).

What is most disturbing about the story is the response.  "Honest, hardworking students are taking a back seat to the cheaters, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said.  'This is a system begging for security enhancements."  Did you catch that stated solution: security enhancements.  The problem apparently is that security measures were not adequate enough to catch the cheaters until after the fact.  New York agreed as they convened a special meeting and retained former FBI Director Louis Freeh to review the security measures.  Mr. Freeh is a busy man today and in great demand by prestigious High Schools and Universities alike as he is currently leading the Penn State internal investigation for the Sandusky matter.

It seems so simple to just understand that human nature is that we know what is right and we don't do it.  Security measures are not the problem.  They may be necessary in light of the recognition of the truth of the nature of man just stated, but they are not the problem.  What is probably a better question is why are the young men being brought up on charges and treated with such disdain?  Aren't they being taught that human existence is purposeless, meaningless and arbitrary?  Aren't they being taught that language, history, literature and any other written text is to be interpreted by the individual with complete autonomy?  Aren't they being taught that morality is relative and based solely on current acceptable societal norms and concepts of benefit to the greater good and human flourishing?  Why are we punishing them for living out exactly what they are being taught?

These are questions not easily addressed by the former Director of the FBI or any other DA or instructor of higher learning if they are living with the Existential, Materialistic and Naturalistic framework on which they so freeing and staunchly hold in their classes.  These twenty young men could have simply interpreted the rules of the High School the way they felt worked out best for themselves, decided in their own minds that it harmed no one, felt that the risk of penalty was worth the potential benefit and altered the relative standards of morality according to their own understanding.

If we are going to stipulate that there are no absolute moral standards to which all humankind must adhere, if we refuse to acknowledge attributes of humanity that are intrinsic to all (Truth, guilt, shame, etc.), if we are going to teach relativity and deconstructionism as part of a postmodern metaphysical presupposition on which all of society is based, and if we are going to plump for an existence devoid of any ultimate purpose, meaning or value then why are we so surprised when our children grow up and decide to do whatever makes them feel good and works out for their own benefit, regardless of what rules are broken and who else is hurt in the process?  These students are brilliant and foolish because they have been trained to be so.

Until we realize that we cannot posit a blank slate of morality on which everyone gets to write in their own system and correctly identify the problems in humanity as sinful instead of misguided, there will exist in this nation a continued and increasingly complicated arms race between those whose very nature is to live opposite to the purpose of their existence and those who are trying to build a better mousetrap.  The United States of America is racing with abandon toward a completely secular society, laughing, cheering and celebrating all along the way.  It is inevitable, however, that the closer we get to the finished line the busier Mr. Freeh will become.

Of Supercommittees, Occupations and Music Awards

I marvel many times at how the so-called "postmodern" mindset has effected every aspect of life in the United States.  We deconstruct everything these days.  Language is used in whatever way the user deems appropriate.  We are currently asking one word questions: Really?  Seriously?  I heard a commercial for Taco Bell that described the amount of meat in a new flatbread sandwich as "epic."  We look to compartmentalize every facet of life into specialized slices of ever-diminishing scope, and although we may participate in two different facets at the same time the attitude is "never the twain shall meet."  A student can be in class taking part in a text message "conversation" with a friend and be called down for not paying attention, to the which the student promptly responds with all seriousness, "What's one thing got to do with the other?" or probably more accurately, "Seriously?"

And so I read of the debt reduction supercommittee failure, the occupy every city USA issues, the scandals and alleged scandals at Penn State and Syracuse and wonder if anyone else sees the common thread linking all three issues.  One is strictly political, right?  One is strictly social, right?  One is strictly moral, right?

I watched part of the American Music Awards on Sunday night.  I have always felt that singers/songwriters are projecting the raw emotions and attitudes of the generation as well as any other medium.  Listening to the lyrics (or reading them) of the most popular songs gives a pretty good indicator for how things are going.  As it turns out one of the songs actually spoke directly to the linkage previously described.  The song was by Enrique Iglesius and it is called "I Like How It Feels."  Below is the first stanza and the chorus:

It's my time, it's my life,
I can do what I like
For the price of a smile, I gotta take it to right
So I keep living, 'cause the feel's right


And it's so nice, and i'd do it all again,
This time, it's forever
It gets better, and I I, I like how it feels


