Milk to Meat

A Changed Heart and Some Persevering Men

2012-02-16T10:00:00.000-05:00

I felt compelled to spend February in the book of Ezra and so I have been reading daily through the short 10 chapter book concerning the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in Judah following the return from captivity in Babylon (among other things). There is a wealth of issues to cover, so i'll take them as time permits in brief and hope that you will be encouraged from the reading of them to read through Ezra yourself, and be blessed.

Just two quick points today. The first is a phrase that reaches out and slaps me across the face every time it appears in scripture. I'm speaking here of the first two verses of the book:

"In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing:"

Wow, it's amazing every time. Cyrus king of Persia ruled over all the exiles from Jerusalem, taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzer, and had no intentions of letting them go back home. Then something happened, no less than a miracle. God, in keeping with what He spoke through Jeremiah, moved the heart of Cyrus. Then the king sent them back home, and not only sent them back but sent with them silver and gold, goods and livestock and freewill offerings the temple in Jerusalem that was yet to be rebuilt. So we see several things here. God is not sitting up in heaven, having wound up the universe, just sitting back letting things happen as they will. He is intimately involved. You know, like what is written in Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Not sitting back watching, but Sovereign over and in control of all things. All things that God has said will come to pass - will come to pass. Also, only God can change hearts. Many fine arguments can be made to make someone consider changing their way of thinking about a certain topic, but no amount of human effort can bring about a change in another's heart. This is a possible source of error for many people who rigorously pursue apologetics. Obviously there is nothing wrong with study, with discovering the wealth of resources and evidences of God's existence in all aspects of human existence and with making arguments for God among people who do not believe. However, we must be so very careful not to become so proficient in making arguments for God that we put ourselves in the place of God - believing that it is the argument and the arguer that turn people to God, moving to the place where we devote all our time to arguing for God that we neglect a relationship with God, spending a larger percentage of our time reading what other people say about God than we do reading what God Himself has revealed in His Word. I thank God for the surge in interest and captivation by a new generation who have the largest abundance of resources in the history of the world at their fingertips, but we can have all that and still go astray. Let us never forget that our commission from God is not to make converts, but to make disciples, and that only God can move the heart of man. So we study to show ourselves approved, we stand up for the Truth and pray that God will have mercy and extend His grace to those He places before us, that He will shine the light of Truth into their heart that they may believe and confess in the Son and be set free so that we may have the privilege of continuing the process of discipleship all for His glory.

Second, we must persevere. Paul speaks of finishing the race and keeping the faith as he implores Timothy to press on toward the prize. We see in the first few chapters here an example of this lived out and recorded for our edification. Consider Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak:

"When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the people assembled as one man in Jerusalem. Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and his fellow priests and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his associates began to build the altar of the God of Israel...Despite their fear of the peoples around them, they built the altar on its foundation...though the foundation of the Lord's temple had not yet been laid...Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building. They hired counselors to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia...As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimsai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop. Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of of the reign of Darius king of Persia. Now Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the prophet, a descendant of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, who was over them. Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak set to work to rebuild the house of God in Jerusalem. And the prophets of God were with them, helping them." (Ezra 3:1-5:2)

So much to say here so I will continue on this theme next time, but notice two things now. First that these two men are mentioned by name as leading the building effort based on the decree of Cyrus king of Persia, whose heart was turned by the Lord, were forced to stop by the people of Israel who petitioned the then king Artaxerxes, and resumed the effort with the proclamation by the prophets of God (Haggai and Zechariah). These two men persevered. What an encouragement to us, that although there will be times when people (even the people of God) set themselves to discouraging and frustrating God's will that ultimately what God has decreed will come to pass. It is reasonable to believe that the reason Zerubbabel and Jeshua did not lose heart and fall away is because they were not looking to their plan or their efforts. How easy it would have been when the decree came down from King Artaxerxes to have exclaimed, "Oh no, our plans have been thwarted, why oh why did you stop us, Lord. All we wanted was to rebuild your temple and worship you as you've commanded us to do. We built the altar and offered sacrifices and yet you have abandoned us!" Their confidence must have been in something beyond themselves. It is also reasonable to believe that their confidence was in their Lord, not themselves. They began building based on the decree by King Cyrus, but not because he decreed it. Cyrus decreed the people be allowed to return and rebuild the temple. Zerubbabel and Jeshua first built the altar and offered sacrifices to God, before setting the foundation for the temple. There was something beyond King Cyrus driving these men, the God that moved the King's heart. This is also why the men did not wait for another King to give them permission to return to building, the prophets of God spoke and they went back to work. They served God, they placed their confidence in God, and God was with them. More on these men and the prophets of God next time.

Honoring Church Leadership

2012-02-14T08:50:00.000-05:00

Sure enough, we camped out in 1 Timothy 5 this week for about 40 minutes. Specifically the focus was on verses 17-20 and honoring the church leaders was the topic. Several important points came out that we can look at today. First, a plurality of elders. Any mention of leaders (elders, overseers, bishops) is always in the plural. Even generic instructions when establishing a new body has a plurality (Acts 14:23), and when speaking of a fellowship already in existence where supplies are being distributed the gifts are given to "the elders" (Acts 11:30). In each instance where the office is being discussed there is a plurality given. Only the requirements for qualification are given in the singular, and then because the qualifications are those to be met by each individual that is to serve as part of the plurality. So then how many make up the plurality? Ah, and here we can get into trouble. Elders means more than one, and that is as far as we can go. We are not told any specific number, so making a requirement of three, seven, twelve or any other number mandatory could bring disastrous results because there may not be enough men who meet all the qualifications in the body to fill the number mandated by the church policy. In that case concessions would have to be made regarding biblical instructions (men not meeting qualifications for eldership, women installed, etc.). If the best practice is to follow what the Scriptures say, then there must be more than one elder and each man must meet all the biblical qualifications for the office. The local church is not to be headed by a single man with all authority. Such a model is not biblical and therefore is a problem waiting to surface in the body.

Second, the position of elder is a position of honor by its very nature. Men serving as elders have a spiritual calling for leadership. They have demonstrated the character and conviction necessary to take on the task of handling the Word, leading the church body, and caring for the spiritual condition of each and every member of the local church. It is not for the faint of heart, for the weak in moral standing, for those light in theological understanding, nor for those who cannot handle conflict well. In short the majority of church membership do not belong in the position of elder. It is almost as if the prospective candidate desires very much the position, but never feels quite qualified to serve in that position, yet he is nominated, vetted, approved and encouraged by his peers and feels such a conviction by the Holy Spirit that he accepts the noble and solemn path placed before him. And in following, the one handling the Word is worthy of double honor which does include monetary compensation for service. The two examples given in support for this appear in 1 Timothy 5:18 where reward for work and wages are specifically given in support textually.

Finally, elders are to be protected. Perhaps the greatest disservice a body of believers does to their leadership is in this area. How many say, if even under their breath or just in their heart: "The elders don't really do that much. They meet once a week in the conference room all by themselves, drink coffee and talk about how the church is doing, like anyone couldn't do that." Have we not read the qualifications necessary to serve in such a position? Can we not see the passion for every member of the body that causes the men of God serving as elders to cry out to God on their behalf? Can we not think of the spiritual warfare conducted on a regular basis undertaken by such men to maintain personal integrity and gospel fidelity in the church through handling day-to-day issues and discussions, teaching, etc.? How many of us are in the practice of praying for the deacons and elders that are serving the body? How may of us would want our children to take a similar position? "Dad doesn't really do that much, just go off 'to work' every day and then tell us what to do when he comes home, like anyone couldn't do that. I don't need to pray for him or support him, what's the big deal?" It breaks my heart to think my children would think that little of me; likewise it breaks my heart to think that anyone in my local fellowship would think so little of the leadership in the church.

Verses 19 and 20 finish the thought with instruction not to entertain (or receive) an accusation against an elder unless it comes from two or three eyewitnesses. We must be diligent here. If the enemy is out to steal, kill and destroy kingdom work then we must assume accusations will come against the elders and that most of those accusations will be false. We must not even entertain talk about elders coming from one mouth. Saying something like, "Let me stop you right there, by continuing down this line (by yourself) you are in violation of 1 Timothy 5:19 and I will not hear it. If you have another eyewitness or two and are committed to the common testimony of misconduct then come together and present your case. Otherwise do not attempt to spread this to me or anyone else, the Word of God demands it of you and I will hold you to it, for my part." Me must honor the membership of the church by not receiving an accusation or gossip about another member, and we must not entertain such accusations against the eldership all the more.

My final written note about the sermon this week: "The membership should be joyful about giving honor to the men whom God has put in a place of leadership and service to the body through working to equip, teach and impart sound doctrine." May we all be challenged to consider carefully how we honor our leadership and commit to praying for these men whom God has installed for service.

Honoring the Family

2012-02-06T11:54:00.000-05:00

Our text yesterday was 1 Timothy 5:1-16 and there were several points from the sermon that really hit home.

First, the blessing that expository preaching is to a body of believers. Our pastor was able to say, "For any visitors, this is not 'Widow Sunday' at Antioch, we are simply working through 1 Timothy and this is where we are in the text this week." (my paraphrase). No wondering about who called the pastor this week to complain about a member or family member of a church member that did not feel enough attention was being paid to widows and so the text of 1 Timothy 5 was brought up as a message meant to "convict" (synonymous here with scold) the body and bring out how everyone needs to set their priority for this week to go visit someone (which would probably last about a week, since there would be another priority to set after next week's scolding). No, instead last Sunday's text was 1 Timothy 4:12-16 and so, we look in our Bibles and, yes this week it is chapter 5. Not to mention the fact that if we the membership are doing our due diligence and reading and studying ahead with what we know is ahead then we have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that we have work to do before the preacher even opens his mouth. So no one who is a member at Antioch was surprised at this week's text, and hopefully like me was convicted of his/her shortcomings (at least in part based on our reading and prayer about the text) before ever darkening the door of the sanctuary. Let me be quick to state that the above is not a writing based on a belief that the Bible demands all preaching be done expositionally else it not be 'of God.' I'm just really glad Antioch preaches through the Bible in an expository fashion and would strongly recommend it as a practice for others.

Next, the church is a family and so to deal with others in the body we should "show honor yet love enough to correct." (again my paraphrase) This is applicable not just to the local body of believers but to our 'extended family', the Church. In dealings outside the four walls of the local church, and in large part due to the reach of the internet, it is a strong reminder of showing honor to other believers with whom we have even strong disagreements and yet loving them enough to correct them (correction of course coming by way of the Word of God not our own persuasions, as 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches reads, "All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.") We also know that the Word of God is a two-edged sword so we also need to be open to correction, again based on the Word of God as it is presented, by a brother or sister who would love us enough to correct us if we are wandering off course. Did I make special note of the need for such correction to be biblical? If not, let me be quick to state that all correction should be based on that which is useful for correction, namely all scripture.

Responsibility falls on the family, and on the church when there is no family or anyone else to act as caregivers. This point has very far-reaching impact. Think of what a culture steeped in a mindset demanding familial responsibility would look like? How many parents would be left for some other person or group to provide care for the rest of their days, after reaching a point of little to no productivity? How many runaways or deadbeats would be allowed to be comfortable, or even enabled in their irresponsibility? There are some societal and cultural pressures that are good as they do promote principles that are clear in the text of scripture. "If families were doing their jobs, and if the church was doing its job with regard to the sick and the poor, the government would have no job to do in that area." (my paraphrase) There is a real quantifiable sense in which the government in our country has overstepped its bounds and participates in the enabling previously mentioned, but there is an equally problematic failure on the part of families and the church that has aided and abetted such a mindset and neglect of the boundary.

All that and widows, too. "Widows and orphans are the most vulnerable in a culture." (my paraphrase) There are those who legitimately cannot provide for themselves in every society in the world. The number and demographic of the constituents differ based on the culture and are unimportant. The Church should always be on the forefront of caring for those whom society has cast out or who have no other means of support, remembering the responsibility of the family as the first lines of care. There are ample, and quite sensible, points to be made regarding all members of all ages and we would do well to read them and think about both the grouping we fall in as well as what our place and task is regarding others.

Can't wait for next week. I wonder where we'll be? Oh, that's right 1 Timothy 5:17 and following. Probably be something about elders, oxen and grain - who knows maybe that'll even be the sermon title "Of Elders, Oxen and Grain."

A Strong Recommendation

2012-02-02T21:48:00.000-05:00

I have spent the last month steadily working my way through John Piper's book Bloodlines. Having read the book I would like to recommend as strongly as I can that all put it on their list of things to read, and that they place it in the front of the list. The book is a tremendous and heartfelt work on unity. He speaks of his own experience and the racism of his youth, which he has set his heart to die to daily and pursue unity in the ethnic diversity of this world.

Mr. Piper develops his argument that the only solution to the sin problem of racism is the Gospel. This is what makes the book such a marvelous work, that it is biblical. He bases his position on the Truth, God's Word and shows through developing systematically his answer on the firm foundation of Scripture. He begins with man's position of equality in terms of the sinful nature in all man, follows through with the justification and redemption that is available to all mankind based on what Christ did not any human distinctive and continues with God's plan to select for Himself the number that will be with Him from every tribe and nation. The phrase that echoed loud throughout the book was that the Gospel message destroys ethnocentrism and pride. Black, white, European, Asian, African, etc. all race and ethnicity takes one no closer to God and therefore is no platform for special favor. All have sinned and are dead, life comes only through Christ and His finished work on the cross, God regenerates, justifies, redeems, sanctifies and glorifies lest any man should boast. Boasting is excluded, ethnocentrism is excluded, racism is excluded because of the Gospel. Unity in diversity is achieved solely by way of the Gospel, which puts to death the sinful nature. Without the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no hope for mankind.

If that is intriguing (and I don't see how it could not be for any believer) then pick up the book which is much better written and more detailed than my one paragraph summary. You will feel Piper's sincerity and see his heart of repentance as he declares his intent to daily put to death the racial prejudice that dominated his youth and stalks his daily walk. I have been in much prayer to have the same heart of love for all God's creation and to see more clearly the equal standing of imputed sin in which all stand without Christ and the equal standing of imputed righteousness in which all stand with Christ. Please read this book.

What If...?"

2012-01-30T11:42:00.000-05:00

Our sermon series has been traversing by exposition the book of 1 Timothy. Our message this past Sunday was in chapter 4 verses 12-16. A powerful list of leadership qualities was presented that I am unable to hold in, and compelled to share as a challenge to all. Firstly, leadership is communicated by Paul to Timothy as a matter of character and conduct. This is striking because when we speak of leaders these are rarely if ever presented at the front of our natural proclivities toward the subject. In the main we are interested in strength, great natural talent, good communication skills, adeptness in motivational techniques, a natural persuasive personality, a skill set and knowledge base second to none in the field of specialization and the like. If we look at Paul's list of qualifications we see a stark contrast to what our first instincts would tell us.

"Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in the word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity."

I realize these items are from Paul to Timothy for the example he is to be for the church, but how about applying that for a list of traits to those looked at in job interviews? What if the first area of investigation was into the speech of the prospective leader? What if, for prospective leaders in all walks of life the expectation was for one who was an example to others in love? What if, leaders were expected to be examples in spirit? What if there was an expectation of faith in those who would lead? What if the standard across the board for those who would lead others was purity? Before even looking to diplomas, years of experience, ability, etc., these character issues were held under scrutiny? What kind of difference would that make? Next up, following the character traits, Paul addresses the conduct:

"Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them..."

Note two things especially here, first that one who possesses the character traits remains a work in progress and progress should be evident, and second that there is a continuing process of self-evaluation and personal work being done. There is no room for lethargy or complacency. There is an expectation of living out exactly what is being taught and a continued process of change and growth toward a more perfect outworking of those character traits previously listed.

Two final notes:
1) There is no doubt that absent the power of the Holy Spirit such character qualities would not really exist. If we believe the Word then we understand that no man lives according to the purpose of their existence and even if some of the qualities listed were present in observance they could not be held with truly good motivation. We cannot begin down a path of Truth until we have been made a new creation. Theologically speaking, regeneration must precede true progress relative to lifestyle. Heart change is required, and that is a work of the Holy Spirit.

2) Pride and boasting is completely discounted. Embedded in this list and exhortation is the prior understanding that continued mistakes, asking for forgiveness, prayer and change of behavior will be expected. How could one stand up and say they have arrived and all should follow them because of their perfect example when there is an expectation of a noticeable evidence of progress? Leaders who possess the character traits can and should be followed, as they will no doubt have a grave sense of humility, understand better than anyone else how far they have yet to go to fulfill the expected requirement in these areas (perfection) and be completely reliant on the power of the Holy Spirit and not on any ability within.

What if these principles were expected and exhibited, with a continued desire to strive after them with abandon for all in leadership? Thank God for common grace, and for the realization that we can all strive for such quality of character regardless of any temporal distinctive.

Truth Be Told

2012-01-25T11:15:00.000-05:00

I'm coming to the close of my personal daily devotions in 1 John, 2 John and 3 John and wanted to post some of the common themes that emerged as prominent in my mind as I have been studying and meditating on these letters in the last few months. There are three that are foremost in my thinking, and all three gained that place of prominence in my mind because of several verses in particular, although the themes were common throughout.

Theme number one: Jesus is Lord and Christ, the Son of God.

"We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us." 1 John 4:13-15

"Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." 1 John 5:5

The Gospel of Christ according to John also provides much textual support of the connection between the man Jesus and the link to Christ, Lord and God ("My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." John 10:29-30, for example).

Theme number two: We know love and truth because we know the Son.

"...because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love." 2 John 2-3

"It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth." 3 John 3-4

"But you have an annointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ...Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God, and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands, and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." 1 John 2:20-22a; 3:21-23

Theme number three: Resist false teaching that opposes the love and truth known through the Son.

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." 1 John 4:1-3

"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." 2 John 9-11

"Dear friends, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." 3 John 11

It would do all who call on the name of Christ to think carefully on these and spend some time reinforcing these truths each day as we live each day knowing truth and love because of the work of the Holy Spirit who shined the light of truth in our hearts so that we might know Jesus as both Lord and Christ and empowers us to study the Word of Truth to show ourselves approved and recognize deception and false teaching. God doesn't need us to defend Him as He was and is and ever will be God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit regardless any earthly circumstance, but there are those who will seek to lead others away from the Truth and so we can be about lifting up Love and Truth as it is only legitimate - through Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.

A Practical Application

2012-01-20T15:05:00.000-05:00

The last post dealt with a general scenario about what was clear and explicit in scripture being extended to a similar position in which the Bible was granted to be silent. Nice discussion so far as hypothetical general scenarios go. Now, perhaps a specific case study that is actively and sometimes contentiously debated to put into practice what we have as yet handled just theoretically.

1 Timothy 3:2,4 and 12 says the following: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect...," and "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must handle his children and household well." This is a clear and explicit establishment of men in the position of overseer (elder, bishop) and deacon in church leadership. The Bible, however, is silent on the issue of women in the same position of leadership. By silent we mean that we do not read explicitly worded anywhere in scripture something like "the overseer who is a woman must be the wife of but one husband, faithful to her children and husband;" nor do we read something like "only men are allowed to be elder or deacon, women shall not be allowed in positions of elder or deacon." So what are we to believe about women as elder or deacon. Well we look through the Bible and find the general principle of loving God, serving God and effective leadership to be a good thing. We also find the general principle of working together in the church as a body, each with their own part to make the whole body function. We also find the general principle of spiritual gifts, of individuals being called to specific gifts and functioning within those gifts. We find principles of love and grace toward one another. We look to churches thoughout the nation and see with ever-increasing regularity embracing women in positions of elder and deacon. Therefore, since the Bible is silent on women as elder and deacon, and since we see many general principles and our observation of church operation today, we fix our position that God is pleased when capable, and responsible adults serve joyfully in positions of leadership in the local church. We therefore endorse and celebrate women in the position of elder and deacon. We further purpose to defend this position against all who would draw some line of non-compromise on an issue in which the Bible is silent and which encompasses so many general qualities otherwise stated to be good throughout scripture, and to encourage those holding to such hardline positions to see the danger in their uncompromising belief.

What do you think about this position? Totally agree? Any problems?

Think about it carefully and then scroll down for my take, and let me know your thoughts.

Suppose you ask me to play chess. I've never played chess before, but I like your company and have always wanted to learn. You bring out your board (made of etched glass), your pieces (a nice hand carved ebony and ivory set) and your rule book and spend hours teaching me the rules, the spaces on the board the vernacular of the game, the pieces names, their strengths and weaknesses and how they move around the board, and how the end result can be a win or draw and what compromises either outcome. I thank you for your time and ask you to come to my house the next day to play our first game. You arrive at my house and i'm excited to see you express how ready I am to play and lead you into my living room where I have everything set up. You take a look around and ask me what's going on. I tell you I don't know what you mean, I have the board and pieces ready to go. You point out that I have the gameboard for SORRY! set out with sixteen "good" Lego Star Wars figures and sixteen "bad" Lego Star Wars figures scattered all over the board. And so naturally I ask you what the problem is, you told me explicitly what chess was (board, pieces, goal of the game, rules) but I noted that generally speaking games are fun, that there are lots of different kinds of games, that games are meant for two people to have a good time and since you never told me that a SORRY! board and Lego Star Wars pieces couldn't be used, obviously this is just legitimate an arrangement as what you went over with me yesterday.

The principle is very simple. If a single set of explicit standards or arrangements are presented, implicit in that explicit establishment is the understanding that one need not exhaustively reject all other possible arrangements. The fact that it is established in the Bible that the office of elder and deacon are set out for men (of but one wife, who handles his family well and children show him proper respect, etc.) implicitly leaves out all other arrangements. One doesn't even have to spend time saying - "The Bible condemns women in all places of such leadership." It is obvious and explicit as well as implied that the only arrangement for church leadership established by God through the revealed Word is men, not women. The arrangement simply should not be recognized.

Now, having established men who are husbands of one wife, and who manages his family well, and meets the other requirements for either elder or deacon; one can ask questions about what qualities a married man that handles his family well might bring to church leadership that God felt important in the local body; about how that structure agrees with other arrangements throughout scripture; about how that arrangement should impact other members of the body and how it should augment our worship of God who set those established framework in place. In short, we should not look at general principles and what we observe around us as common practice to see what arrangements that are not clearly and explicitly established we can incorporate into what is clear and explicit. Rather, we should read what is clear and explicit, endorse and celebrate that which is clear and explicit and spend our time meditating on why God established it in that clear and explicit manner. To do otherwise is to run the risk of endorsing and celebrating that which is in direct opposition to what was clearly and explicitly established by God; to stand on dangerous ground.

Dangerous Territory

2012-01-13T15:37:00.000-05:00

I have been in a discussion on another blog site for a few days and a theme has developed that I felt important enough to address on its own. Here is how the thinking is presented without reference to a specific topic so we can concentrate on the framing of the position and not the details of the issue.

"I read explicitly the words of the Bible on topic X, but the Bible does not make any explicit statements about a corollary topic X'. Since the Bible is silent on topic X' I look at the world around me. Contemporary culture says that topic X' should be viewed equitably with topic X. Based on the observations I have made in the culture surrounding me in my every day life I conclude that topic X' is acceptable Biblically and further determine that I should accept and celebrate topic X' and treat it as equitable with topic X."

Is this a logical, proper and reasonable way for sincere Christians to think in areas where the Bible does not explicitly state anything regarding a specific topic? I would say this is very dangerous territory and that this line of thinking is logical is not proper and is not reasonable for sincere Christians.

The line of thinking is logical because it begins with a proposition, states the assumptions and forms a conclusion. That is all that is required to make a logical argument. The conclusion is either true or false based on the myriad rules of logic that govern such matters. So, the line of thinking is at least logical in that sense. More on this point later.

The line of thinking is not, however, proper or reasonable and I will only present one reason below as it should be the only reason necessary.

God is Holy.

Is it really as simple as that? Yes, I believe it is. Think of the assumption made in the logic developed in the position. If there is no explicit wording in the Bible for a position (X' in our faceless example) then we look to contemporary culture and the observations we make there to determine what is Biblically acceptable. Did you catch that - look to contemporary culture to determine what is Biblically acceptable. What is the danger there? It seems obvious - the popular majority of contemporary culture will in the main behave contrary to God's will. Granting that the law of God is written on the heart of man such that all recognize moral categories and non-Christians can do good things, this is not the requirement of the Christian. God did not call us to be good. Be holy, be perfect, be conformed to the likeness of Christ, live worthy of the calling to which you have been called - these are the requirements for disciples of Christ. Even more striking is the dangerous ground on which one stands by using this reasoning, at it is similar to Pascal's wager: what if you are wrong? Since you don't know because the Bible does not explicitly cover topic X' if one looks to contemporary culture and celebrates topic X' and deems it equitable Biblically with topic X and is wrong, what is been done is a profaning of that which is sacred. Holding such a viewpoint is the trivialize the Holiness of God in that we are willing to make extensions of God based on the world around us which we are certain is fallen and by and large is still fighting against God.

If the mistake is made and the person is a disciple of Christ, whose sins have been atoned for by acceptance of Christ at the atoning sacrifice for sins then His blood will cover that sin as well. But how are we to live our lives as believers? The knowledge of what was done on our behalf and the resultant love we have for our Lord and Savior should drive us to desire to glorify God in every way and not tread on such dangerous ground, clearly placing ourselves in the terrible position of endorsing and celebrating that which is against God's will. This should be reason enough to decry such an approach.

Bookends of Worship

2012-01-06T10:37:00.000-05:00

I work in structural steel fabrication and so on my desk are bookends made of sections of large thickness angle. We have similar angle bookends elsewhere in the office, on opposite ends of catalogs and code reference materials. These bookends are weighty objects that bound a group of books so that they remain in order and upright. Without solid bookends, the grouping will fall apart.

In reading through the book of 1 John I noticed some powerful bookends that are worth looking at carefully. The book begins with the following:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life - the life was manifested, and we have seen, and we bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father was manifested to us - that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

And ends with the following:

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

If we look at these two statements we see some striking ideas. First that there is one thing that is true. Second that our choice is between two things that are known. Third that our confidence and love is bound by two poles.

There is one thing that is true, and that one thing is God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Truth is often defined in terms of correspondence; that truth is that which corresponds to reality. In the opening lines of 1 John we have a description on what has been since the beginning and which has been seen, that has been heard, that has been touched. We do not believe in something imagined in the minds of men with no physical manifestation in based in reality. We believe in something manifested physically in our time and space and history - Jesus the Christ. We remember that the child was born, the Son was given. He, the Word of Life, walked among us and was seen, heard and touched. He was crucified, died and was buried having been touched. He rose again and appeared to many witnesses, for forty days walking, eating, talking and being touched. The Son of God was handled. Idols were fashioned by men as objects of worship, and remain today, being fashioned by men in the factories of our minds - oftentimes as the works of our hands. We are told at the beginning of 1 John to follow the truth of what man has handled that was given by God, and likewise are told at the end of 1 John to not follow the lie of what man has handled that is fashioned by his own hand. Do follow that which is true, do not follow that which is a lie. These are the two poles that bind our love - the positive pole of the truth and the life, the love of God in which we abide and find our redemption; that Jesus is Lord and Christ - and the negative pole of lies and death, that we can be God and fashion for ourselves the objects of our worship. There is but one way to life everlasting, and it does not flow through the hands of men. Our love and confidence is in that which is testified to in heaven by the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit and on earth by the Spirit, the water and the blood. This Jesus is both Lord and Christ and we have life if we abide in Him.

The challenge is to take up the truth and abide in Christ daily, not in ourselves - in so doing we will know what love is, we will be confident in that which we know that has been revealed to us, we can be faithful to do all things as unto the Lord and glorify Him in all things which is our act of worship (in all things all day long) in living in accordance with the purpose for which we were created and brings true meaning in our lives.

Beginning the New Year in Love

2012-01-02T13:33:00.000-05:00

It seems only fitting to begin the year by writing of the Love of God. Appropriate in the first place because I have been studying through 1 John for some time and am now reading through the whole book daily to soak in things I may not have seen in a verse by verse study. Secondly, it is fitting because God has so chosen to bless my wife and I with our fifth child (due late May or early June 2012). Children are such a blessing, and I say without hesitation that I have learned more about God's Love for me through parenthood and the love I have for each of my children.

Having said that, and with love as the backdrop for kicking off 2012, let me begin by getting right into 1 John and talk about the bookends of chapter 4- God is love. In verse 8 of chapter 4, John writes, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." Verse 16b states just as explicitly, "God is love." Between these bookends is the description and explanation of these bookends. First, in verse 10 we are told what love is - namely, "not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." So we see that love IS sacrifice. God is love, because God is sacrifice. God is three in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the Son is an atoning sacrifice once for all. Therefore God is love. How do we know this apart from the words in some book that is thousands of years old? Verse 9, "God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him." God is love, and He demonstrates that love among us in time and space as a part of human history forever recorded and attested by Biblical and extra-biblical sources alike.

Love is inextricably tied to sacrifice. We only know what love is because Christ Jesus laid down his life for us (Chapter 3 verse 16). So any talk we may have about love that is devoid of an acknowledgment of sacrifice is no love at all. It may well be a good description of temporary happiness, of physical pleasure or the promise thereof, of getting or being able to use something for one's own ends, but it will not be love. So, what do we make of things like "irreconcilable differences" as a reason for divorce? The only conclusion is that there was no love in the first place. This is a very difficult statement to hear, but think it through. If the only way we know love is through a demonstration of sacrifice, if we are told clearly that love is God sending His Son to be an atoning sacrifice for the sins of man, and that because we know this concerning love we ought to love one another just the same (chapter 4 verse 11) then there logically can be no differences that rise to the level of being irreconcilable. Jesus Himself taught that divorce was the result of a refusal to forgive, a point at which one party was no longer willing to sacrifice for another.

Apart from the example of marriage, we are also instructed to love our brother in the same way God loved us and demonstrated that love. We are told in scripture that the world will know His people by the love we have for one another. We must not misunderstand the gravity of the word love as it applies to our relationships. Loving God and loving one another. In chapter 4 and 19-21 we see that the demonstration that we love the God we cannot see with our eyes is by how we love those we can see and interact with physically each and every day. If we do not love one another - through sacrifice - we do not truly know what love is or love God.

There are two points that are critical in my mind that should serve as a challenge to us all in the new year. First, we must not, we can not, attempt to separate sacrifice from love. We must not try, as some have done, to present love as a tacit or celebration of anything and everything under the sun as if love is tantamount to acceptance of all behavior, that all is OK since the goal of man is to be happy in how we each choose to live our lives. If love itself is God's sending of His Son to die as atonement for our sins, and if we only know love because of the demonstration of Christ's sacrifice for our sins through crucifixion, then we dare not be so cavalier with our understanding and universal application of the term. Second, we must strive to continually reaffirm our love for God by preaching to ourselves the Gospel and to love one another by sacrificing of ourselves for the sake of the Gospel and by preaching it to others through our words and deeds. Perhaps if we all as believers set out to accomplish this in 2012, the year will be marked with an increased awareness that the Church is set apart from the world and its members are easily seen as markedly different in that they love one another and therefore love their God and can then successfully preach to others the love of God available to all.

Happy New Year, and may it be one of great love for God an one another.

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

2011-12-28T11:25:00.000-05:00

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

2011-12-27T09:34:00.000-05:00

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

2011-12-21T10:17:00.000-05:00

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

2011-12-14T10:30:00.001-05:00

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

2011-12-07T10:42:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-30T11:29:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-25T11:16:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-23T14:17:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-22T11:02:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-14T10:50:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-13T19:59:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-12T12:36:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-02T22:36:00.000-04:00

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

2011-11-02T10:16:00.000-04:00

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

2011-11-01T08:40:00.000-04:00

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

2011-10-31T10:24:00.000-04:00

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.

A Responsibility to Judge

2010-09-26T22:56:00.000-04:00

“We have no right to judge them.” We hear statements like this quite often these days, and I get the impression many usually just nod in agreement. After all, no one has the right to judge anyone else, do they? Perhaps due to the frequency in which the statement is made the issue bears a bit more thought.

An equivocation is made in that what we often mean by “you have no right to judge” is “you are not allowed to call what someone else does wrong”. If that is the case, however, then to apply the principle (we have no right to judge) the first thing that must be done is violate the principle (judging that one person has judged another). We must stop using the phrase in that way and instead take the time to define the terminology and really spend time thinking what the issue of judging is really all about.

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. Why would we tell someone else they have no right to form an opinion through carefully weighing evidence and testing of premises? If I come to an intersection and see another vehicle continue without stopping through the intersection even though the light was a steady red color, I would correctly judge that the individual committed a traffic violation by running a red light.

Judge is also defined as, “to sit in judgment on”, or put another way to be the moral judge over another person. Perhaps this hits a little closer to home. Should no one sit in judgment over another? If so why not? In most cases what would first come to mind would be the statement, “Judge not or you will be judged.” But that statement comes from the Bible, specifically Matthew 7:1. Does this mean the Bible is the authority on judging? I believe that it must be, lest we resort to the subjective, arbitrary and capricious human constructs.

I leave it to you the reader to think further about an absolutely binding ethic of judging. For now, since Matthew 7:1 is invariably quoted when instructing others not to judge, let’s just assume the Bible is the authority on, and provides proper instruction on judging. What then does the Bible actually say about judging others? Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us that we should not judge motivations, that only God knows a persons thoughts and attitudes. James 2:1-4 instructs us not to show favoritism, or to judge by appearance. These verses, among others, instruct us in the negative, or ways in which we should not judge others. However, there is no command to abandon all judgment completely. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and 6:1-8; Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 5:12-21 commend us to judge others to determine if their actions are in accordance with what God has established as acceptable behavior. In short, we are instructed to make judgments on behavior (observing the fruit) while at the same time prohibited from going to the thoughts, attitudes and motivations behind the behavior (cursing the tree).

Whenever the issue of judging comes up we must be careful to define the terms and correctly represent the argument. While it may be patently wrong to believe that any human being is the authority on morality and therefore has the obligation to sit as moral judge over the motivations of another person, it does not follow that one cannot say anything negative concerning the behavior of another. Of prime importance is establishing the fundamental moral code applicable to all people by which judgments are made. Properly understood, because of a transcendent ethic we not only have the right, but also the responsibility to observe the fruit of human behavior and measure it against the moral law of the bible established and revealed by God for the purpose of transformation into the likeness of Christ that is intended for us all; a process that must begin in each individual human heart. After all, Jesus himself taught us to remove the beam from our own eye before we try to remove a speck from our brother.

By way of simple analogy, Jesus came to provide forgiveness through obedient submission and sacrifice. We all will be judged by God’s perfect and holy standard, and we all fall short. This is the hope of the Gospel: God judged us and then demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us as our substitute in order to provide a way of escape from His final eternal judgment. Perhaps when we say “We have no right to judge them” we are only partially correct; perhaps our statement should be ‘We have no right to judge them against anything but Gods absolute moral law.’ If we couple that understanding with the command to love others as ourselves and look at the entire issue of judging in light of the cross, perhaps we can understand aright the issue of judgment.

Democracy in Action

2010-09-23T11:52:00.000-04:00

In a previous post I discussed the lack of thinking about issues surrounding politics in my generation. Well, I was driving around town yesterday and noticed some road work taking place. Apparently as part of some continuing state construction (we have multiple major projects ongoing) a need was seen to dress up all the intersections in the downtown area. Road crews are using a criss-cross mesh that they are pressing into existing asphalt pavement, sort of like pressing a cookie cutter mold into rolled out batter, to make a brick pattern across both lanes from curb to curb. This pattern is then painted red and white to look like a brick crossing. This project had me thinking, since the issue of the flag removal based on the seperation clause was fresh on my mind, about a statement made on the evening news. During a second broadcast (because now the same group has filed suit demanding the removal of a statue constructed showing a soldier kneeling by a cross which is obviously a grave marker similar to the thousands the exist currently at Arlington National Cemetary) a editorial spot indicated that more and more flags and the like are taken into consideration due to public outcry.