I like how it feels, I like how it feels
I like how it feels, I like how it feels
I like how it feels, I like how it feels


Amazing how a contemporary pop artist can funnel down all the biggest topics of the day into a few short minutes of music, isn't it?  Why did the supercommittee talks break down?  Why did the Occupy groups form and why are there so many problems within the protest groups?  Why are there scandals at major University sports programs?  Isn't it simply because everyone is doing exactly what this song says?  Every individual has deconstructed life into tiny slices, all disconnected from all the other slices, and does what they like based on how they feel because it's their life and it's their time.  I wonder if anyone else realizes that kind of existence is ultimately unliveable.  Society cannot function if that is the pervading attitude.

The point is something has to be an underlying principle that defines human existence and ties all aspects of life together.  If that underlying principle is "it's my time, it's my life, I can do what I like" then all of life is based on a feeling and is therefore completely arbitrary.  At some point the realization must strike that as human beings there are principles that govern our lives, objective principles that apply whether we acknowledge them or not.  We are hit in the face with them every day.  Most simply stated, we know what is right, we don't do it.  A purely existential life de-values life, allows for compartmentalization and deconstruction of human existence.  While trying to build a meaning for life one piece at a time, we are actually acquiescing to an existence completely devoid of any ultimate meaning.

When will the supercommittee be able to make headway?  When will the occupiers not have a reason to protest and not have such a self assigned important venture implode?  When will abuse and violation of others really come to an end?  The answer is the same as it has always been, since nearly the very beginning of human existence - when each and every individual lives according to the purpose for their existence: to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.  What does that really mean?  Put down the iPhone, get off Facebook and Twitter, turn off the TV, get in a room alone and pray, asking God to reveal that purpose, His redemptive plan through His Son Christ Jesus, and what it all really means.

True Love

Imagine two young people, been in church their whole lives, one a pastor's daughter and the other a deacon's son who pursue each other and finally get married who now have four children and fifteen grandchildren.  What would you say about that couple and their beginning?  Super couple with a great background and off to a solid start?  No chance of divorce with those two?  Perfect example of how Christian families should begin and will work out if done right?  Well, Norm Wakefield from Spirit of Elijah Ministries described his relationship with his wife (and her relationship with him) as idolatrous, and testified to the first 10 years being a "train wreck".  I suspect this is the case far more often than most believers will even admit, for fear of letting out the awful truth that we who profess Christ as our Savior mess things up sometimes too.

Do we really think about Love in terms of Christ's love for us?  I mean really think about it that way.  A brief review of scripture shows with certainty that He loved us BEFORE we did anything to deserve it.  Do we really love people before they do things we want, or give us things we desire?  How about it husbands, do we love our wives, serve them, bring them flowers, write them little love text messages throughout the day, buy them gifts for no reason, without any expectation of physical intimacy later on?  How about it fathers, do we spend time with our children, read books, play sports, work projects, have devotions, without any expectation of obedience or verbal approval of our parenting as a result?  Do we love our families, giving of all we are, without any expectation of something in return - or do we love them like a football team, spending time and cheering them on as long as they are winning for the entertainment we derive from the investment?  Sobering to think we are all creating for ourselves idols and carving them with precision every day.

Go to Spirit of Elijah Ministries website and look into the book "Equipped to Love" by Norm Wakefield.  The man is gifted by God to speak to relationships in real terms, identifying real loving relationships from idolatrous ones.  It will open your eyes, as his talk did mine, to the correct way to think and pray for help in experiencing God's love for us in a deeper and more intimate way, and how we can be successful in loving others and ourselves in the way God loves us.

We don't have relationship issues, or communication problems, or repressions of this or that from past situations by and large.  We have a sin problem in that we are experts in habitual creation and formation of idols from which we derive our fulfillment.  We need all the resources we can to identify ways in which we can rely completely on our God and Savior to bring fulfillment in every area of our lives.  Norm's book is a good one to add to your collection.

Real Relationships

We met again on the afternoon of November 12 to hear from Norm Wakefield of Spirit of Elijah Ministries on the topic of relationships.  Again the presentation was tremendous, and was a fresh way to look at interpersonal relationships (via the interaction between Jesus and Peter {a.k.a. Simon).