So, here are the questions that ran through my head. Is it the job of elected political leaders to address and act on every instance of public outcry? Is it the case that we live in a democracy, where elected officials must do as the majority of people (or at least when a decent sized group makes a lot of noise) dictate?

These are questions that really need some serious consideration. I'm looking forward to some good comments to dialouge on this more; but in short my answers to those questions are simply, no and no.

It bears noting that there was no public outcry for the fake brick crossings in the downtown area, and yet the project moved forward. There was also no public vote to find out what the majority of citizens thought of the expenditure of their tax dollars to fund the project. Let me be quick to say that I have no idea how much the project costs and am not making any judgment on whether it was "the right thing to do" or not. I'd just like to have a real productive discussion on how our system of government is set up, what the expectations of our elected officials should be, and on what basis they should make all policy decisions.

Any takers?

Boggling the Mind

2010-09-21T10:49:00.000-04:00

I've been worried for some time that the American public in general and my generation in particular has become increasingly ignorant of critical thinking in terms of politics, law, government and the like. Verification of this premise has been upheld time and again as articles in the local paper and from various news agencies continue to report a complete lack of understanding and reveal an overwhelming lack of serious thought about such serious issues. A case in point arose this week in a nearby community. I will leave the details out as the important issue is the fundamental ideas underpinning this and many other events of outrage ocurring on a daily basis nationwide. The crux of the matter was a symbol of Christianity removed from a public place by a city coucil board due to a lawsuit filed and the accompanying fears that a legal defense would be too costly on an already depleated town budget based solely on "the seperation clause".

I put that last phrase in quotes because it was a direct quote from the news report I heard as I was working on some other things that caused me to jump out of my seat and exclaim to my wife "the what clause!?!" I assumed what was being referenced was the statement regarding seperation of church and state that appeared in a personal letter that is in no way binding in any document recognized in the establishment of this nation. My questions naturally were why didn't anyone question what was meant by "the seperation clause", why didn't the office receiving this filing to sue the township reject it out of hand and what must our nation be coming to when actions such as these are allowed to be passed off as legitimate practice. I discovered that my assumption was correct and that there are a lot of other questions that need to be asked when any issue like this arises in public discourse.

Question #1: It is true that Thomas Jefferson wrote the letter which contains the phrase "seperation of church and state", however he also penned the pramble to the Constitution (the Declaration of Independence) among whose opening lines are "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What view other than the Judeo-Christian one would provide for a statement such as that? What other belief system used to establish a new government would believe that there is an undeniable truth common to all men that would hold that each and every human person was created by a Creator and endowed by that Creator with intrinsic worth (rights that no other person can give or take away)?

Question #2: What is the problem with holding firm and unwavering to the fundamental principles by which this nation was founded and at the same time allowing all other differing belief systems to live and engage in public life unmolested? I just don't understand why the fact that non-Christian persons live in this country requires an abolition and outright rejection of the very principles that made this nation possible. There is no disconnect whatsoever between a nation saying "We are based fundamentally and solely on Christian principles and biblical truth and will make every decision relative to the operation and function of this state in which you live based on those principles; since part of those principles call for the love of all men you may live among us without fear."

Question #3: Is there any other fight more directly linked to the protection of freedom than this one? I realize we have troops stationed all over the world and many are in harms way even as I write this post, but this is my point. They are fighting for what this nation was established upon, and if that foundation is being eroded while they are overseas fighting to what are they coming home? From a more pragmatic point of view, if those who would reject any Judeo-Christian influence or thinking from even the decision-making processes of the government and legal systems with what do they propose to replace it that would make us more free? Secularism? Naturalism? Materialism? Communism? AnyOtherIsm?

Finally it is worth observing that nothing is less tolerated today than the intolerant Judeo-Christian religion. "Seperation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" are pillars of intolerance to the very principles that provide the underlying foundation on which the pillars are built. In time, those who stand confident on such pillars will issue up a celebratory cry that finally there is freedom from the shackles of religious intolerance that has plagued the nation since it's inception, only to find out that their cries of success had drowned out the noise of the cracking of the foundation on which they stood.

We will no doubt hear more cases; all different in the specifics, but all the same in fundamentals. I have used the imagery of pillars and foundations; the framework of the nation supported by ideas and ideals well known and unconfused at inception but now clouded and sullied by bad thinking and modern misconceptions. It is not very different than walking out to the end of a branch while setting fire to the trunk. In the meantime perhaps someone can bring some meaningful answers to my questions.

Foundations of Environmental Concern

2010-09-16T21:59:00.000-04:00

The following post is a collection of thoughts that I have been mulling over and thinking about for a number of years. I recently put all that thinking into a three part write-up (much abbreviated from the more comprehensive thought process that developed from a single question). Below are parts 1, 2 and 3 of an argument made to answer a pretty fundamental question. I hope it will engender as much thought for you the reader as it has been, and continues to be, for me.

Part 1 - Who Cares?

C.S. Lewis in his essay "First and Second Things" says "You can't get to second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first." He presents the illustration elsewhere of beginning with a line, connecting lines to form a square, and finally combining squares to form a cube. The cube is three dimensional but remains based upon lines.

A recent local newspaper series presented 6 articles presenting facts about the environment and some suggestions of how to address the concerns that followed. The articles were well done and well presented but as it seems is often the case, passed by the first principle: namely, why should anyone care about the environment? You see, if there's no good reason to care about the state of the environment then what is going on, the causes of the current condition and what any possible remedies might be are meaningless.

I see three broad categories of possibility relative to this first principle; this fundamental question “Why should anyone care about the environment?”, namely the scientific approach, the pure environmentalist approach, and the religious approach.

Care in this context is defined as: "an object of concern or attention." We also understand that the caring we are talking about is an emotional as well as moral condition. We can easily see this by example. Consider a man with a child who says he cares for the child because he gets a lot of dates by taking the child out in public where women are attracted to how well he gets along with children. We would not say this man cares for his child, rather we would say he is using the child because he cares only for himself. Now consider a man who leaves a gathering with friends to spend an evening at home with his daughter. In this case, we would say the man cares for the child, even if it means sacrificing himself. The difference is that when we speak of genuine caring what we mean is caring for something for its own sake. So what we are asking is why should we care for the environment for its own sake? Why should we care for the environment like the second man cares for his daughter?

By clearly describing our terms a problem arises for everyone who would say that science is all important in this discussion. The problem comes by the very definition of nature, or the environment, as it is taken by many in science today. In his "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life", Richard Dawkins said, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: 'For Nature, heartless, witless Nature will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." Scientific beginnings are based on the premise that we are here through a series of acts of random chance over a long period of time. We are an accident and so is everything that exists. Nothing is here through purpose or direction and there is no real value or meaning to anything except as we assign it. If this is the case then there is no reason to care about anything; why would one accident care about another accident? As Dawkins quoted, DNA neither cares nor knows.

One might say, "But if we don't care for the environment humankind will be wiped out." That may very well be true, and since DNA neither knows nor cares, and since the universe is blind, pitiless and indifferent; then quite literally if we cannot adapt to the new environment the natural and inevitable result will be extinction; that's just the way of things. If we look carefully we can see the real motivation behind that statement; fear and selfishness. We are afraid of becoming extinct and we think first of ourselves. But this is not caring for the environment for its own sake, this is caring about ourselves. So what's the big deal, another might say, so what if selfishness is the motivation so long as it turns around the current condition of the environment? Well, if selfishness is the acceptable motivation, then there is nothing that would compel a whole society to care for the environment. You see, there may be others who would say something like: "If it's OK to be selfish, forget about future generations. I’m going to do what's best for me right now and that's using up whatever I want and doing whatever is convenient for me. If that harms the environment, so be it." There is no difference between caring for the environment for selfish reasons and not caring for the environment for selfish reasons. What is left in that case is that whoever happens to be in power forces everyone to comply with his/her selfish desire; in other words, might makes right.

What I am not doing here is saying whether this line of thinking is right or wrong. The logical outworking of the idea that nothing exists but the natural, that only the most popular scientific approach is valid is that one doesn't care for the environment for its own sake, but rather for selfish reasons. Therefore, there is no good reason to be concerned with what happens around us for better or for worse. Put another way, if nature is blind, pitiless and indifferent then there is no legitimate argument against an attitude of indifference by humankind towards nature; one accident equally unconcerned about another accident.

Part 2 - When Caring Isn't Enough

Last time we discussed first principles, how we oftentimes skip them to get on to second principles, and how that can present problems in our thinking. We discussed a purely scientific approach to the environment and how ultimately if the universe is all there is, just a thoughtless, directionless, purposeless, blind, pitiless and indifferent accident then there is no reason to care about the environment for its own sake. The word caring is used when the actual motivation is selfishness. Based on first principles in this case, there is no need to spend time concerning ourselves with the state of our surrounding environment or methods to mitigate the effects of our actions. If there is no real logical reason to care then the rest becomes a waste of time.

Now we turn to the one who would characterize themselves as caring for the environment for its own sake, the pure environmentalist. They love nature and have always been somehow drawn to its beauty on the one hand and its power and ferocity on the other. They acknowledge the facts of science but have the sense that all that is around them can't be just a huge cosmic accident. They don't ascribe to any religion, just feel themselves to be going with what feels right and wanting to make their lives count for something bigger than themselves. This is a consistent position. The one who honestly doesn't know how everything got here, and just wants to follow what for them is an inexorable tug toward "saving the planet" does acknowledge that there is more to the universe than blind, pitiless indifference; even if they don't know what. Their concern is an emotional and moral condition, and to be consistent their life would have to be lived in accordance with those beliefs and they would passionately compel all who would listen to join them in their love for the planet.

There is a problem, however, with this line of thinking. The problem is the emotional, passionate and moral convictions regarding the environment are totally personal. That person may live in a "green" home, bike everywhere as a means of transportation, recycle or reuse everything from water bottles to paper towels, conserve water and energy and spend every free minute advocating for environmental concerns. Their next door neighbor, however, could consume with complete abandon, own three vehicles with single-digit gas mileage, litter and waste with impunity, and spend his free time doing yard maintenance using every gas guzzling tool, poison and chemical currently available. There is nothing that would legitimately compel the neighbor to change his behavior because the position of the one who loves the environment is purely personal. What is lacking is authority. Someone in authority that could compel, or even mandate, that every single person has the responsibility to care for the environment. With this knowledge, the person who holds this position, out of a genuine concern for the world around them has no choice but to pursue a concerted effort to lobby government to force everyone to love the planet as much as they. We are again left with a position of might makes right; those in power forcing others to capitulate.

There is another possibility in this area, and that is the person who would say that they worship the environment. We use terminology like "mother earth" and "mother nature" without thinking and as a matter of common expression; but there might be one that says the earth gave birth to humankind and so we should worship our maker; our mother nature. They might even remind everyone that there have been people groups worshipping the earth and stars throughout recorded history. In this case, the proponent would care for the environment for its own sake, and would have what they considered to be authority to compel everyone else to care in the same way. It seems this would finally be a legitimate way to say that humankind really should care about the environment. However, there again is a major problem. The reason we are talking about this topic is because we are concerned that we are destroying the earth with our actions. Why on earth would we worship a creator that its creation could destroy? This has always been a problem with worshipping the natural. It just doesn't make sense for a human being to worship something that he or she has the capability to destroy. We shouldn't have that much power over the object from which we supposedly gain our authority.

So it seems we are still at a loss, and in search of some way of thinking that gives us a legitimate reason to really care for the environment. Next time we will continue the search and discover that there is in fact a legitimate reason for all humankind to care for the environment.

Part 3 - Freedom in Knowing

In our first discussion, we asked the question why should anyone care about the environment? We looked at the position of pure science. We learned that on this view the universe, nature is all there is and that it neither cares nor knows. It is simply illogical and inconsistent then to suppose that humankind should care a wit about this accidental happening that has no purpose or direction. We are left with a motivation of selfishness and are left with might makes right as the only recourse for any widespread concern.

Last time we looked at those who would love the earth for its own sake. First the one who doesn't really know how things got here but see the beauty and feel an emotional and moral disposition toward the environment. We saw that this, although consistent, is entirely personal and would not serve to compel all of humankind to the same behavior. We also considered one who would worship nature, which presented the problem of humans worshiping the very thing they were afraid of destroying. This position also cannot be true.

Things are looking bleak. If science, nor a heartfelt personal love nor promotion of nature to the status of deity provide any real legitimate reason to care for the environment then all seems to be lost. Let's not give up so soon. Instead, let's take just a minute and piece together those fundamental problem areas with our other possibilities and see if there is anything that meets all those criteria. For science, the problem was purpose. There was no purpose or direction in the universe so the only motivation remaining was selfishness and fear. For the second group the problem was authority. A personal concern couldn't hold sway over all of humankind, and elevating nature to the level of deity produced a sort of "god" with no real power. So, we need to solve the problem of purpose and authority. We also need to preserve the existence of nature and humankind, the emotional and moral aspects which we know to be true of any real caring, and remain logically consistent. The only thing that meets all these criteria is a single God the reason for whose existence is within Himself that created the universe (including all nature and mankind) and therefore has authority over everything, who created mankind with emotional and moral direction and purpose and gave mankind the command to protect the environment and the authority to do so.

In the Judeo-Christian position these very criteria are specifically addressed in scripture. Genesis 1:1, John 8:58-59, Colossians 1:16-20 and others speak to God's existence being eternal and not dependent on anything outside Himself. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and others speak to God's creation of the universe and everything in it (including all nature and mankind). The entirety of scripture speaks to the emotional and moral direction and purpose of all mankind and the requirement for a change in their very nature to become a new creation and become like their Lord. In Genesis 1:26-31 and 2:8-15 man is installed as caretaker over creation.

I recognize there are many who do not believe in God at all, much less the God of the Christian faith. What I am saying is that there is no other legitimate source or reason for caring for the environment. It is also important to point out that many will decide to just ignore or reject this entire line of thinking simply because God and the bible were mentioned. However, without a legitimate, logically consistent reason for all mankind to be genuinely concerned for the environment, the issue will inevitably digress into a matter of which group is in power and can force everyone else to do what they feel is right.

I would also like to challenge all followers of Christ who may not have considered the solid foundation on which they stand in this issue. Because Christians have as their belief the reason to genuinely be concerned about the condition of the environment to which we've been entrusted, believers should be on the forefront of being caretakers of all creation. We have been given dominion to utilize the natural elements around us for food, shelter, and general benefit, but not in a reckless, haphazard, or thoughtless manner. We care not because we are scared we will destroy the world, but because we are afraid of disobeying our Lord’s directive.

Now that we have established the existence and nature of the legitimate and logically consistent reason to care for the environment; now that we have considered first principles, we can move on to second things, and look with renewed interest at the current conditions and decide if we are in fact taking care of the environment that was entrusted to us. We can investigate the effects of our actions and think about the ramifications of continuing or changing our current behavior. We can legitimately challenge all humankind to examine our common directive for stewardship, develop means and methods of environmental preservation based on data gathered and reported through scientific inquiry, balance those recommendations against the other moral directives from scripture, and make the best decisions possible as a matter of obedience to the Creator of man and nature. Although a tedious exercise, there is freedom in knowing that there is a legitimate reason why we all should care about the environment, and furthermore having been given a mandate and the authority to do just that.

Ruminations on Marriage

2010-07-28T21:50:00.000-04:00

I have had some thoughts in my head for some time regarding marriage and how the Christian understanding of marriage is unique and just recently typed them out. It was all based on a question I had asked myself, and later asked some others. Below is the original question and the text of my mental exercise:

"Considering Genesis 2:24, discuss the biblical Christian ontological basis of marriage and it's uniqueness."

The verse given for consideration (namely Genesis 2:24) is the key to my answer, but not where I begin (we'll get back to this verse a bit later). Genesis 1:26 says "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...", and continues in verse 27 with, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female, he created them.". This is our starting point for looking at the ontological basis of marriage and it's uniqueness. God created man in His image, in His likeness.

We know from reading through the entire creation narrative that what God created was good. At the end of each day, He says that what He created was good. After creating man we are told He looked over all He had made and said it was very good. We see in chapter 2 that as man is in the garden working and caring for it, he says in verse 18 that "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." And so woman is created from man to which the man replies in verse 23, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man."

At this point, i'll make a brief departure to talk about language and in particular descriptive language of God. Thomas Aquinas wrote of three ways to use language: univocal, equivocal and analogical. Very briefly, the first usage - univocal - is when the same word is used in the same way (with the same meaning) but in different situations. For example, on a daily basis I tell my wife "I love you", I also tell my children "I love you". Love is the same word used in the same way just in different situations. The second usage - equivocal - is when we use the same word but with a different meaning in different situations. An example here would be something like if I were to say "Wynton Marsalis is a good trumpet player" and then I were to say "I am a good trumpet player". If someone were to think 'good' meant the same thing in both situations and then heard myself and Wynton Marsalis playing the same song they would quickly know something was dreadfully wrong. Finally, the third usage - analogical - this is using language descriptively by analogy. Something is like a certain example. Aquinas said man is not God, so we cannot use either univocal language, or equivocal language when we talk about God, we must use analogical language. God is like this or that.

Back to our question. Verse 24 of chapter 2 says "For this reason (the reason being woman was created from man, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh) a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh." Here is the point, as I try to tie these threads together.

Marriage is an analogy for the triune nature of God. God is one in one sense (only one God, we are monotheistic, we do not worship multiple deities) and three in another sense (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). We cannot describe this relationship either univocally or equivocally because we are not God and we cannot even wrap our brains around even the possibility of how this can be possible. We can say, however, that we are created in the image of God, in His likeness, and marriage (where man and woman become one flesh) by analogy (in that a couple are one in one sense {one flesh} and two in another sense {husband and wife}) gives a glimpse, or picture of what the trinity is like. This is unique to a Christian understanding of marriage.

This then is the ontological basis for marriage and how Christianity is unique. The nature of the existence of marriage is to provide a glimpse, a picture, an analogical expression of the trinity. The ramifications are profound. Why would God hate divorce? Because husband and wife are a picture of the trinity and so divorce would be analogous to a fracturing of the Godhead! This can never be, because God's existence is within Himself. God, as He has revealed Himself in scripture, can never cease to be. Divorce, then, is anathema. This is why the traditional vows spoken in marriage are so important; "What God has brought together, let no man put asunder." Man and wife become one flesh, one in one sense and two in another sense; a union never to be severed.

Why do we in the church today seem to take marriage lightly? Perhaps because we don't see the union, the covenant of marriage in the light of it's ontological basis; and don't take seriously enough the gravity of preserving what God has established and blessed.

Sight Unseen?

2010-06-16T16:05:00.000-04:00

"Some Things You Can't Unsee"

Such was the tag-line for a recent movie just released in theatres. It caused me to think again on an ever-present reality for contemporary American society; that of audio-visual exposure. It is undeniable that media overload is a daily ritual for many around the world. From cel phones capable of everything from making calls to downloading text, music and video via mobile internet connection to thinner, lighter and more highly defined television screens in almost every establishment it seems that whereas in years past the struggle was to "find a signal", these days to remove yourself from media is the real coup de etat. So, in the current culture of media immersion, does this statement really mean anything? Further, as this site is dedicated to Biblical Christians thinking about current topics, what are the implications, if any for the believer?

Visual Assault

I'm not a history "buff", but my grandfather was well versed in military strategy as he was an Army man and lost several brothers in war. I remember him telling me of some of the exploits of Patton and MacArthur in particular. So, while no expert by any means, I am aware that from minor skirmishes to full campaigns there are numerous methods of assault. One of the most effective that comes to my memory is where a group of soldiers was extended too far, and their enemy gained their flank and successfully cut off their supply lines. They were soon overtaken due to a lack of those munitions necessary to wage war on their opponent.

Malcolm Muggeridge wrote what I believe to be the masterpiece on media for Christians in his Christ and the Media. I'll refer to his work often throughout this post and strongly recommend it to all who read, not just for the content specific to the topic, but also as an example of great writing style which is not present here. In his first lecture, Muggeridge writes:

"The prevailing impression I have come to have of the contemporary scene is of an ever-widening chasm between the fantasy in terms of which the media induce us to live, and the reality of our existence as made in the image of God, as sojourners in time whose true habitat is eternity. The fantasy is all-encompassing; awareness of reality requires the seeing eye which comes to those born again in Christ." (p. 30, first full paragraph)

Interesting language that, media induced fantasy versus Godly reality. In the example of military strategy one could say that humankind has been enticed by media to move ever farther from reality, and being so estranged from its moors is ripe to have the supply line of truth cut off. Ultimately that is what is at stake, truth. There are several terms to describe truth as the accurate description of reality (correspondence theory, et. al.). As the propagator and distributor of fantasy, it is only logical that the more engrossed we become in the world of the fantastic the more the mere notion of reality is bludgeoned by the blunt instrument of media until truth has been beaten to death. Is that language too harsh? Is all this just an overreaction? Consider a contemporary example in the fictional Bourne series. Many read the books in sequence and enjoyed the stories, following the character through memory loss, a gradual discovery of who he really was and ultimately living on his own terms again deciding who he would be. Then came the movie trilogy. Who, after having seen the movies could thereafter ever read the books and see the name Jason Bourne without seeing with their mind's eye the actor who portrayed the character on the big screen? Could this be anything short of a violation of the imagination, anything less than the foisting of an image onto the mind of the reader, ultimately not providing a tacid and temporary sensory experience but instead a deliberate and permanent shackling of thought? It's even worse than thought at first blush. Not only is the reader no longer able to exercise the freedom of imagining any figure he wishes through the course of the book, but the image that has been seared into his mind is not even the actor as he exists in reality but only a fantastic caricature. Reality is replaced with artificial appearance through stylists and make-up artists; classes in martial arts and foreign languages project an expertise in physical and linguistic areas that quickly fade following the final day on set; choreographed chases in various vehicles with the use of stunt doubles, quick shots from many camera angles and carefully planned scripts portray genuine acumen in driving and wit; all this to form a single image that is completely true neither of the character viewed in the writer's mind nor tethered to the reality of the actor. Complete fantasy that sweeps the viewers away, luring them further and further into the world of make believe until they no longer want to live in this dreary world of reality, but would rather remain in a field of the fantastic.

So we see the chasm of which Muggeridge spoke, the all-encompassing fantasy of which he warned. But what of the seeing eye that allowed some to remain aware of the real world, that vision that comes to those born of Christ keeping them fixed close to their line of supply? Was it not William Blake who said,

"This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye"

As Ravi Zacharias so eloquently stated, "We were created to see through the eye with the conscience, we are living now in a world where we see with the eye, devoid of a conscience." (my paraphrase). With the introduction of computer aided graphics, high definition cameras and three-dimensional graphics we are fast approaching the day in which human actors are no longer needed for film or voice. Many times animals, species, even cultures die out through various circumstances, but we may be witnessing the unfolding before us the extinction of the human actor and for the first time the creature being annihilated is applauding his own demise. Such is the fate of the one engulfed in fantasy, reduced to seeing with the eye, not through it, and imprisoned by the replacement of free, independent, rational, real, true thought and imagination with forced, lock-step, irrational, fantastic, disingenuous regurgitation and replication.

Protecting the Flank

If it is common knowledge that one strategy in war is to move around an opponents flank and cut off his supply line, then a prominent feature of logistics in a campaign must be diligence and persistance in protecting one's flank. In our case we must be ever cognizant of the maneauverings of our enemy. On this point we must be clear, the battle is real and the truth is at stake. In his second lecture, entitled The Dead Sea Video Tapes, Muggeridge again gets to the heart of the issue and provides a salient and striking description of the necessity of being persistant in maintaining our watch:

"Good and evil, after all, provide the basic theme of the drama of our moral existence, and in this sense may be compared with the positive and negative points which generate an electric current; transpose the points, and the current fails, the lights go out, darkness falls, and all is confusion. So it is with us. The transposition of good and evil in the world of fantasy created by the media leaves us with no sense of any moral order in the universe, and without this, no order whatsoever, social, political, economic or any other, is ultimately attainable. There is only chaos." (p.46 paragraph 4)

Should we become so entranced by the visual effects and imagery before us, we run the risk of being swallowed up by the ideas of "good guys" wearing black and "saving the day" through murderous revenge; of the interchangability of loathsome characters and supposed innocents through surprising situations; of the overpowering feelings of yearning for the termination of all "happy endings" as they have been done to many times and no longer has any appeal. Is it possible that through certain script maneauvers, camera angles and choreographed facial expressions and childhood flashbacks a group of filmmakers might convince an audience that they should feel sorry for the villian and actually desire to see him get off scot free?

In his second lecture, Muggeridge examines the troubling question of what archeologists might say years from now when looking back on the video evidence left behind. He writes:

"What, may we wonder, would the archeologists make of us? Materially so rich and so powerful, spirtually so impoverished and so rear-ridden, having made such remarkable inroads into discovering the secrets of nature and into unravelling the mechanisms of our material environment, beginning to explore, and perhaps to colonise, the universe itself, developing the means to produce in more or less unlimited quantities everything we could possibly need or desire, to transmit swifter than light every thought, smile or word that could possibly entertain, instruct or delight us, desposing of treasure beyond calculation, opening up possibilities beyond envisaging, yet seemingly haunted by a panic fear of becoming too numerous, to the point that there would be no room on earth for its inhabitants and an insufficiency of food to sustain them...Never, the archeologists will surely conclude, was any generation of men, ostensibly intent upon the pursuit of happiness and plenty, more advantageously placed to attain it, who yet, with apparent deliberation, took the opposite course, towards chaos, not order, towards breakdown, not stability, towards death, destruction, and darkness, not life, creativity and light. An ascent that ran downhill, plenty that turned into a wasteland, a cornucopia folded. This, as it seems to me, cannot but be the archeologists' general conclusion from the material available to them." (pp. 53,54)

and more pointedly,

"The archeologists will surely marvel at the high hopes placed in this educative process, seemingly regarded in the society under examination as a panacea for all ills, material, mental and spiritual; at the proliferating campuses, the ever-multiplying professors and teachers instructing more and more students in more and more subjects; at the vast sums of public money expended, and at how the pundits of the classrooms and lecture theatres were held in the highest esteem, to the point of being invited to hold forth in the television and radio studios, and even to participate in government at the highest levels. More books published, plays produced, building erected in a matter of decades than heretofore in the whole of recorded time; the scene set for the greatest cultural explosion of history, a Venice or a Florence on a continental scale. And the result? Instead of sages, philosopher-kings and saints, pop stars, psychiatrists and gurus. Looking for a Leonardo da Vinci or a Shakespeare, the archeologists find only a Rolling Stone.
Surveying and weighing up the whole scene, then, will not their final conclusion be that Western man decided to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought down the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, having convinced himself that he was too numerous, laboring with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer, until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over, a weary battered old Brontosaurus, and became extinct?" (pp. 57,58)

I wonder again if many will read these lines and think to themselves, "what a gross exaggeration, we're not going extinct we're making progress, changing all the time." I wonder if maybe we have been fooled of late that any change is good simply for the fact that something has changed, never questioning if the thing proposed to be changed ever really needed to be changed in the first place, never imagining that there might be such a thing as a detrimental change, a change for the worse. Could it be an exaggeration, all this talk of doom and gloom coming from something so innocuous as a television set? I mean, we're only talking about amusement, right?

To this point my only examples have purposefully been fictional in nature. Consider now things like the news, and historical accounts in documentaries and film. Expectations from viewing audiences are that the anchor men and women are delivering factual accounts of events that transpired during the day or in the near past. Have we stopped to really think about what is going on during that broadcast? First the anchor people. It is hard to believe those we see on the newscast every evening could possibly be the same people we see on the street because of the time spent in makeup before the lights come on; because of the contrived seating, standing, and change of set design throughout the broadcast; and because of the teleprompted recounting of the days events and forced banter one wonders what a real discussion with those personalities might be like in real life. Take next the reports. Investigations and interviews taking hours of communication and discussion with the people involved, some having just experienced horrific or disastrous circumstances; only to produce and edit the whole of the event down to a thirty second clip of a victim becoming emotional upon recounting the nearly avoided tragedy only to be cut off by the impending advertisement; where the most time and effort recounted in the exchange took place in the alignment of the camera so the interview could take place with wreckage and flashing lights in the background. Take the documentaries and historical movies. Is there any greater contrivance than the disclaimer below many of these features, "Based on a true story" and "Re-enactment of actual events". Is it possible we have come to the point where such language causes us to proceed unquestioning to the belief that the people dressed up in different clothes, moving around an open stage built on a set of varying complexity and interacting with others whose responsibility it is to deliver a set of contrived lines in an effort to evoke a passionate response "just like in real life". It seems that experience would have shown by now that the words "Based on a true story" are a rather transparent code for "Has no bearing on reality whatsoever". The same can be said without any further comment on those convoluded productions called "reality shows".

Perhaps the most egregious and damning of all the network attempts to be relavent while still providing a platform of change, intrigue and entertainment occurs, ironically enough, during times of greatest catastrophy and struggle. I speak of course of the theme music. I remember hearing it first during the Gulf War. Each network assigned their specific theme music whenever an update would come up to report everything from advancements of troops, new decisions being made to execute the war effort and the announcement of more soldiers killed in the line of duty. These periods of theme music and updates with multiple windows of pictures all appearing at the same time on the screen left a bitter taste in my mouth then that lingers to this day.

Engaging the Enemy

Now we come to the point where the wound has been opened and laid bare. We have examined, at perhaps too great a length, the dangers associated with being drawn in to a world of complete fantasy where morality is transposed such that good and evil are interchangable commodities to be manipulated on a whim. The question becomes what do we do about it? As happens many times in battle, the enemies numbers seem to great and ours too small; we seem to have no recourse, no solid ground on which to stand no way to even hold our own amidst such a brutal onslaught. What elixer is available to cure those feelings, to what bulwark can we run that will provide shelter from the attacks of the enemy, what will keep us from falling victim to such a criss-cross of morality? Muggeridge again:

"To break out of the fantasy, to rediscover the reality of good and evil, and therefore the order which informs all creation - this is the freedom that the Incarnation made available, that the Saints have celebrated and that the Holy Spirit has sanctified." (pp. 46,47)

and later in a summary list and subsequent statement:

"1. Seek endlesly for God and for his hand in all creation...So, looking, we find him, finding him, we love him, and realise that in every great word ever spoken or written we hear his voice...

2. Live abstemiously. Living otherwise - what Pascal calls 'licking the earth' - imprisons us in a tiny dark dungeon of the ego, and involves us in the pitiless servitude of the senses.

3. Love and consider all men and women as brothers and sisters, caring for them exactly as we should for Jesus himself if we had the inexpressible honour of ministering to him.

4. Read the Bible and related literature...These are the literature of the Kingdom proclaimed in the New Testament; words which became flesh and have dwelt among us, full of grace and truth...

5. Know Jesus Christ and follow his Way, like Bunyan's Pilgrim, withersoever it may lead...

...it is precisely when every earthly hope has been explored and found wanting, when every possibility of help from earthly sources has been sought and is not forthcoming, when every recourse of this world offers, moral as well as material, has been explored to no effect, when in the shivering cold the last faggot has been thrown on the fire and in the gathering darkness every glimmer of light has finally flickered out - it is then that Christ's hand reaches out, sure, and firm, that Christ's words bring their inexpressible comfort, that his light shines brightest, abolishing the darkness for ever. So, finding in everything only deception and nothingness, the soul is contrained to have recourse to God himself and to rest content with him." (pp. 76,77)

And what do we do with the knowledge that the trailer from the movie is patently false in its statement that some things cannot be unseen? When in fact once seen, nothing can be unseen, and moreover imprisons the mind? Some may choose to remove the televisions from their home, vowing never again to set eyes on the screen regardless the material. To him I would say that I understand, respect the decision and wish him well. Some may choose to turn away from the truth, to remain indignant and continue to proclaim "it's just harmless TV" and continue to imbibe with impunity. For him I lament and pray with the knowledge that the Holy Spirit can bring reality to bear on even one so steeped in the fantastic. Some may understand the situation completely, continue to watch with discernment in a very limited fashion, to read more than watch, to think about ramifications and entailments even during what is sold as amusement (to deliberately cease to think). To him I would say may God bless and protect and find a partner for accountability as temptation will come your way early and often.

I close with Muggeridge once more:

"What a Christian can do in whatever part of media he may be working, whatever his lot may be cast, is to continue to be a Christian. Thereby, he may not be able to change the appreciably; they have their own conditions and circumstances. Inside the media, however, he can and should sustain his Christian witness. He may find this very hard, very hard indeed, because of the incompatibility between God and Mammon - in this case, between Christ and the media. We are told to make our light shine before men. That is our Christian duty; the results are God's concern, not ours." (p.83)

What's Wrong With People Anyway?

2010-06-14T21:59:00.000-04:00

In the wake of recent reports of vandalism of a state landmark and theft of memorial tributes of a veteran killed in Afghanistan, an editorial writer asked in paraphrase, "What's wrong with people?" The editorial was entitled "The age-old question", and rightfully stated that the events should cause us all to "pause, reflect and pose" that same philosophical question that has been pondered for ages. So how would we, here in 2010, answer that age-old question? What is wrong with people?
Perhaps some might try to answer in the most obvious way, that these perpetrators broke current laws. Laws on the books currently prohibit graffiti at landmark sites and defacement of gravesites, so what was wrong with those people is that they broke the law. This line of thinking falls short for a number of reasons. Firstly, while it is true the individuals broke the law, this doesn't address motivation, or the reasons for the behavior, so it doesn't really address what is wrong with the person simply whether the action was acceptable or not. Secondly, we would be remiss to raise up as a standard for behavior the current law code because laws are passed by people and are subject to change. What if one day those responsible for passing laws decided defacing public property was no longer against the law. Would that make the actions of these individuals acceptable? There must be something behind the law, something that guides the lawmakers in determining which actions are right or wrong.
Perhaps another might go to personal history, search through the life history of the individuals in question and respond that although they did break the law it was because they were under great stress or pressure from life's circumstances and were pushed into taking such drastic action that most would find deplorable. Again, this sounds reasonable on the surface, and it does go beyond just current laws to attempt to address the motivation behind the action but it doesn't go far enough. Are actions excusable, or right, if a previous wrong has been done? Would a person be exonerated of the charge of robbing a bank if it was discovered he/she had been verbally abused as a child? Would a drunk driver that killed a family of four be set free if it is discovered that he/she was physically abused and that abuse drove them to alcohol? There is an equally old adage that two wrongs don't make a right, which means we all have at least a tacit understanding that some measure of self-control is expected of all people to refrain from harming others in spite of harm that might have been done us.
Perhaps one might try to apply contemporary philosophical arguments of relativity and subjective truth. That something may be right for you but wrong for me. If that were the case then the answer is quite simple, nothing is wrong with anyone. What the individuals who defaced the natural monument and stole the memorials of a fallen soldier where simply doing what was right for them. What they did wasn't wrong at all, it just wasn't accepted by the majority of people. They may go to jail because they didn't agree with the majority, but they didn't do anything wrong. This line of thinking is plainly unlivable.
It seems every explanation we try to come up with falls short in some way and it seems we'll have to give up on finding an answer. Perhaps before we give up we should look at a truth that is older than the question itself. According to the Bible, all men and women have thoughts, attitudes and motivations that are wrong. Genesis 6:5 tells us that man's heart is inclined to wickedness all the time. Psalm 14 says that there are none who seek to do good, that all are corrupt. Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us that God exposes, and is concerned with the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. So we see that intent is prior to content, and the intentions of man are wrong by nature. If that is the case, then perhaps the one who defaced the natural monument may have been motivated by anger; perhaps the one who stole the veteran's memorial was motivated by greed; perhaps even as I write this article in an attempt to help give some meaningful answers to this difficult question, pride tries to creep in so that I have feelings that it be published not so much that others might be helped, but so that my work will be seen by many people in the community.
If that were the end of the story, we would have to lament our very existence and resign ourselves to a life of being perpetually wrongheaded. However, Galatians 5 lets us know that we can be freed from this curse of being wrong by nature and instead have a new desire for thoughts and attitudes of things like love, joy, peace and self-control.