Mr. Wakefield brought out the idea that Peter wrote his letters (1 Peter and 2 Peter) from his life experience, most especially the last few weeks he spent time with Jesus before His crucifixion.  From those experiences he was able to write to the early church members in difficult situations they were experiencing - see specifically 1 Peter chapter 2 and 3.

In a nutshell (so as not to repeat material that is available through the website link above, which I would strongly recommend) Peter's concept of relationship changed when he stopped seeing Jesus as Lord consummated by power and law and began to see Jesus as Lord consummated by love and experience.  In other words, not King and ruler by political rule but Shephard who saved His sheep by laying down His own life.

My mind has been all around this concept for weeks now and to be frank what has bothered me most is the issue of obedience and devotion to the commandments of God if all is love an experience.  I mean, if every relationship is all about love then won't that make Christians pushovers, ready to be bowled over since we can't really stand up to people we are supposed to love, right?  I mean if love dominates all relationships then we couldn't tell people they are doing something wrong, engaging in wrong behavior, etc.  We'd have to just let everyone do our own thing without making them feel bad by telling them they are living wrongly, right?  Actually, no.  If we really love our Lord and love other people then we will be compelled to live rightly ourselves, constantly aware of our actions so that we never behave (in thought, word or deed) in a way that would shame the Gospel or cause any other believer to stumble [in other words live an example].  We will also love others enought to point out wrongdoing, and here's the key, only from a motivation of desiring them to know the love of Christ in their lives and only as their lives do not align with clearly commanded and modeled biblical principles.  It is out of our love for our Lord that we identify and point out behavior inconsistent with biblical principles, so that we can share the message of love with others so they might be able to know the love of God in their own lives.

It's a different perspective, and I believe the correct one.  The key is motivation.  We as believers have probably not done ourselves any favors as we tried to take the short road and just proclaim that others are living wrong and on their way to Hell out of an attitude of pride and arrogance.  How much more effective would it be if we just thought constantly of what Christ Jesus has done for us, how much we love our Lord, and as a result live a life dedicated to showing how much we love Christ and love others by sharing the love of Christ and those same areas where their lives do not align with biblical principles because we want them to know the freedom, hope and joy that comes from looking for our fulfillment in Christ alone.  I have a feeling we would have some real and close relationships that honor the Lord.  And that is our purpose in life anyway, glorifying the Lord.  He is worth the effort.

Seeing Clearly

November 11-13 is a special time at Antioch Community Chrurch, as we have the privledge to welcome Norm Wakefield from Spirit of Elijah Ministries presenting a series of talks to encourage and challenge all comers.  Spirit of Elijah Ministries focuses on relationships and especially on relationships in families between parents and their children.  They have some excellent resource material available and Mr. Wakefield does a wonderful job as speaker and personal testimony with his own children and fifteen grandchildren.

The first session, on the evening of the 11th, was on eternal perspective.  Background information for the talk included a basic review of systematic theology from creation through the fall of man, Jesus' arrival on earth as the promised sacrifice, His death, burial, resurrection, appearance to many witnesses and return to Heaven as our advocate, the entry of the Holy Spirit and the promise of an eternity with God in perfect relationship.  The three main points, which followed and stemmed from the introduction was as follows:  Teach your children that (1) they always live in God's presence; (2) they only see clearly from an eternal perspective; (3) if they believe they may continually go to (live with) Jesus every day here on earth.

My thoughts following the talk were on two things.  First, about how marvellous it is that God created us of His own volition, in His image so that we can bring Him glory through relationship.  Even more amazing that even now that we have disobeyed (yes we - Adam sinned originally but each one of, given the choice would have done the same {chosen to play God ourselves in lieu of being obediant} See also Romans 5:12-21) God wants to be near to us.  He also provided the means for that to happen by way of Jesus' shed blood, burial and resurrection.  God is always near, not looking on with a huge stick and a sinister grin standing in anticipation that we will slip up so that He can bring down the thunder.  Rather it is analagous to how badly I want to be at home with my children, because I love them.  I have loved them since before they were born and I want to be near them, hold them, read to them, talk to them, instruct them in the way they should go.  Discipline is necessary as a part of love in a fallen world, but is not the primary reason for being close.  Relationships is primary.