Consider Saul of Tarsus from the 1st century A.D. A vehement persecutor of the Jewish people; brutal and uncaring of an entire race of people; “breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1); giving approval to the murder by stoning of Stephen where the martyr’s clothes were laid at his feet. A man capable of such things was to become the most prolific writer of the New Testament and a missionary to most of the known world of his day.

Consider Manuel Noriega from the 20th century. A Panamanian general and commander of the National Guard; involved in gun smuggling, money laundering, torture and murder; putting his own people under his thumb after an uprising demanding his removal from office by suspending constitutional rights, closing national media outlets and driving into exile those who opposed him politically. A man sentenced to 40 years in prison after being extradited and found guilty, only to stand up to stop a prisoner revolt and exhibit behavior that a guard would comment, “I haven’t seen any dedication or seriousness greater than his.”
What was responsible for the transformation of men like Saul of Tarsus and Manuel Noriega? Being blinded and hearing the voice of the Lord transformed Saul persecutor of Christians into Paul apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Manuel Noriega in his own words stated, “He [Jesus] is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, who arose from the grave and is at the right hand of God the Father and who above all things He is my Savior, and has mercy on me, a sinner."
Many years ago, the question “What’s wrong with England” was asked. Famed author and theologian G.K. Chesterton very simply replied, "I am." We are what is wrong, each one of us. We are selfish, greedy and prideful. Jesus told many parables and spoke once of two kinds of trees, those that bore good fruit and those that bore bad fruit. The good trees do not bear bad fruit, the bad trees do not bear good fruit and each tree is known by the fruit it bears. When we look at the things we do, and the thoughts and motivations behind those actions, it is clear to which group of trees we belong. There is something, however, that can change us from the inside out. If we are only willing to accept the truth and live not for ourselves and our natural desires but for the glory of the Lord then He will change our heart, our thoughts and our attitudes to that which is right. The nature of man is what is wrong with people and transformation is all that will set him right.

Some Things Just Make Me Laugh

2010-06-11T11:17:00.002-04:00

So i'm riding down the highway yesterday and an SUV swerves over in front of the vehicle i'm riding in at the last minute. We were coming up on a lane merger due to road construction and apparently there was much to be gained by risking an accident to be one spot closer to the end of a line of gridlocked vehicles. Since we are just sitting there, and i'm doing some serious thinking about some blog comments and discussion i'm having at another site, I take a minute and focus on the back windshield of said SUV. At that point I first noticed that some text was present. I like to read and think so I focus on some Gothic-type lettering of about 16 point size that read "2 Fast 4 U, See Ya!"

I immediately began to laugh, and laughed harder the more I thought about it. The driver was sitting in gridlock. For at least 5 full minutes of waiting for what must have been at least 8 traffic light cycles, i'm staring at this statement that the vehicle ahead of me is too fast for me and he/she will see me later. In fact, the text was so small from the standpoint of driving perspective, and in such an unorthodox lettering that it took a good bit of time to clearly decipher the message. The fact that I had more than enough time to read the driver's statement that he/she was too fast for me was enough to bring up another round of laughter. In fact, the only situation in which I could think the message would even be applicable would be on the interstate where he/she would be passing people at a decent clip. In that situation, in the only situation that would even warrant having that lettering on the back of the vehicle, no one could even read the message. I just kept thinking to myself, the only way the message makes sense is if no one is able to read it.

I'm not going to take the time to make some grand statement about logic and taking two minutes to engage the brain to think about the possible ramifications of actions, but instead just let it go. In fact, i'm tempted to say that the message and the effort it took to produce it was a complete waste of time, but I did get a great laugh.

Thoughts on Parent Led, Home Based Discipleship

2010-06-04T07:28:00.001-04:00

Last Thursday, Friday and Saturday my wife and I attended the 26th annual North Carolina Home Education Conference. We currently have four children, the oldest of which will be 7 this year. We have schooled him at home for the last two years and have committed to home educate all our children. The conference this year was as informative and productive as ever and we were able to pick up all our curriculum materials for the year and hear some great presentations along the way. I was able to listen to two talks given by Dr. Brian Ray, who has eight children (7 daughters and one son) and works for the National Home Education Research Institute in Salem, Oregon. His talks were great, in that they allowed me to think all over again the fundamental reasons why my wife and I decided to home educate our children and some of the philosophical issues that are at the crux of any discussion on the education of children in this country. I feel compelled to put these ideas in writing and lay out a rudamentary argument for home education, as well as present some of the challenging positions and get to the heart of the matter.

Very briefly, statistics show that on average home educated students perform above average in comparison with public school students. Research results done by Dr. Ray can be found here (Research Facts on Homeschooling) but some of the statistics that immediately impress are as follows:

The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)

Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.

Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.

(All these above italicized results copied directly from Dr. Ray's site as linked to above. Please visit the link or http://www.nheri.org/ for more content)

Beside just the statistical justification for the effectiveness of home education, there is also a fundamental philosophical thread woven throughout the issue of children's education. Throughout one of Dr. Ray's talks (entitled Academic Elite Angst Over Home Education: Attacking Homeschooling Without Basis) I was struck by the common theme in the myriad quotes that were presented in peer-reviewed papers of those in acedemia who shape education policy. That theme is authority and responsibility. In question form, it would be presented as: "Who is responsible for educating children?" Now this might seem like a simple question, but many different areas of thought are brought in. It is clear from the discussion presented here that those who strongly advocate public education feel that those who have spent their lives at University in the education field, developing curriculum and textbooks, and are directly involved in setting educational standards (or the Academic Elite as Dr. Ray described) have the responsibility to educate children by the authority vested in them by the state. This position begs the questions; Where are the parents of the children in this discussion, and Who gave the state the authority to make the Academic Elite responsible?

Removal of the parents from the decision-making process for their own children's education is a serious mistake in fundamental thinking. It is true that for decades, the feeling has been growing until now the default position by many parents is "I don't have a degree in education, so I don't know how to teach my children," or "I can teach my children how to tie their shoes, but i've got to leave the bookwork to the professionals." That attitude didn't arise overnight. It has become commonplace today, to the point that even before children are born the assumption is they will have to go to someone else for their education. Social issues behind this attitude are many, but again the main problem is that parents do not feel qualified, and attempt to either remove themselves or allow themselves to be removed from a position of responsibility and authority with regard to their children's education. Now, of course the two word question arises, "So what?"

As it turns out, the "So what" question is a critical one. Children are human beings, born to parents. What document, provision, stipulation, law, code or ruling puts the state in charge of those people? Quite simply there is none. There is no document in this country that states that municipal, state or national agencies have the authority or responibility to dictate to parents what they must do with their children (except in cases of neglect or abuse). So-called Academic Elites do not stand on a position of authority, but on one of philosophical force. The underlying position is one of an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. Put another way, they feel that all ideas are equally true but that one person (or group of people) decide which idea is best and which everyone else should adopt. That position is fundamentally flawed, not only because all ideas are obviously not equally true because the law of non-contradiction holds, but also because we don't live in a nation founded on the principle of might makes right.

What the nation was founded on was a philosophy of an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people. Put another way, one idea is true (namely the Judeo-Christian or Biblical Christian position) and all people are created equal. In his Civil Authority and the Bible, Harold O.J. Brown states the following:

"When we speak of church and state, it is important to recognize that as far as institutions go, the earliest and primary human social institution, or rather social structure, is the family...Examples of simple governmental institutions do exist in the Hebrew Scriptures, but the duties of the individual toward civil government are not spelled out as they are, at least in principle, in the New Testament. Perhaps the explanation is the fact that from the age of the patriarchs to the Exile, authority remained primarily personal and familial. In the early chapters of the Bible, family, society, and congregation are interwoven. Religious leaders are civil leaders: Moses himself is the prime example. Both the family and the church antedate the state."

Not that last line carefully one more time. Both the family and the church antedate the state. The family was established by God before the state, authority for children was given by God to parents for their children, prior to the establishment of institutions. We see clearly from scripture that people and interpersonal relationships preceed institutions, governments and the like. This point is expounded further by Herbert W. Titus in his God's Revelation: Foundation for the Common Law where he states:

"Rightfully understood, Genesis 1:28 along with Genesis 1:26 is a grant of authority, not a conveyance of title...The grant of authority in Genesis 1:28 is not to humankind in general, but to humankind through the family unit...In short, God selected the family as the primary economic unit of society-not the individual, not the state, not the corporation, and not the church. The common law was designed to foster and protect the family, not only through rules protecting private-property ownership and facilitating its voluntary transfer but also through criminal sanctions prohibiting adultery, fornication, sodomy and bigamy. Since the Darwinian revolution, however, this understanding of common law has deteriorated."

The movement of which my family is a part is commonly referred to as homeschooling. Dr. Ray, however turned a phrase that I found much more apt and descriptive of the choice my wife and I have made: Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship. We base our position on our children's education on the same foundation as in all other choices in our lives, on the Word of God. God established the family as the primary human institution and we should fight to preserve the family, not promote the removal of parents from making decisions relative to their own children.

Before closing, let me be quick to say that I am not anti-education, anti-public school, or anti-academia. I'm not arguing that education is bad, or that a good parent will choose to prevent their children from receiving an education. I believe we are to love God with all our mind and that parents have to be good stewards in developing the minds of their children and help them become good thinkers. My central point is on what I believe to be the hinge on which the argument swings; namely that the authority and responsibility for children's education belongs to the parents, not to the state. Parents may choose public schools, private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, usage of any available voucher system, homeschool or other.

Sociologically, children function better with the active involvement and support of their family. Research statistics show that homeschool children, on average, perform above average in academic measures. Philosophically an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people is the only tenable and non-contradictory position. Biblically, the family is the primary human institution and Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship should always be preserved and supported as parents do their best under God to train up their children in the way they should go.

As a final aside, let me say how proud I am of the state of North Carolina for supporting home education, and the North Carolinians for Home Education organization for their encouragement, support and recognition of home educators in our state.

A ger Of An Issue - or - A Suggested Christian Approach to Immigration at the Southern US Border

2010-04-30T14:14:00.000-04:00

Immigration in general, and the newly passed state law in Arizona in particular, has raised a great deal of debate (and I use the term as loosely as possible for most media outlets) surrounding the United States and immigration. I've been thinking about this issue for a long time (over a year to date) and I would respectfully submit my thoughts and a proposal. One word of note to begin, and that is that my address is specifically pointed to followers of Christ. My hope in all my thinking is to bring together the biblical consideration that followers of Christ should give to any topic, some ancillary but related issues and contemporary cultural ideas that tend to cloud the issue. With that as a backdrop, I begin with what I believe to be the requisite initial definition.

A Christian position on immigration must be based on biblical truth. A quick perusal of just the Old Testament reveals a good portion of scripture dealing with the issue, and it is incumbent upon us as believers who understand the Bible as the inspired Word of God to investigate the terms so we can have a well founded understanding of what is intended and not just force a personal interpretation on the text. gwr is the hebrew root for the words used in the Old Testament to speak on the topic. Here I am going to include a significant excerpt of John T. Willis' translation, edited by Botterweck and Ringgren from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament by William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, pages 439 to 449. Any mistakes, typographical or otherwise are mine.

"Hebrew lexicography reckons with several roots of gwr. In connection with an investigation of the root gwr I, 'to tarry as a sojourner,' the important question is whether gwr II=subordinate form of grh, 'to attack, strive,' and gwr III=subordinate form of ygr, 'to be afraid,' are independent homonymous roots, or whether possibly an original connection can be established between these roots, so that the various meanings represent special meanings of the same root...

...gwr I occurs in the qal 81 times...the subst. ger occurs 92 times...meghurim means 'sojourning' and occurs 11 times...

...In the OT, the ger occupies an intermediate position between a native ('ezrach) and a foreigner (nokhri'). He lives among people who are not his blood relatives, and thus he lacks the protection and the privileges which usually come from blood relationship and place of birth. His status and privileges are dependent on the hospitality that has played an important role in the ancient Near East ever since ancient time. In the early period of Israel, the legal position of the ger is comparable with that of the metics of Greece...However, under the sign of religious integration, the concept develops more and more toward the proselyte, the non-Israelite who becomes an adherent of the Yahweh faith...

...The reasons why someone becomes a ger, separates himself from his clan and his home, and places himself under the legal protection of another man or group of men, are varied. The most frequent reason given in the OT is famine...Military encounters can also force people to lead the life of a ger...In addition, individual distress or bloodguilt can cause a person to seek protection and help among foreigners as a ger...

...As a rule, of course, the protected citizen could acquire no property, and thus was left to the legal protection of the fully enfranchised citizen...

...when the ger is mentioned in connection with the treatment of the quality of sacrifice in Lev. 22:17-33, and when Nu. 15 in supplements to the regulations concerning sacrifice (Nu. 15:14, 15 [twice], 16, 26, 29, 30) explicitly states that the ger has the same rights as the native, and that the expiatory power of the sin-offering is also given to the ger who lives in the midst of the whole community of the Israelites, again it is quite clear that in late strata of P (the Pentateuch) the ger is the fully integrated proselyte. Therefore, in this portion of P one should regard all laws as also applicable to the ger, even if he is not explicitly mentioned. And this means that the ger has his place in the community as a proselyte by circumcision and mode of life...

...The Israelites are commanded to treat the protected citizen kindly (Dt. 10:19; cf. Ex. 22:20 [21]; 23:9), because they know what it is to be a ger (nephesh hagger, 'the soul [heart] of a stranger'), they have the responsibility of extending the law of loving their neighbor as themselves (Lev. 19:18) to the ger...The idea that man simply lives the life of a ger here on earth if of special significance. Thus, the psalmist knows that he is only a ger, 'guest' and a toshabh, 'sojourner', before Yahweh, like all his fathers...Yahweh alone is owner of the land, and thus they can only be hereditary tenants of his possesion...The distress of earthly existence leads to the recognition that God must support and help man like a patron, or else man will be lost."

End extended excerpt

There are several ideas that come to the front of my thinking. First, the biblical understanding of the sojourner was that there was a significant impetous occuring in someone's native land that would drive them away (drought, famine, military action, bloodguilt, etc.). The implication here is that people are not just milling about for no reason, wandering to and fro, but rather something is driving them to leave the protection and privilages afforded him in his native land. They are placing themselves at the mercy of their hosts. Second, there was an expectation of assimilation into the culture and the beliefs, the term proselyte is used. The implication here is that all the laws of the land are expected to be followed and although the guest is protected and allowed to live securely, obtain private possessions, hire others to work for him, etc. there is the understanding of full assimilation into the culture. Third, respectful treatment is required by the native in the land. It is critically important to remember the position of mankind as a "hereditary tenant" of God's possession; such that caring for visitors is as part of good stewardship.

Now to bring in the related legal issues. I'll be brief here because this portion could be an entire post on its own. Governments and laws are established by God and are limited in power by God. As Harold O.J. Brown says in his article Civil Authority and the Bible, "The first of these limits if quite clearly expressed in Scripture and is universally accepted by Christians and, to some extent, even respected by the civil laws of secular states: We may not do that which God's law prohibits, even when the secular authority commands it (Dan. 3:4-6), and we must do what God's law requires, even when secular (or religious) authorities prohibit it (Dan. 6:7-12; Acts 4:18; 5:28)." Further, R.C. Sproul in his article The Biblical View of Submission of Constituted Authority states, "The apostles were driven to continue their ministry by an overarching ethical imperative. What words they couched in a gossamer veil of the rhetorical in Acts 4, the proclaimed "without horns" in chapter 5: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (v. 29). This ethical imperative, resting on an obligatory oughtness, is structured in a comparative form. The operative word in the comparison is 'rather.' It is not a universal license for revolt against all human authority...The 'rather' comes into play only when there is a conflict between the lesser and the greater magistrate. The principle is always and ever prior obligation to the higher authority...The'governing authorities' can also be rendered 'higher powers.' The powers or authorites (exousia) in view are not restricted to the supreme office of king or emporer but are applied to anyone who is in authority over us. In 1 Peter 2:13 reference is made to the king who is supreme, but in this text no single class of magistrates is compared with another. Our obligation is submission to all who hold magisterial authority over us. There are encompassed by the word higher (hoperechon)."

And now to my recommendation, which is based on a more complete study of the full texts of the documents refrenced above and others and which I hope will be seen to be a balanced biblical approach for followers of Christ. It seems to me that we need to incorporate the ideas of treating visitors well (as we understand even ourselves to be only caretakers of God's property), proselytizing and submitting to authority. It would not be biblical or Godly to say everyone should just stay out and leave us alone because this is OUR country. It would also not seem to be biblical or Godly to ignore the status of the soul of whoever comes in and out of the nation. It would also not be biblical or Godly to say ignore the law and let everyone come in without a second thought. My position, after careful consideration, which I consider to be a balanced biblical view of the issue, is that Christians in this country should endeavor to minister in the border areas where those to our South are entering the country. At first thought, the ministry would be some combination of providing food, clothing, shelter for those wishing to enter the US while also explaining the current laws relative to immigration, helping to complete and submit the proper documentation for legal entry into the country, begin offering some basic English language to aide in assimilation into US culture, sharing the gospel and possibly even help in placement for employment and/or location once the legal documents for lawful entry have been received.

This seems to me to be a proper Christian respone to the issue. It remains true to helping those in need and treating all people with dignity and respect because they are created in God's image, to be true to the biblical principle of submitting to authority where it does not conflict with God's law, and to make disciples of all nations. It also seems to me to be a very difficult and potentially dangerous road to take, but that should be seen as possibly the best evidence for its being a legitimate solution for Christians. Those who are called to being on the front lines would most certainly be in physical danger, but would have a wide open mission field of not only those who genuinely seek refuge from a situation that is forcing them to flee the provision and protection of their own native land and put themselves at the mercy of another but also to those who would attempt to smuggle drugs into the US. It would also be another opportunity for all Christians across the nation to contribute to mission work right here in the United States.

How Should We Then Insure

2010-03-25T14:10:00.000-04:00

I must admit that my heart has been heavy the last few days. I spent the two days before the House vote on the health care bill reading the reconcilliation and amendments package. I spent the two days after the vote continuing to read and gaining as much clarity as I could to what has now been voted into law. Yesterday and today I have been reading through my favorite blogs and listening to a variety of talk shows and reading the local paper for how people are reacting to the legislation and I find myself torn on how to respond. I see that both sides of the argument have some legitimate concerns (where the people expressing their views on the legislation are legitimate in their arguments).

On the one side, people are concerned about how difficult it is for individuals to purchase health insurance for themselves or their families; how it is difficult for small businesses to offer company-wide health plans for their employees because they cannot buy into the larger market plans; how pre-existing conditions and the current state of rising health care costs are a major area of concern for the general public.

On the other side, people are concerned about how liberty is being usurped by the legal requirement that individuals must purchase a product from a private entity; how small businesses are being required to provide company health plans under threat of fine or penalty; how the experience of history shows wide ranging social plans administered by the government have all ended up bankrupt and the economic factors suggest the plan is doomed to failure before it begins.

As one who has done his best to read and understand the bill as it currently stands, I believe in many areas there is not enough information to adequately argue one way or the other. A few examples:

1) The contention has been made that if individuals like their current coverage they can keep it. Opponents say the bill will make it impossible for individuals to afford to keep their current coverage whether they like it or not. In the text of the bill, all health care coverage carried by individuals and offered by employers must be Qualified Health Benefit Plans (QHBP)s. Specific coverage offered by a QHBP is to be stipulated by the Secretary who is appointed by the President upon passage. So, really at this moment no one knows what even constitutes a QHBP. Until that is determined, making any kind of determination about current plans must be held in abeyance.

2) The contention has been made that health care costs will decrease as a result of the enactment of the legislation, while opponents charge the bill will drive health care costs up and bankrupt the nation. In the text of the bill, the rates and methods of determining the rates for health care plans, like the make-up of a QHBP is to be determined by the Secretary upon passage of the legislation. So, again at this moment no one really knows whether nationwide health care costs will go up or down.

I realize that everyone can make an assumption as to what these unknowns might be and then project outcomes, but at this point it is simply unknown. More important to me is the emotion that is present on both sides and what the Christian response should be (where responses will be honoring and glorifying to God).

I'm going to throw out some questions that have crossed my mind in the last few days and maybe some of you others who have read the legislation or are also seeking to give some really good answers can help me out. I already know how i've answered these questions, but i'd like some additional input.

1) Is this whole health care and insurance topic a bi-product of the affluence of our society?

2) Is there a point at which a man can tell another man he must help his neighbor? Does loving one's neighbor as oneself apply just to the follower of Christ or to everyone? Does the United States' embrace of a secularized mindset have any bearing on this question, i.e. is the Church the only group who ought to love their neighbor as themselves?

3) Where do personal responsibility and accountability to God cross with the ideas of "general welfare"? What I mean by this, is the founders of the nation continually used the phrase "by the dictates of his own conscience" for the governance of an individual's behavior, does that concept still stand today?

4) When we speak of insurance, at what point are we beginning to point people to the government or an agent instead of to Almighty God? Put another way, when do we as a nation begin to see our days here on earth and those can provide temporally for our needs as those in whom we put our faith?

5) Is there a way for believers in Christ to be set apart as unique in this environment so that we will be seen as different and be curious as to how they can change to be more like us (which is to say more like Christ)? In other words, what opportunities for witness and evangelism are available in this tumultuous time?

I appreciate any thoughts as I believe the issues are deeper than just the 90 seconds they are typically given on news and talk shows. Thanks in advance for Godly wisdom and input.

Of Science and Religion

2010-03-12T09:40:00.000-05:00

I just finished a book by John Polkinghorne called Belief in God in an Age of Science. I'm including some excerpts from the book here and some comments because of the rift between religion and science in contemporary culture. I hear so often these days comments like "just leave science to the scientists" or "you religious wackos need to stay out of science". We are tending today to become more and more specialized in particular areas of interest both academically and vocationally. Combine that with a secular conciousness where religious ideas, institutions and interpretations have lost their social significance and it's easy to see why people would tend to see a human being able to seperate out science, metaphysicis, philosophy, religion, sociology, etc. Each one compartmentalized and seperated so that one doesn't cross over and meddle into the affairs of the other. The reality is that the disciplines do overlap and that point, among others, is brought out very well in this book.

First a word about Dr. Polkinhorne, and to do that i'll just quote from the back book jacket:

"John Polkinghorne, K.B.E., F.R.S., is past President and now Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Canon Theologian of Liverpool, England. He is the winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities."

Dr. Polkinghorne is a theorhetical physicist, specializing in the area of quantum physics, and a comitted Christian. He is no slouch when it comes to scientific matters and so his thoughts are well worth thinking about and should be given credance. His position is summarized in the Preface to the book when he states: "This book presents a series of variations on a fundamental theme: if reality is generously and adequately construed, then knowledge will be seen to be one; if rationality is generously and adequately construed, then science and theology will be seen as partners in a common quest for understanding." Personally, i've never seen science and religion at war with one another, or the thought that one must exist in distinction from another. History has shown that scientific discovery has flourished in a general atmosphere of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as those scientists set out to discover the wonders of God's creation. Following is just a smattering of quotations from the book and some thoughts.

"The world is not full of items stamped 'made by God' - the Creator is more subtle than that - but there are two locations where general hints of the divine presence might be expected to be seen most clearly. One is the vast cosmos itself, with its fifteen-billion-year-history of evolving development following the big bang. The other is the 'thinking reed' of humanity, so insignificant in physical scale but, as Pascal said, superior to all the stars because it alone knows them and itself. The universe and the means by which that universe has become marvellously self-aware - these are the centers of our enquiry.
     Those who work in fundamental physics encounter a world whose large-scale structure (as described by cosmology) and small-scale processes (as described by quantum theory) are alike characterised by a wonderful order that is expressible in concise and elegant mathematical terms...Attempts have been made to explain away this fact. No one would deny, of course, that evolutionary necessity will have moulded our ability for thinking in ways that will ensure its adequacy for understanding the world around us, at least to the extent that is demanded for pressures for survival. Yet our surplus intellectual capacity, enabling us to comprehend the microworld of quarks and gluons and the macroworld of big bang cosmology, is on such a scale that it beggars belief that this is simply a fortunate by-product of the struggle for life."

It is interesting to note that it is easy enough to say that things came to be through a process of chance and time, but when we press the issue of why things are exactly what they are do we find problems with the chance and time explanation. Because of the multitude of things necessary to happen for things to be exactly what they are, the probabilites force an infinite number of universes and an infinite amount of time to come up with the chance happening of what we know to exist the way it does, and as Dr. Polkinghorne points out arranged such that it can be measured and expressed in understandable mathematical forms. We know there has not been infinite time, nor an infinite set of universes so there must be some other explanation.

"I have said that I do not expect top-down agency to be just a conglomerative effect of a lot of little bits of bottom-up interactions (in the way that the temperature of a gas is the average of the individual kinetic energies of its molecules). If holistic causality is present it must be there as a genuine novelty, and the structure of the relationships between the bits and pieces must be open enough to afford it room for manoeuvre. In some sense there must be gaps in the bottom-up account which this top-down action fills in, but those gaps must be intrinsic and ontological in character and not just contingent ignorances of the details of the bottom-up process. They must be 'really there' if they are to provide the causal joint for which we are looking.
     A popular site for such explorations has been the uncertainties of quantum events...The continuing perplexities about the quantum measurement problem remind us that we do not fully understand how the levels of the microworld and the macroworld interlock with each other...The way a chaotic system traverses its strange attractor seems a more promising model fors such open developments, and this has been the basis for my own suggestions. We can consider the many different trajectories through the attractor's phase space (that is, the range of its future possible states) which all correspond to the total energy. Their different forms are understood as arising from the effects of vanishingly small disturbances that nudge the system along one path or another, the diverging characters of these different paths corresponding to the chaotic system's extreme sensitivity to perturbations.
     It is this sensitivity that produces the intrinsic unpredictabilities. In a critical realist re-interpretation of what is going on, these epistemological uncertainties become an ontological openness, permitting us to suppose that a new causal principle may play a role in bringing about future developments...Thus a realist reinterpretation of the espistemological unpredictabilities of chaotic systems leads to the hypothesis of an ontological openness within which new causal principles may be held to be operating which determine the pattern of future behavior and which are of an holistic character. Here we see a glimmer of how it might be that we execute our willed intentions and how God exercises providential interaction with creation."

Fascinating stuff really. Behavior at the quantum level is chaotic is unmeasureable, except as a range of possibilities of behavior (called phase range). So there are many possible paths each with their own range of probability, this is the epistemological uncertainty. What Dr. Polkinghorne is saying is that while being epistemologically uncertain provides an ontological openness so that what actually occurs (or put another way, which path in the set of possibilites is actually chosen) can be acted upon by a causal agent outside the system, namely God providing information to direct the process.

These matters are interesting to think about, because we are hit more and more with the advances in science pushing God out and making religion obsolete. It seems the further down science is parsed, into the quantum realm, there is an uncertainty of what might happen coupled with an observation of what actually occurs. Something must move things from the chaotic (or uncertain) to the actual (or real). Because we are discussing acts at the quantum level the causal agent cannot be us, nor does it seem plausible to think it would be "Nature", as it were, as a non-thinking uncaring process for the simple fact that we are thinking moral beings.

I'll end this post with a final quotation from the book from some of the closing remarks:

"The arguments will continue, for deep metaphysical questions do not lend themselves to knock-down answering. There is a reminiscence here of the medievel debates between the realists and nominalists. Nevertheless, I believe there is a much more persuasive case for believing in the reality of the Mandelbrot set then in the reality of the Idea of a lion. There is a realm of physical experience containing sticks and stones. There is also a realm of mental experience containing the truths of mathematics. These are not disjoint realms but they are parts of an interlinked complementary created reality, as our 'amphibious' experience as embodied thinking reeds testifies, and as is also witnessed to by the 'unreasonable effectiveness' of mathematical pattern as the clue to the structure of physical law. I believe that mathematics provides a powerful - and for a scientist, readily accessible - encouragement to eschew physical reductionism and to embrace a generous view of the mental/material nature of reality."

What's It All About

2010-03-08T11:06:00.000-05:00

I read this article in the local paper today and found myself wondering how someone could make such a statement. Speaker Pelosi commented, when questioned about the dissention present even within the Democratic party concerning the language and logistics of monies going toward abortion in the current version of the health bill, "This is not about abortion" and "This is a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans."

The temptation in light of comments like those it to go after Speaker Pelosi, but the real discussion needs to take place in the real of ideas and foundational beliefs. I asked myself immediately how one could seriously suggest, after members of one's own party affiliation say quite clearly that they will not vote for the bill because of the current language regarding abortion, that the bill is not about abortion. If the bill had nothing at all to do with abortion, then all language that hinted at abortion could be removed. If the bill had nothing to do with abortion, then not one single dollar would need to be appropriated to anything related to abortion. The fact is the bill does contain language and assigns dollars to abortion.

I wish that it were in fact the case that abortion had nothing to do with this bill. The fact is that the bill is about abortion. It is about the national economy. It is about American liberty. When a bill is proposed as "health care overhaul" or "health care reform" it is by definition about all issues of health care and all the intended and unintended consequences stemming from passage of that bill.

What I believe comes through loud and clear is the post-modern mindset that has pervaded the American mind today. Speaker Pelosi was in effect saying, was "This is a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans to me." (additional words and emphasis mine). Post-modern thought would tell us that the individual defines the terms and definition and truth of an issue. For Speaker Pelosi the health care bill is just about making every visit to the hospital a small cost for anyone, no matter who crosses the threshold of the health care provider, so that's all the bill is about. For another person, however, the bill is about abortion. For another it is about ecomonic concerns (how do we pay for it all).

Our culture tells us that an issue is only what we make it to be, each individual is sovereign over the truth of an issue. Obviously this is not the case. With a bill taking more than two thousand pages to cover, the health care bill is about a great many things. What inevitably happens in the post-modern mindset is a reductionism. We are going to completely overhaul the health care system of the United States of America, it takes a 2000 page bill to begin to address the issue and yet it is simply "...a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans."

Whether the bill passes or not, whether it will be helpful or not, whether it will accomplish what it is intended to accomplish or not I cannot say; prediction is terribly difficult, especially prediction about things in the future. What is certain is that the bill is about abortion. Up to and until all language and all appropriations for the funding of abortion procedures is removed in their entirety is removed from the bill, it will continue to be about abortion, along with a host of other issues. We should at least confront the truth. Push the bill anyway, confirm that the bill does concern abortion and that the President, his cabinet, the House and Senate supporters are all aware of it and demand its passage anyway and at least an honest vote can be taken. At this point we are left to ask, what is it about the abortion issue that is so devisive? Why are there those in the democratic party so opposed to a bill they have admittedly pledged to support except for this language? Why are all the questions regarding abortion being asked? I think most know the answer to those questions and that it's clear the issue is about abortion.

A Ship at Sea

2010-03-05T09:53:00.000-05:00

I heard two reports on the radio on my way into work today that caught my ear. I read a bit more on one of those reports in the local newspaper. Both deal primarily with the issue of ethical behavior, and both are concerned with members of the United States government. Links to both reports are found below:

Charles Rangel Ethics Probe

Sexual Harassment Allegations

My intent here is not to speak specifically to the details of either of these pending issues and investigations, but rather to express some more general concern about ethics and ethical behavior. By way of completeness, links are below to both the House and Senate committees on ethics:

House Ethics Committee

Senate Ethics Committee

Before lighting into a discussion, it is usually helpful to define the terms.
ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.
ethics - a system of moral principles.
ethical - pertaining to or dealing with or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

So, when we hear radio reports, or read news articles on ethical behavior or possible ethical violations or incidents being turned over for review to members of an ethics committee; what we need to ask ourselves is what set of moral principles are assumed to govern the particular group. The importance here is absolutely critical. How the deciding body, committee, group, or individual determines ethical behavior is based on the ethic that is espoused by the body, committee, group or individual. Put another way, what moral principles are assumed as the basis upon which to confer a decision of ethical behavior. We can further parse the question down to the most basic and fundamental question: What is the standard of morality assumed by the body, committee, group or individual? One could also get at the same foundational assumptions by asking what worldview is adopted by the body, committee, group or individual.

This is the focus of my concern. If an ethic is a body of moral principles or values, then what is the underlying concept of morality? In this case, we are concerned with the United States government and what the underlying system of morality is used to make decisions regarding right and wrong conduct. A detailed view of the current ethical system, and the moral basis for that system, begins with a look at the Ethics Manual for the Senate Special Committee (accessible by the Senate link above).

Decisions are made not solely dependent on laws currently on the books. The committe recognized that there could not be a law or provision included to stave off any and every conceivable breach of conduct. It is worded thusly on page 12 in the Preface: "...the Federal statutes and Senate Rules to which most of this manual's discussion is devoted, are but a part of a wider body of ethical standards related to service in the Senate." And is further described in Appendix E on page 433: "The phrase 'improper conduct' as used by S. Res. 338 can be given meaning by reference by generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules, and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation."

The following link gives a detailed development of the history and enforcement of ethical standards in congress:
Enforcement of Ethical Standards in Congress
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are cited as forerunning founders speaking to the issue of Congress self-governing and internally policing its behavior and conduct. Specifically, Federalist Paper No. 57 is referenced. Let's look at Federalist Paper No. 57 in more detail. James Madison (the so-called 'Father of the Constitution') authored this paper as one in a succession of 22 consecutive publications on the topic of how to combine "stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form." Particularly he speaks in the essay at hand to the proposition that representatives will accurately reflect the will of the people. Madison says, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit that actuates the people of America - a spirit that nourishes freedom, and in turn is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be able to tolerate anything but liberty." What a telling statement. Without a law that every person in the entire nation recognizes and is obliged to live by, then liberty is lost. What is this law that is applicable to every citizen in America to which everyone is obliged to adhere? What is this spirit that is vigilant and that nourishes freedom? Let's look at what Madison believed and based these statements.

In his 'Memorial and Remonstrance', Madison says, "Before any man can be considered as 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 allegiance to the Universal Sovereign." In other words, before any man or woman can be bound by right conduct there must be allegiance pledged to a morality, a moral system, a moral law that is transcendent over himself/herself, the society and the government. A moral system outside himself/herself but to which he/she is obliged to adhere. A brief study of the life and history of James Madison makes clear he saw this Universal Sovereign as the God of the Bible, as revealed in the Old and New Testament. In other words, God established an absolute moral order to which all are bound, and on which ethical decisions must be based that is transcendent over man. That is the basis on which decisions on ethical behavior are to be based, and that is how this country was founded.

The fact that this nation was based on an understanding of a natural law that was established by God that every human being was obliged to follow is indisputable. This does not mean that every citizen of America has to be Christian. The founders were clear in their upholding the position of liberty and that each man must act in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. However, the nation was founded and the government based on the understanding of a natural law established by God to which every person was obliged to adhere. That is the moral system by which ethical standards in this nation are to be based.

Now, one might argue that those ideas are antiquated, out of date, and due to the advances in science and technology the United States has moved away from those principles, "evolved" if you will to a new understanding. I might be inclined to agree that due to a secularization of American thought, a privatization of moral values and the onslought of the belief in the relativism of truth that seems to have pervaded our entire culture that a growing number of people, and perhaps even the majority of the leaders of this nation might not hold to the original concept of what binds ethical decisions. If this is the case, however, our situation is dire. If the non-theist, the naturalist, the materialist view of ethics is adopted then tyranny, not liberty is the inevitable result. If we are all here by some cosmic accident, if there is no good reason why we are here as opposed to not being here, if there is no ultimate purpose or meaning in life, if there is nothing that transcends natural processes, if our thoughts, feelings, reasoning, and moral positions are nothing more than the product of DNA then all decisionsa are arbitrary and capricious and we are reduced to a system of might makes right. If there is no absolute moral law to which all are obliged to adhere, then what is unethical consists entirely on what is currently socially acceptible or more broadly whatever anyone can get away with without being caught. A Represenative or Senator, or citizen in this nation for that matter, would not be acting unethically to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, backstab, or use whatever means inside or outside any law to do whatever they wanted, their problem would be simply that they got caught doing something that those in charge had arbitrarily decided might harm someone else (using only their definition of harm, as others may not think that same action harmful).