Secondly is the idea of seeing clearly on when looking at things "from above and not from below."  If we look "horizontally" and attempt to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong then we will always be managing special situations and working individually within our own mind, justifying our own behavior and choices with good reasons why what we did wasn't really wrong in our case.  The problem is that the law is written on all our hearts.  We hear and read of situations exactly like the case at Penn State and are hit with it directly in the face.  None of us know every specific detail of everything that occurred over a 20-year timespan.  However, every single one of us knows (not guesses, or suspects, or feels) that what that man did to that boy in the shower was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  Nothing subjective, nothing left to the situation or condition of either individual.  Just plain wrong.  Always the case, no exceptions.  Absolutely, objectively wrong.  Why is that the case if everything came from nothing, no ultimate purpose or meaning, no personal Creator determining right and wrong, good and bad, based on His own nature, without being ultimately arbitrary and capricious?  Right and wrong can be known and has been recorded and clearly modeled.  It is true that we can only see situations clearly, see our own faults and sins clearly, see our own needs clearly, see situations and relationships clearly if we look at them through the perspective of the One Creator who is Righteous and Holy.  We can and will continue to look "horizontally" to analyze all the previous and will continue to see muddled and make mistakes and misjudgements that will continue to do harm to one another and ourselves, until we decide to look "vertically" to see things clearly.  We can know things by what is written and clearly modeled in Scripture, our personal experiences that demand perception of those absolute and objective truths, and the Spirit testifying with our spirit.

It is our responsibility to understand we were Created by a Holy and Righteous and Gracious and Merciful God and live our lives in light of that.  Constantly forgiven and constantly cognizant to desperately fight for the Truth and not to grieve the Spirit or place stumbling blocks before others who we should be encouraging in the assurance of their own ability, through the Spirit, to see things clearly.

Certainty in Opinions

Much discussion has welled up again on a familiar topic that deserves some serious thought and discussion.  Namely, on opinion and fact relative to scripture.  The discussion goes something like this:  There are undeniable truths in the Bible that are unquestioned and then there are things that are just our opinion, things that are not "Thou Shalt Not" in nature and therefore terms like "Christian liberty" would apply.  What are these things?  How do we know?  What kind of scripture can we say are applicable to all and what scripture are we to use our own judgment?  Even these questions seem loaded and problematic so the trouble is where to begin.  For this post I'm going to begin with a couple of comments that a visitor posted and then my response.  The visitor asked permission to posit the question and the comment would be visible by all in the comment section so I don't believe i'm taking any undue liberty posting it here.  First the comment:

A few questions, if I may... 1. You DO agree that Paul is clearly telling us in Romans 14 that there IS such a category as non-essential questions of opinion on which we ought to live and let live, yes? 2. I'm curious as to how large your list of "essential" matters on which Christians ought NOT disagree and where we OUGHT to argue with one another, calling into question someone else's (ie, God's) servant? I'd gladly suggest that my list of essential, non-disputable matters is pretty small. I'd limit it to matters that I think are exceedingly clear (and, to be honest, I probably wouldn't even create a list, but if I did, it would look something like this...) God is love. Humanity sins/humans have a sinful nature. Humanity needs salvation. Salvation comes by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. God cares for the "least of these" and expects us to do so as well. Those who don't - or those who oppress the least of these - will be held in judgment. Something like that. And even within that, I'd have the grace to allow some disputation about what that means. For instance: Sure, all of humanity has a sinful nature, but does that mean that a one day old infant sins? No, that is not a valid conclusion. Yes, we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, but what does that look like? Well, I think it could look like a lot of things and I'm not sure that I could spell them all out, nor am I interested in trying. Like that. I'd have a short, flexible list because I think that, as fallible humans, we have a finite amount of genius and perfection and are quite capable of being mistaken. Oftentimes, historically, much of what we traditionally have called "GOD'S WILL," has been more a matter of opinion, rather than God stating something as fact. Thus, my list is short and gracious. How 'bout you?