C.S. Lewis wrote an illustration once of a ship at sea. He said that there are three things the ship had to be concerned with: how to keep the ship from sinking, how to keep from bumping into other ships, and why it was out there in the first place. Our country was founded by understanding why we are out here in the first place, then determining how to keep from sinking and finally moved on to how to keep from bumping into other ships. They were right. We are moving dangerously close to the untenable position of declaring there is no reason for us to out here, that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we sink or sail, and then attempt to come up with some legimate reasons and procedures for avoiding other ships.

Musings on the Environment

2010-02-26T13:24:00.000-05:00

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.

The Posture of a Father - Part Two

2010-02-24T14:19:00.000-05:00

"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..."

The Posture of a Father - Part One

2010-02-21T21:15:00.000-05:00

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?

When Things Just Don't Add Up

2010-02-18T12:08:00.000-05:00

"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.

A Proud Father

2010-02-16T21:44:00.000-05:00

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.

Cultural Shift, Majority Rule or Might Makes Right?

2010-02-04T14:02:00.000-05:00

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.

Which Values are Those?

2010-02-03T12:13:00.001-05:00

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

Caretakers of the Temple

2010-01-23T10:03:00.000-05:00

So i've saved the best for last. I've gone the long way round, beginning with some philosophical ideas and some practical applications and outworkings, but for followers of Christ the discussion has to begin and end with Biblical truth. This post is primarily for believers as it will be solely based on Scripture, but I trust even unbelievers who stop by will at least see the richness that life has according to God's word.

In Acts 17:24-28, Luke records Pauls speech to the Atheneans, where he says, "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being."

So Paul indicates that it is in God that we have meaning (live and move and have our being). He also touches on where God resides (does not live in temples built by human hands).

In 2 Corinthians 6:15b-7:1, Paul instructs those in the church in Corinth of the need to remain pure before the Lord. "What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be there God, and they will be my people.' 'Therefore come out fro mthem and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord almighty.' Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God."

Again, we see the temple and that God does not live in a temple built by human hands, but rather lives in us that as those who have, by grace and through faith, believed in our hearts and confessed with our mouths that Jesus is Lord are the temple of the living God. What is this idea of the temple? We see that in 1 Kings chapters 5-9 (and similarly in 2 Chronicles 2-7). Therein we see a process of preparation of the OT temple, adornment of the temple and finally a dedication of the temple. Following is an excerpt from Solomon's dedication prayer for the temple:

"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!...May your eyes be open toward this temple night and day, this place of which you said, 'My Name shall be there', so that you will hear the prayer your servant prays toward this place..."

OK, so how do we get from the temple, the physical place, in the OT to us individually being a temple and residing place for the Name? The linkage, or linch-pin, or turning point is the cross. It appears in the first three gospels. Luke 23:44-46 says, "It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining, and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father into your hands I commit my spirit. When at last he said this, he breathed his last."

The tearing of the curtain represented a cessation of the separation between God and man. Until that point only the high priest could enter into the Holy of Holies and only then after a long series of purification (with a rope tied around his leg lest he had done something wrong and carried uncleanness in and needed to be dragged out). From that point on the temple was not a physical place, but a Comfortor within each of us.

The things to be recognized for the believer from this is that being the temple of God means more for us than just not smoking and eating right. We must continually work on purifying the temple, fully submitting all ourselves emotionally, volitionally, intellectually and physically to the Lord, dedicating ourselves to Him. This means that all we do and say should be an act of worship. Worship, in fact, is co-extensive with life. We worship God at home, at our vocation and when we relax at home. All our actions, all our words, even all our thoughts should be dedicated to God. So, worship is not just something that is done for 30 minutes on a Sunday morning when songs are sung. No, we as believers gather at a physical building but we bring the worship with us, it is only manifested for a short time in song.

In summary, biblical Christians have meaning as the very essence of their lives, where each and every thing that is done, said, thought or otherwise should be dedicated to the Lord because the Holy Spirit dwells within us and allows us to see through the things of this world to the creator and provider of all those things, and pledge our allegience and faithfulness not to a fabrication of our own or to something below us (something we fashion with our own hand or just arbitrarily choose to hold up) but to the One who is truly worthy. That would be our answer to what is the meaning in life.

Looking Through Life

2010-01-21T16:49:00.000-05:00

"I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place...Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly, the whole picture vanished...Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

When you have got into the habit of making this distinction you will find examples of it all day long. The mathematician sits thinking, and to him it seems that he is contemplating timeless and spaceless truths about quantity. But the cerebral physiologist, if he could look inside the mathematician's head, would find nothing timeless and spaceless there - only tiny movements in the grey matter.

In other words, you can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another. Therefore, if all inside experiences are misleading, we are always misled. The cerebral physiologist may say, if he chooses, that the mathematician's thought is 'only' tiny physical movements of grey matter. But then what about the cerebral physiologist's own thought at that very moment? A second physiologist, looking at it, could pronounce it also to be only tiny physical movements in the first physiologist's skull. Where is the rot to end? The answer is that we must never allow the rot to begin. We must, on pain of idiocy, deny from the very outset the idea that looking at is, by its own nature, instrinsically truer or better than looking along. One must look both along and at everything."

C.S. Lewis, Meditation in a Toolshed, God in the Dock

This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, and not through the eye

William Blake

For both C.S. Lewis and William Blake it is not enough to simply look at a thing and say you have seen it all. Pondering Lewis' experience in the toolshed for just a moment we see what a shame it would be to see only the things in the toolshed (boards, tables, tools, etc.), and miss out on the trees, birds, sun, etc.

Going back to our previous discussion of meaning and worship for the believer. A right understanding of worship is not an experience that happens for 30 minutes one day a week that we know took place because of a raised hand, the singing of a song, or other expression we can see or hear. We make a cardinal mistake if we look only at those things for meaning (just like looking at money or fame or popularity would be a mistake). Rather, we must look both at and along those things to what lies beyond them. For a believer essence precedes existence so who we are should determine what we do. We don't look at the lucrative singing career for meaning, we recognize the God who created us with the talent, opportunity and priviledge; submit those talents and abilities to Him for His purposes, adore Him for the gift, and live a life in singing that would honor the giver of the gift. In other words, the meaning is inherent in the life and co-extensive with the life, so that even if an accident were to ruin the vocal chords and render the career over, the worship would continue and the meaning would remain equally strong. Quite simply, if the meaning of our life is a fabrication of our own making, or a compilation or summation of temporal experiences, then life has no depth and when the object we choose to look at is gone and there is nothing beyond it, then life's meaning is lost as well.

Authentic Meaning

2010-01-21T07:57:00.000-05:00

Do I really matter? If I was gone tomorrow would it make any difference? Do the things I do every day really mean anything? These questions and many like them are asked every day by people in all walks of life, young and old. I asked myself some of these same questions when I was around 16 years old. Over the last twenty years I have come to know some pretty meaningful things about meaning in life.

Answers to meaning in life are given in many different areas today. Entertainment is so important in American culture right now, so many are "plugged in" spending so much time with TV, online, or talking on mobile phones or working on tweets that a fair place to look for what contemporary culture offers is important. A quick look through the Billboard music charts shows that ideas like fame, money, relationships, success and wild indulgences is where to find real meaning. In fact, most of American culture now has been secularized to the point that the common view of meaning was summed up by Jean-Paul Sartre many years ago. Sartre said that existance preceeds essence, or what you do defines who you are. Although some of the fundamental understandings of this belief were radically different for Sartre, most today feel that meaning in their life is up to them. Francis Schaeffer pointed out the difficulty in this line of thinking. He said in his work Escape from Reason, "First, Jean-Paul Sartre. Rationally the universe is absurd, and you must try to authenticate yourself. How? By authenticating yourself by an act of will. So if you are driving along the street and see someone in the pouring rain, you stop your car, pick him up and give him a lift. It is absurd. What does it matter? He is nothing, the situation is nothing, but you have authenticated yourself by an act of the will. But the difficulty is that authentication has no rational or logical content - all directions of an act of the will are equal. Therefore, similarly, if you are driving along and see the man in the rain, speed up your car, and knock him down, you have in an equal measure authenticated your will. Do you understand? If you do, cry for the modern man in such a hopeless situation."

As a believer the issue of meaning is approached in exactly the same way. We believe that essence preceeds existence. Or who we are defines what we do. We are created by our Creator in the image of God. We are knit together in our mother's womb, and God knows us before we are born. So we have value and importance that is intrinsic. We don't have to do some grand work, or make a lot of money, or be a success at work for our lives to have meaning. We are valuable from birth not because of what we have done, but because of what God has done in us.

A true understanding of worship is a key to the meaning in life for a believer. Worship was defined by William Temple as, "the submission of all of our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness, nourishment of mind by His truth, purifying of imagination by His beauty, opening of the heart to His love, and submission of will to His purpose. And all this gathered up in adoration is the greatest human expression of which we are capable." Notice that the focus here is not on what we do, but on God. Worship is submitting ourselves totally to God. Recognition of His holiness, His truth, His beauty, His love and His purpose.

You see, if we define ourselves by how we look or our job or money or even acts of our own will for meaning, or value, or authentification then what of the times when those things are gone? If our meaning in life is all centered around our looks and popularity, what happens if there is an accident and our face is marred, or age takes its inevitable toll and our looks are gone? Do we then cease to have meaning? Pride drives us to think more of ourselves than we ought, but a true understanding of worship allows us to submit ourselves to God and adore Him and that brings meaning to everything in life.

Worship is not just something that takes place for a believer for 30 minutes on a Sunday morning. No, it is an involvement in everything we do in life. A submission of all of our will to God. We turn over all our lives to God and every second of every day becomes an act of worship, it is co-extensive with life and brings a richness and respect to life that is absent otherwise. In the next two posts I hope to bring out some illustrations of why the idea of worship is so important to how we see the world and how our behavior is effected, and some of the biblical linkages to the concept.

Discussion on Evolution

2010-01-06T22:02:00.001-05:00

This post is for the continuation of a thead from another site where the Theory of Evolution vs. a Creationist approach is being discussed as to the best explanation for the observable evidences of changes is being discussed. To date, what has been stipulated is that evidence is defined as any data that are verifiable like fossils, DNA and others; that in science a Theory is the top rung and that the Theory of Evolution will never be a "proof" of the observable fact of biological change. The argument is whether the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is in fact the best explanation, which is admittedly the most prevalently believed in scientific circles in contemporary culture.

The evidence has just begun to be examined and, as many times beginnings do, started at the beginning, namely the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record. Please follow the comment thread for a continued discussion, where the first comment is the last comment and follow-up question from the previous line of discussion.

Re-Defining Marriage?

2010-01-05T22:44:00.000-05:00

What is marriage anyway? It seems this question above any other ought to be explored these days. In the last week i've seen no less than three articles in the local paper and have heard even more relative to the upcoming Health Care Bill discussions speaking to the status of marriage in the United States, more states expanding marriage to gay and lesbian couples (Washington D.C. being the latest) and other related topics. Following are my thoughts on the subject for what they are worth:

First off, my starting point is similar to the one I presented in the last post on abortion, namely if marriage is just the joining of two entities who desire to enter into the state recognized union then by all means let there be no bounds on which two entities go through the process and call themselves married. I don't intend to be crass or jocular at all in saying this, but if we continue down the road we are on I really don't think it will be that long until there is an outcry because a person cannot be married to their pet. And why not? If marriage is just the union of two entities who are dedicated to one another and who desire to live in the same home in a caring relationship then why should that not cover the situation I just described? There are many who care deeply for their pets and in some situations the pet is very much loved and real caring relationship exists.

Re-defining marriage is only a problem if marriage was originally ordained by God as the Bible describes. In other words, if man decides what constitutes marriage then it will always be in a state of flux. As moods and conditions change, marriage as defined by the culture's ever changing attitudes must change as well. However, if the Bible is true and the Biblical definition of marriage is true, then regardless of how culture changes marriage cannot change. Why is that? Why do Christians get so upset when gays and lesbians protest so vehemently to be included in marriage?

The answer is really quite simple. God established marriage between a man and a woman as a picture, elsewhere described in the Bible as between Jesus and the Church, and also as a reflection of the very nature of God in the Trinity. How so? God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have existed in the Trinity from eternity in a perfect relationship of community. When God decided to create man, He said it was not good that man be alone and gave him a helpmeet, a partner of his own body to exist with in a relationship, namely woman (taken from man). The man and the woman come together in an intimate way and the Holy Spirit then participates to knit the new life together in the mother's womb. There is no other union where this particular arrangement, which was so beautifully orchestrated, can take place. This is why there is no place in Scripture where homosexual relations are anything but condemned. It is not that feelings are not present, or the desire to be intimate is not present, it is that any relationship other than that established by God does not reflect the glory of the relationship in the Trinity. It does not bring glory to God, and therefore is a perversion of the natural, and should be condemned in any time and in any situation.

As to the sexual preferences of individuals the same sort of closer look is needed. Desires and feelings for things other than those prescribed by God are real. They are just as real as the desire to lie, to cheat, to steal, to dishonor parents. As believers, we must acknowledge that the standard is the same for all sin, it is all deplorable for the same reason: we were created to bring glory to God, when we break His law whether in word, in thought, or in deed we fail to do as we were intended and are in need of forgiveness. Faithfulness here I believe is the key. We must either be faithful to God in being single, or be faithful to God in being married as God established. In this point the Christian has done much damage over the years by not holding up the lifelong commitment and cheapened the covenant of marriage itself. Just think, is it possible for the Trinity to be seperated? That is exactly what divorce implies, that God can be seperated and eternal covenants can be broken. The limitations of humankind, the fall of man and the subsequent provisions for divorce are not being discussed here, but the point remains that as Christians we must hold up our end of the bargain and not say on the one hand that marriage is a covenant relationship established by God and then run to divorce. In "The Loving Opposition", Stanton L. Jones puts it this way, "Outside of the marriage of a man and woman, the proper use of sex is to honor God by costly obedience in living a chaste life...And so, the Christian vision for sexuality and marriage is our foundational reason for rejecting homosexual action as a legitimate moral option."

For the Christian, essence preceeds existance. By that I mean that who we are should define what we do. God created us to bring Him glory through being obedient to His Word, living our lives for Him in whatever circumstance or situation we are in, in short to use the free will with which we were created to actively pursue righteousness. This is why marriage is such an important issue for believers, why homosexuality is similar to all other sin, it is attempting to revise or redefine our very essence, who we are, what we were created to be.

This is a tough issue and I hope this post has been presented in a way that lovingly but sternly addresses the issue from a Biblical point of view. Quite simply, if the Bible is true then marriage is only defined and only legitimate if the arrangement is in accordance with the Word. If marriage is defined by majority decision, or cultural climate, or poll data, or popular opinion then it can be anything and everything. For my part, I believe even the idea that marriage can be re-defined is to believe a lie. Marriage was established by God and will always be just as He originally gave it. What contemporary culture chooses to call marriage, is not marriage re-defined, it is not marriage at all.

New Year, Same Concern

2010-01-01T15:02:00.000-05:00

I purposefully wanted to begin the New Year with a post on a topic that is both controversial but also current and important, namely abortion. Many strong stands are being taken with regard to the comprehensive Health Care bills and the debate over possibilities and variations on inclusion, funding and scope of abortion in the United States under the new Health Care bill. For my part, I have not read the House or Senate Bills in their entirety, although not for a lack of trying. In both cases I attempted to download the document from the government website and read for myself, but the file was so large that it took over 60 seconds for my screen to refresh every time I scrolled down on a page or clicked to a new page. I simply didn't have the time. I say that to say that I cannot speak to the specific language in the Bills, so I won't, i'll just tackle the issue of should abotion be funded by taxpayers.

My answer is simply put in a previous post on this site entered on October 5, 2009 entitled "Justifiable Homocide?" The excerpt is as follows:

"What is the unborn? If that thing growing in the mother's womb is not an individual human being, then kill it and remove it, whether it is for a good reason or not, no justification is needed. If, however, the human fetus is an individual human person differing from a 2-year old child only in size, shape, environment and degree of development then there is absolutely no reason that anyone could give (outside of an immediate fatal condition to the mother such as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy) that would warrant killing that innocent person."

Taxpayer money should not be used to fund abortions because abortion is the killing of an innocent and defenseless human person. For me, the money involved the number of people in favor of or against the bill, results of poll data, other points in the bill that are important, or the necessity to get something done because the medical system is flawed have nothing to do with whether killing the unborn is right or wrong. We don't even ask that question much any more. Is it right to do? It seems more and more the only questions asked are, "Can it be done?" or "Do a majority of Americans agree with doing it?" If we go down that road and make decisions based on pure pragmatism, utilitarianism or majority rule then history has already taught us where it all ends.

With respect to governmental role in the matter, I think it far oversteps any bounds ever laid out for the Legislative, Judicial or Executive branches. I don't even see a need to debate the question of whether the government should be allowed to force anyone in the United States by rule of law to participate in an activity they find morally wrong. I suppose if it is passed those who have for so long called themselves pro-choice will have to change their position to pro-mandate. In any case, I am more concerned about what happens when you take this to its logical conclusion. If we judge what is acceptible by what is passed into law, i.e. it's right because the government says so, then where does that leave all other moral issues. I was amazed to hear in President Obama's speech (in which he condemned the violence against protesters in Iran) say that the protesters were only trying to exercise their universal right to protest for freedom. "Universal right". This used to be an inalienable right, something given by God to all those He created in His image and likeness. Do we now believe the universe gives us the right of freedom? What will we say next, that it is a global right? How about a secular governmental right?

Whether funding for abortion is actually included in the final Health Care bill that is voted on and if passed sent on to the President for his signature is yet to be seen. I belive that abortion is wrong. The unborn are innocent human persons whose lives should be protected just as the lives of toddlers, young men and women, adult men and women and the elderly should be protected.