Jeremy, if I may offer a few thoughts on this old post... Judge is defined as, “to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” Surely this is not the normally intended usage that is found to be so objectionable. Yes, I know that many people whip out "thou shalt not judge" as if it were the end all/be all command and do so at the risk of taking it out of context (as if to say, "Don't judge any body or anything!"). The thing is, if you ask most of them, of course they'll admit that it's okay to make judgements: To judge an oppressive tyrant as unfit to continue holding his office, for instance, or to judge a child abuser unfit to take care of children. Practically no one truly thinks that there should be NO judgment happening, even those who'll over-extend the "judge not" passage. Could we agree there? I'd posit that what folk are doing is reacting AGAINST an abusive of religious domination, and in so doing, sometimes, they may take it too far. As we have seen discussed over on Stan's recent post, Romans 14 makes it clear that we are NOT to be overly judgmental at least on matters of opinion, on "disputable matters." Based on this passage and other passages, clearly there ARE some matters where we ought not be judgmental or perhaps overly judgmental. I would posit that in Jesus' time, as today, there are many in the religious world who make a habit of "judging God's servant," in the sense that they lack in showing grace and christian liberty to other Christians to seek God's will. In Baptist circles, we speak of the Priesthood of the Believer, the notion that each believer is accountable to God and we ought not be sniping one another about their decisions/beliefs, AT LEAST on non-essential questions.

And now my response:

The question posed in the first comment is really about the length of list of items that are essential to the Christian faith, as opposed to those that are non-essential.  In essence we are trying to come to agreement on the items within Biblical teaching that are beyond debate and are applicable to everyone with condemnation as the result of disobedience, and everything else that we all make up our own minds and leave each other to it.  There are two elements to this question, the logical and the theological.  In terms of pure logic I believe it to be an impossible question to answer, or just a faulty question.  For there to be a list of non-negotiables that all have no choice but to consent to, there would have to be language exactly like the following: "The following items are beyond debate, non-negotiable, applicable to all people and will bring condemnation if violated..."  If that is not present then even the list that is formed could be considered merely the opinion of the one making the list.  We are all aware that debate over just such a list has gone on since the inception of the church and necessarily spawned the denominational seperation that currently exists.  I realize this is not the heart of the question.  The heart of the question is the theological one - namely, what do we adhere to unswervingly to be obedient to God and what do we let pass.

My response to the theological question is another question: what is the goal of the disciple of Christ?  Is our goal anything other than being Christlike?  Are we not being transformed into the likeness of Christ through the process of sanctification daily?  Are we not commanded in scripture to be perfect and Christ is perfect, to be holy and Christ is Holy?  The question that follows naturally is: How do I know what it is to be Christlike?  And here is the rub in this whole line of questioning.  The only way we know is by comparing our lives to what is Christlike, and the only thing we have to compare our lives to is the Word of God.  We must acknowledge the Bible as the litmus, the measuring stick against which we compare all we think, do and say.  Put together, what we are left with is the necessity to read the Bible as a complete system - Genesis to Revelation - for how to direct our lives to be conformed to the likeness of Christ.  Therefore every perfectly written principle in the Bible must be non-negotiable.  Please notice the distinction i'm making here, the human being who is the disciple of Christ is not perfect, the written Biblical principle is perfect.  Here is where the grace for one another comes in.  Grace for one another is not being silent except on issues that make our list of non-negotiables.  Grace for one another is recognizing that those who are disciples of Christ are at different places on their journey of sanctification and so we challenge one another with the whole council of God to better change our thoughts, actions and speech to better conform to the perfect Biblical principles.  I hope that is perfectly clear.  Now the only question that remains is: Is the questioner a disciple of Christ?  This is the list that is really important.  Does the questioner believe that Jesus is Lord and God, that He died on the cross and whose shed blood is the only thing efficacious for the remission of sin, the expunging of the wrath of God and able to reconcile our relationship with our Heavenly Father, and that He rose from the dead to defeat death and the grave and give the hope of eternal life in the presence of God?  That's a good place to start.

Now the second comment, which is a derivative of the first.  In relation to the particulars of judgments again the issue is motivation.  For the disciple of Christ we are to share the Truth in love for the sake of the Gospel.  We don't make judgments on activities and bring them to someone else's attention to prove our point, to be argumentative, or for any other reason than we love them and desire a change in a behavior whose principle is clearly laid out by the whole council of God through the entire Biblical system.  Again, we are all ultimately accountable to God but we are also commanded to make disciples - to let other believers know where their behavior does not line up with the clear principles of scripture, in love, for change.  Grace is not a matter of leaving well enough alone unless a behavior is recognized by both parties as essential, or addressing an issue as being on my list and so I suggest you think about considering a change unless you disagree and then I won't bring it up anymore because we differ in opinion.  Grace is saying you are wrong and need to change your behavior because your actions deviate from clear Biblical principles and I love you too much to back down, but I also understand you may not like it and it may take time for the Holy Spirit to cultivate the desire to repent in this area and change so I won't beat you up or resort to hateful language or actions to force your hand.  I hope you can see that difference.  The principle is not a matter of opinion, it is forever settled, we are to exhort one another to change where our lives are inconsistent with those principles in love without wavering.

I'll close with an illustration.  My boys and I are reading through the Chronicles of Narnia series again and tonight we are closing out Book 1 - The Magician's Nephew.  Consider the following passage:

"When he had come close up to them (the golden gates to the garden) he saw words written on the gold with silver letters; something like this:  Come in by the gold gates or not at all, Take of my fruit for others or forbear, For those who steal or those who climb my wall Shall find their hearts desire and find despair.  'Take of my fruit for others," said Digory to himself.  'Well, that's what i'm going to do.  It means I musn't eat any myself, I suppose...'I know what errand you have come on,' continued the Witch,...you are going to carry it back, untasted, to the Lion; for him to eat, for him to use.  You simpleton!  Do you know what that fruit is?  I will tell you...Eat it, Boy, eat it; and you and I will both live forever and be king and queen of this whole world...'And I suppose because she took it in the wrong way it won't work for her'...'Alas,' said Aslan, shaking his head.  'It will.  Things always work according to their nature.  She won her heart's desire...But length of days with an evil heart is only length of misery and already she begins to know it.  All get what they want; they do not always like it...'That is what would have happened, child, with a stolen apple.  It is not what will happen now.  What I give you now will bring joy.  It will not, in your world, give endless life, but it will heal.  Go.  Pluck her an apple from the Tree."

What was written on the gate was the Truth.  Stolen fruit may look sweet, but will bring despair.  In the Witch's opinion stealing or receiving was all the same.  She was wrong because her opinion did not line up with the writing on the door.  She got what she wanted, but despair as well.  By way of illustration we too must keep the perfect principle at the forefront, not our opinions about it, as well as the motiviation behind all we think, do and say.  We must only partake of the apple given us, not decide for ourselves what to eat and when to eat it and let God sort it out later.

No Laughing Matter

I intended to publish a post on the content in the book I recently finished, but that will have to wait.  When reading the local newspaper this morning I came across an article that brushes on a topic I am passionate about, namely marriage.  The article, entitled Kardashian's split was quick, but it wasn't the quickest asked, in jest, if the 72-day marriage for Kim Kardashian was the shortest in celebrity history.  Apparently seventy two days won't get a celebrity into the top-10 for shortest stint as a married couple.  Seven of the shortest were listed, with the gold medal going to Robin Givens and Svetozar Marinkovic, at seven minutes.

Although published as a laughable contest and all presented in a jovial manner, my emotions ranged instead from disgust and disappointment to rage.  One might ask why anyone should get so upset about such thing.  After all, it wasn't my marriage that broke up, it's kinda fun to watch these celebrities live these things out in front of us on "reality TV", and it provides a moment of levity in the middle of things like the debt crisis, the housing market crash, international upheaval and apparently the nearing end of the world with population increases and climate change.  My response would be that I don't see how anyone could ever take profanity lightly.

Profanity, you say?  Are you sure you didn't mean something else?  No I didn't.  Very clearly and with certainty it is profanity.  That opposite of sacred is not neutrality, secular or pure amusement; the opposite of sacred is profane.  It is impossible to get a real sense of where the sacred aspect comes in from the short list of fastest break-ups, but in a related article from the associated press we can see what the newly divorced woman said in her own words about the matter.  She is quoted in the article saying the following: "Kardashian says that while she "married for love"...", ""When I probably should have ended my relationship, I didn't know how to and I didn't want to disappoint a lot of people," she writes...", ""it just didn't turn out to be the fairy tale I had so badly hoped for."  


So, she married for love, she was hoping for a fairy tale and when she discovered in the midst of the "reality show" that her relationship was not a fairy tale she didn't end it for fear of disappointing a lot of people (which are now the very people to whom she is making an apology for causing disappointment). Please know that I do not intend this space as a hammer with which to bludgeon Ms. Kardashian. She is participating in, and reinforcing and continuing the profaning of the sacredness of love and marriage which began long before her time and will continue long after her fame has fleeted.

Love and marriage can only be legitimate as they are sacred and transcend human definition.  This has to be the case as what has obliterated any sense of right and wrong with respect to marriage has been humanity arrogating to themselves the authority and autonomy to define for themselves definitions of love and marriage.  Love is a fairy tale affair laced with perfect existence and constant fulfillment of physical pleasure.  Marriage is any relationship between two entities who decide they want to engage in a committed partnership.  NO, NO, NO!!!  Isn't the problem obvious?  Whose to say those definitions apply to everyone?  Who gets to decide what the boundaries of "fulfillment", "pleasure" or "committed" really means.  After all, staying with someone for two years is surely commitment enough, isn't it?  The attempt of any human being to decide the parameters of love and marriage will fail for this very reason, the definitions are arbitrary and temporal.

Love and marriage are legitimate as they are sacred and transcendent.  Therefore they must be maintained as they are consistent.  I maintain that since the Biblical Christian worldview as a system is the only one that is non-contradictory and sufficiently explains all things, and is TRUE, that love and marriage is only legitimate as it comports with Biblical understanding.  Love is legitimate only as it is a reflection of Christ.  Marriage is only legitimate as it is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church.  Any other understanding is not neutral or secular, it is profane.

Now, having said all that, I realize that not everyone is a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Not everyone agrees with what i've just written.  I would love a discussion on another proposed equally legitimate definition and understanding of love and marriage.  However, not everyone who performs marriage ceremonies for people who do not agree with the Biblical Christian understanding, who are themselves both disciples of Jesus, whose understanding of their individual responsibilities to love, honor and cherish one another as modeled by Christ and His relationship with the church are justices of the peace.  In other words, there are ministers who are performing marriage ceremonies for individuals by the power vested in them by the state and under the authority of God without giving due consideration to such matters, without going through counseling sessions to make sure the new couple recognize the sacredness of what they are engaging in, and committing themselves to stay with the couple to encourage and challenge them continuously to improve and stay strong through the trials and issues that will inevitably surface.  Love and marriage, these things are not trivial they are sacred and it would be will with us if we would not treat them with such disregard.

Testimony of Grace

As I mentioned yesterday, I have just finished writing a book.  My files have been submitted to the publisher and I now await the front cover design, some recommendations for editing and a review of my final galley before going ahead with production and distribution.  It is a very exciting time.  The full book title is In, Not Of - Christian Relevance in 21st Century America.  I'll discuss the content in the next few days, but I thought it would appropriate to put into writing a testimony of God's grace in bringing the work to fruition.

At our Men's Retreat this past weekend a brother shared a definition of grace that I have been thinking about since.  He said grace could be defined as the desire and ability to do what is pleasing to God.  It's pretty good.  We don't by nature tend toward things that announce our inability to please God and do what is right.  Our bent is more toward autonomy and independence from God (acknowledging our ability to take care of things ourselves).  So, God's grace as the desire and ability to do what pleases God would be a God-given return to our originally designed state of being.  In my life, the process of completing this book has been God operating in His strength to infuse the desire and ability to please Him in a written work.  The process began in 2005 when many things changed in my family.  My wife and I had our 2nd child (2nd son, Nathan) in December.  At the same time, I changed my place of work from Greensboro to Burlington, from a consulting engineering firm (which was a great company where I had a great position) to the family business (which is a great company where I have a great position).  We also moved our membership from one great church family to another.  During this time, I began regular personal devotions in the book of Colossians.  In chapter one verses 16 and 17, Jesus is described as being before all things, that by Him all things were created, and in Him all things are held together.  I thought about those verses for a long time and felt compelled to investigate the notion that if those verses were really true then the "fingerprint" of Christ (His influence and imprint) should be on any topic under the sun.  For the next five years I read everything I could get my hands on and thought about newspaper articles and blog topics; really searching to see if those who believed the Bible was Truth had something meaningful to say.

In late October, early November, 2010 I felt compelled to compile all these ideas in a book.  More than a compulsion (although I couldn't escape the desire to take on the task) it was a coalescing of the book in my mind.  I can't say the idea wasn't there at all one minute and in full form the next, but when I did feel there was nothing I could do but capitulate and sit down to write I knew the organization and content from beginning to end.  It took just under a year to complete the writing and review.  It truly has been God's grace, Him placing in me the desire and ability to see this thing through.  I have always been one for math and science since I come from an engineering background, so reading and writing and any topic dealing with the humanities or social sciences has been nothing more than an impediment to me.  Interesting the God would choose to arrest my life for more than 5 years in that which I deemed unimportant.

I'll get into the content next time, but the book is arranged like a building construction project.  It begins with the foundation (an apologetic for belief in the God of the Bible), then the structure (what it means to be a Christian in the United States of America in the 21st Century) and finally the secondary framing or fascia (practical matters for Christians like media/entertainment, environment, government and love).  It has been a tremendous blessing personally and will hopefully be a challenge and encouragement to others of the desire and ability to please God that a Holy and personal Father places in His children for His good purposes.

Two Happy Returns

I'm returning today from two different breaks.  For one, I am returning from more than a year departure from the blogosphere.  I have been working diligently on a book since late October of 2010, which is now in the hands of the publisher and will be available by Christmas (I hope).  I'll post more on that later.  With responsibilities at work and at home I could not write daily for the book and keep up the posting, following and responding on my blog network.  It was a difficult decision to make, and I know it will take some time to return to the wonderful discussions and relationships formed, but i'm looking forward to working at that.  I also returned on Saturday evening from our annual Antioch Community Church  Men's Retreat at Holden Beach.  The trip is always a wonderful time and several great themes emerged from our trip.

First, we had a speaker from Kentucky who completed research related to the family aspect of churches in the United States.  His name is Ryan Steenburg and he has a ministry called Daddy Discipleship in which he challenges men to take a Biblical role in being husbands and fathers.  It was a wonderful time and also quite convicting in that no matter how well one seems to feel one is doing there is always more to learn and improvement that can be made.  The two main points that stuck with me was the need to be intentional daily to know the personalities of your children and train them up according to how God created them.  I have four young children, each with a different personality.  So it is critical that I don't train each one as if all children are alike in all respects.  This takes time and communication between my wife and myself so that we agree on how to work with each one.  Second, Ryan challenged us to understand that the same construction is used in the Bible for "bring up your children" and "nurture and cherish your wife."  Therefore we must not stop loving our wives in a nurturing and caring way just because we have children.  Our responsibilities as men in the home are great, and we must come alongside one another to do it well.

Next we had a discussion on giving in the church.  We focused on the understanding that giving is a physical representation or expression of the recognition that God owns everything.  Many facets of giving then come to the fore.  There is a promise of blessing when we give, even though we don't give for the sake of receiving.  There is a command from the Lord to give, and even if we gave for no other reason than to be obedient there is more to the issue.  Ultimately, God entrusts His people with many different quantifiable elements for which to oversee.  Our time, talents, possessions are existential realities with which we must deal as a part of the nature of our existence.  They remain with us so long as we move about on this planet.  Our responsibility is to recognize that all of them are provisions from God that we are expected to manage.  An attitude to not give is a denial of the One who owns all we have.  We must acknowledge the Owner of all things by managing well that which we have been entrusted and be joyful in generosity as we have been commanded.

I had a quick presentation on the book and some themes that came to the forefront through the year of writing (which i'll take up in the next couple of posts).  And then our final session was dealing with prayer.  We focused in on the fact that a robust prayer life comes with a more complete understanding of our position of desperation.  Put another way, the better we understand how limited and finite and contingent/dependent we are on God for everything the more we will desperately seek Him out for direction, ability and guidance.  That is the essence of prayer.  Approaching God because of our understanding of our desperate state is a return to our original state of being.  Created in His image to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever, as opposed to how we behave a react since the fall - constantly seeking autonomy and separation from God to do our own thing. To approach it from the negative, we could say the more we see ourselves and our ability as the means to live out our lives on a daily basis, then we will look to God less and therefore pray less.  So then it follows that what we need is a constant refreshing in our minds of how dependent we are on God, which will naturally drive us to talk with Him and express our dependence and need for the grace and mercy of the Lord in all things.

So, as is many times the case, it was good to have been away and great to be back.