It is a New Year but this issue and my concern over it remains the same. I continue to pray that the truth will be clearly seen and that more and more we will work to stop the damage we are doing in destroying so many human lives.

Knowing When to Stop

2009-12-31T10:00:00.001-05:00

While reading the local paper today I ran across an AP article entitled "Government gives GMAC $3.8 billion in new aid". See link to the story below:

GMAC Federal Aid

The additional aid is not surprising, what struck me was some of the language in the article. "The new agreement will boost the federal government's ownership in GMAC to 56 percent, from 35 percent." Really? A majority ownership is a financial institution. The article went on to say, "Treasury officials said the government intends to stick to its policy of leaving day-to-day business decisions about financing to GMAC management." And who are these management persons? "...the government will have the right to appoint two additional directors to the company's board, Treasury officials said."

My wonderment is in where it will end. Failure to raise enough capital to survive is what compelled the government to put more money that was collected through taxation into what is supposed to be an independently run financial lending institution. What happens when they are unable to raise enough capital in through the first half of next year when times continue to be tough? When will enough money have been put in?

The bigger question is what is the role of the federal government? In reading many of the founding documents of this country, it seems clear the thinking was that the role of the federal government was limited to providing protection for the general public so they could exercise their inalienable rights to life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness). In all i've read, the debates of the founders was how to arrange things so that government in general would not be able to press, or molest those inalienable rights in any way. Check out the following site, which is a great resource for historical documentation:

Wall Builders Historical Documents

Government is necessary because we are all sinners and do not live according to God's laws. However, the same reasoning causes concern because government is made up of people who are also sinners that do not live according to God's laws. This is why the system of checks and balances was set up as it was, going back to the writings of Montesque, Blackstone, Coke and Locke who developed their thinking based on the teachings of John Calvin.

We should continue to pray for those in authority over us. I don't watch much television any more but i'm sure the tag after every beer commercial still encourages people to know their limits. I for one hope that our national leaders will see that they have already gone beyond the place where they should stop.

Christmas Truth - Day 4

2009-12-21T21:18:00.003-05:00

"I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery. Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him." Psalm 2:7-12

Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem was Lord and Christ. Messiah, Savior and God become man. This prophecy was fulfilled at the birth of the child, and referenced in New Testament scripture many times:

Hebrews 1:2-3,6 says, "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word...And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'"

Romans 1:2-4 says, "the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendent of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with his power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord."

All I wish to add to that reading of the Word is that Jesus claimed to be God, nothing less. At Christmas time as we sing the songs of the Christ child and celebrate the birth of the Savior, what strikes me is how completely unfathomable is the means by which God chose to provide for our salvation. We are never told in scripture so it would be only a guess, but I can't imagine that at some point Luke, after having questioned so many people about the birth of Jesus, would have run across someone who would have said something like, "I always thought the Messiah would have just appeared on the scene, straight from heaven in a flash seen by a multitude strong and powerful, marching into Jeruselum to claim His rightful place as King and ruler over the whole world. Never would I have guessed that He would have come into the world as a baby. Perhaps a baby like none other in the history of the world, but a baby nonetheless. I just never would have guessed."

That's the way I feel. I am expecting a new baby this Christmas. It is amazing enough that God would send His Son to be fully human, but to send Him as a baby, having gone through a full 9 months in the womb of Mary, fully Man in the truest sense of the word. A descendent of David in His human nature, but full of power and majesty as the very Son of God. In light of this Christmas truth two more scripture passages come to mind:

1 Corinthians 1:26-30 "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of nobel birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." In this time when children are not even considered fully human that I put my faith in God, who used the very basic humanity of a developing child in the womb of a virgin to give His Son as a gift for the salvation all who would belive on Him. I boast in that truth this Christmas, that that which no one would plan and see as foolishness (a King coming as a child), in the weakness of a baby and lowly in stature (born in a manger, son of a carpenter) is the very righteousness, holiness, and redemption for my soul.

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Christmas Truth - Day 3

2009-12-18T21:23:00.004-05:00

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old, from days of eternity." Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they will live securly, for then his greatness will reach the end of the earth. And he will be their peace." Micah 5:2-4

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governer of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David." Luke 2:1-5

We have seen where history is important in the prophetic scheme. Isn't it fascinating that some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, a prophet in Judah told of the new ruler of Israel being born in Bethlehem Ephrathah and that a census (the first one inacted by the governer in authority) prompted Joseph to take Mary from Nazareth to Behlehem in Judea, the precise location prescribed. So it turns out not only history is important but geography as well.

It is also important to note that the prophecy says the ruler was tapped from eternity. Again the doctrine of the Trinity is on display. The Son has eternally existed, and will come to the town of Bethlehem (and not just any Bethlehem, but the particular town in Ephrathah). The significance of this cannot be overstated as we see elsewhere in scripture (Isaiah 9:6) that the son was given, it was the child that was born. The Son of God eternally exists, the earthly manifestation was for a specific and pre-determined time. More on this another time.

Finally, even the town is of significance as the name Bethlehem means "house of bread". So the one who is called the Bread of Life in John's gospel comes from the house of bread. "I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread taht came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:48-51 Once again we see the promise in the Old Testament (namely God sustaining His people physically) fulfilled in the person of Jesus who is THE eternal sustanence for those who would seek to turn from death and accept God's offer for life.

This bread that will sustain for eternity was offered to all not just for a day or a season, but for all time as Jesus (the Bread of Life) willfully chose to "...give for the life of the world." I hope if you have read this far that you either have already partaken of this Bread, or you would consider believing on Jesus the Christ, the Messiah as the source for eternal life and in so doing receive the portion offered to each one of us by our Heavenly Father.

Christmas Truth - Day 2

2009-12-16T21:39:00.004-05:00

"A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord- and he will delight in the fear of the Lord. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist." Isaiah 11:1-5

Such is the word from Isaiah the prophet sometime close to 700 B.C. Some 750 years later, Matthew records the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth in the opening of his gospel and we read:

"A record of the geneology of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham...Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David...Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ." Matthew 1:1-17

History is important in the prophetic scheme and as we see from this example the fulfillment of the prophecy that the lineage of the Messiah would be preserved. This is even more significant when we consider the tumultuous events that took place in the time period between Jesse and Jesus. We look at God's judgement of disobedience on the part of His people, the Babylonian captivity and exile from the promised land and see an example of God's faithfulness toward His covenants.

The passage in Isaiah also speaks to the responses of the Messiah when questioned by the people. It says He will not judge by what He sees with His eyes nor by what He hears with His ears. We see this very thing time and again in the gospels when Luke, for example, records things like "When Jesus saw their faith...", "Jesus knew what they were thinking...", "But Jesus knew what they were thinking...", "He saw through their duplicity...They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent."

And so we remain today; silent and astonished before a man who did not judge by what He saw with His eyes, nor with what He heard with His ears, but who knew the very heart of man and spoke the truth with righteousness, precisely because this was no mere man, not just another great teacher, but because this was the Messiah son of David, son of Abraham, a shoot from the stump of Jesse.

Christmas Truth - Day 1

2009-12-15T21:22:00.004-05:00

Well it happened again this year, thankfully. It has happened every year right around this time of year since I can remember and i've been happy to see it come each time. I am speaking of A Charlie Brown Christmas, of course. I watched a really nice cartoon with my wife and children, which is always time well spent. Something new occurred to me this year, however, that spurred my thinking and inspired me to a series of posts which will be forthcoming in the days leading up to Christmas day. The central theme of the cartoon was the real meaning of Christmas, something that is missed by the vast majority of Americans each and every year. Critical to answering the question about the real meaning of Christmas is truth.

Truth is correspondence. By that I mean that we know that something is true because it corresponds to reality. If I were to say that I am 6'-4" tall with dark hair, you would know that to be true by investigating those measurable attributes and comparing them to my statement. If my statements correspond to the real measurements, then my statement is truthful. This is critical to those of us who are followers of Christ because we don't follow His teaching because they make us feel good, or because we like most of what He says, or because our family always has; we follow Christ because we believe His teaching to be true. Due to that belief, we find the joy of the Lord that gives us comfort no matter the circumstance, we find the knowledge that the Lord will do what is right and can appreciate even the hard parts of His teaching, and we can appreciate the blessings that our progenitors have passed on to us.

So what is true this Christmas? Jesus says in John 14:6-7 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Jesus is the truth. God has given us the privilege of providing the truth in the form of the Word that we can measure against reality. John 1:1-2 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

These two scriptures point to the first truth i'd like to bring out, and that is the doctrine of the Trinity. The more I study and think about the Trinity the more beautiful a concept it becomes in my heart. Jesus claims to be God, not a mere man, not just a great teacher, but God. We see from scripture the concept of the triune nature of God (namely God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). The first four words in the Bible say "In the beginning God...". The reality is that this universe is finite, and no matter the circumstances surrounding it's propagation the beginning was a caused event. The explanation that best fits reality is that the caused event of creation is due to God, the uncaused agent. Also, creation (which includes mankind) is the choice of the Creator. Because God exists eternally in three persons, He didn't need to create us for company. We need not think too highly of ourselves. There was unity in diversity from eternity in the community of the Trinity. We are created in God's image so it comes as no surprise that each one of us desires to be a part of a community. Companionship, support groups, families, gatherings of all kinds reflect the reality of the Trinity in each of our image-bearing attributes. Loneliness is always considered a bad thing, because it opposes the truth of the community.

When Jesus was ready to begin His earthly ministry we read in Luke 4:14-21 that He went to the synagogue and opened the scroll of Isaiah and He read, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has annointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, 'Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing'." Jesus said that He was the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah.

In the life of Christ (that is, His birth, life, death and resurrection) represents a fulfillment of several hundred Old Testaments prophecies. I thought it would be a good idea to bring just a few of these to bear at this time to remind us that Christianity is not just a fanciful notion, but the TRUTH. Lord willing, tomorrow I will post on the fulfilled prophecy of the family line of Jesse.

What Does Being a Christian Really Mean?

2009-12-10T21:16:00.003-05:00

An article in the local paper caught my attention today. It was a story picked up from the associated press and was entitled "Survey:Americans Mix and Match Religions". Four thousand people were surveyed who claimed to be Christians but also expressed a belief in New Age and Eastern mysticism, Casting spells, Astrology and Reincarnation. I think this article is critical in understanding the times in which we live, and in being able to answer the question "What does this mean?"

In our contempoary post-modern culture in the United States of America, language is less and less important. More specifically, the importance of words having real substantive meaning is becoming non-existent. With the advent of text-messaging and twitter a premium has been placed on shortcuts and expediency. Combine that with a mindset that the meaning of words change based on the situation, that the original intent and context have no bearing on word usage, and we are faced with a tenuous situation. We see this fleshed out in common terminology like 'abortion', 'politically correct' and 'progressive'. In this country we attempt to change reality by substituting abortion for murder or infanticide, which would be more appropriate and accurate. We say people are progressive when progress means moving to what is better and we only mean they promote change. We say people should be politically correct when any action is either correct or incorrect whether in politics or any other arena.

This is absolutely crucial when looking at the survey. When anyone today claims to be a Christian (or asks us if we are a Christian), the first question we must ask is "What do you mean by Christian". We must remember that instead of everyone considering the original context and meaning of the word Christian, in this culture what is probably assumed is "Do you consider yourself a Christian as you choose to define what a Christian is at this particular moment and in this situation." In that sense a Christian could be anything that pops into a persons head.

Acts 11:26b says "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." The term Christian originally meant a disciple of Jesus Christ the Messiah, a follower of Christ, one who belonged to Christ, one who followed the teaching of Jesus of Nazereth, one who followed those teachings so closely he became a 'little Christ'. The disciples of Christ (Christians) had another unique quality that becomes clear in this context (See Acts 11:19) "Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to the Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus." We learn elsewhere is the book of Acts that Stephen was stoned to death. In fact, in Hebrews 11 we are told of other things those earlier in the faith dealt with: jeers and flogging, imprisoned in chains, stoned, sawed in two, put to death by the sword, left destitute, persecuted and mistreated. So, if we are to be correct in things and combat this post-modern tendency to make of a word whatever we wish, the next time we are asked if we are a Christian perhaps we can remember the only legitamite meaning of the word and say that we are disciples of Jesus Christ, ready to face persecution and death for the sake of His Name.

If this is in fact the case, then we cannot associate with any other faith, religion, belief, etc. because Jesus Himself said in John 14:6-7 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Truth by definition is exclusive, so when Jesus says He is THE way and that NO ONE comes to God except through Him, then any other way is false. Therefore a follower of Jesus cannot hold any other view in addition to the one offered by Jesus.

Notice I have not spoken of denominations or the state of salvation of any of the survey participants. This is intentional. No one knows another's heart and the issue of salvation and devotion to the Lord is not denominational. What I am saying is that more and more as we move farther into post-modernity true believers in Jesus must be increasingly careful to notice how words are used and demand that the terms be defined in any discussion. Christian means only one thing in truth, namely a disciple of Jesus Christ. One may make the word situational and change the meaning in any way he wishes, but he will not be a Christian in the true sense of the word.

Who is our Benefactor?

2009-11-29T21:47:00.000-05:00

“Thanksgiving Day is a harvest festival. Traditionally, it is a time to give thanks for the harvest and express gratitude in general. It is a holiday celebrated primarily in Canada and the United States. While perhaps religious in origin, Thanksgiving is now primarily identified as a secular holiday.” So says Wikipedia, the cultural standard bearer of definitive information in contemporary culture. Secularization of American culture is most definitely a significant force in our land, but in thinking about our upcoming Holiday I gave a few minutes thought to the outworkings of secular ideology as it relates to thanksgiving in general.

According to the given definition, tradition has held that on Thanksgiving we express general feelings of gratitude. Many times this tradition is manifest in the form of persons in a gathering taking their turn expressing gratitude for that one particular thing for which they are most thankful in the past year. “My new set of golf clubs” says one, “Keeping my job in difficult times” says another, “Just getting together with family” still another. Around and around we go, expressing our gratitude. But gratitude to whom? Gratitude is not a general statement to no one in particular; rather it is an expression of thanks to a person.

These expressions of gratitude are very basic, but what about the most important things in life; namely our life and health. If we can be grateful for golf clubs or a continued place of employment or the opportunity for a family gathering, then how important is giving thanks for the breath we draw each day, waking up every morning, or the good health most of us enjoy to go about our daily activities. To whom do we give thanks for those things that we often express are most important?

This issue is especially poignant for me this year as my wife and I are expecting our fourth child. Ultrasound technicians have told us that it appears we will be having a healthy little girl (our first as we currently have three boys at home). The secularist would tell me to be generally grateful for that little girl, but it would seem they do not tell me to whom to be thankful. Based on the worldview behind secularism, however, they do give an answer. Secularism would tell me that my little girl is a new happy accident and my thanks should go to the beneficent hand of the evolutionary process of time and random chance. The point I wish to make, and the problem that secularism would have us ignore, is that without God, gratitude as a real response for things we would hold up as most important in this world is lost.

Perhaps instead of settling for a secular idea of an expression of “gratitude in general”, we should consider giving a more specific thanks as King David implored upon beginning a monumental building project, “But who am I, and who are my people, that we shoud be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. We are aliens and strangers in your sight, as were all our forefathers. Our days on earth are like a shadow, without hope. O Lord our God, as for al this abundance that we have provided for building you a temple for your Holy Name, it comes from your hand, and all of it belongs to you. I know, my God, that you test the heart and are please with integrity. All these things have I given willingly and with honest intent. And now I have seen with joy how willingly your people who are here have given to you. O Lord, God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Isreal, keep this desire in the hearts of your people forever, and keep their hearts loyal to you.”

During this season of Thanksgiving, let us all give some consideration not just to the act of being generally grateful, but to whom we are giving our thanks. It has been said that if we can tell our children to thank santa claus for putting goodies in their stockings, is there no one we can thank for putting two feet into ours? I cannot speak for another, but as for me and my house, from the most important things to the least, we give our heartfelt thanks not to a great perhaps of indifference, but to an infinite personal Creator God from whose hand all blessings flow.

Critique Two - Part Seven - Heart and Soul

2009-11-10T21:33:00.003-05:00

As the final principles of "loose consensus" presented by Mr. Kurtz (reason, science and education) are those which i've commented at length in recent posts, i'm going to address one final point and then a brief summary of this reading in secular humanism.

Mr. Kurtz states in a section entitled "Religious Skepticism" that "We have found no convincing evidence taht there is a seperable 'soul' or that it exists before birth or survives death." This statement is intriguing to me coming from the secular humanist camp because it so blatantly and opening argues in a circle. Mr. Kurtz has gone to great lengths to describe how the secular humanist feels that everything is knowable by human intellect and reason. Tell me, can the soul of man ever be detected by human intellect or reason? The answer of course is no. The humanist has here begun by assuming nothing supernatural exists and everything that can be known is discovered through the cognative abilities and physical investigations of man. So, in essence he says that only measureable things exist, we cannot measure the soul, and therefore the soul doesn't exist.

This is quite telling, because I believe this is the point with the vociferous atheist and secular humanist, namely that in the realm of the religious there is no amount of evidence that would be accepted. As a believer in Jesus and one who is comitted to the Biblical-Christian worldview, I cannot prove that God exists. I can provide evidence (Cosmological argument, Teleological argument, Existence of Morals, Ontological argument and arguments from specified complexity and irreducible complexity) that when gathered together to answer in a cogent and comprehensive manner the most important questions in life, namely origin, meaning, morality and destiny, end up being the most compelling and lucid. I also can bring the real and personal experience of the change in my life that has come from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in a daily walk.

It is important to remember that every worldview must answer those most important questions in life. If someone were to ask: Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I behave and interact with others while i'm here? What will happen to me when I die? The secular humanist would have to respond, in simple form: You originated from a random collocation of atoms, a happy accident, a pure product of time and random chance. Based on the answer to question number one, there is no good reason why you are here as opposed to not being at all. You can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt. Nothing happens when you die, we have asked dead people what happens and they didn't say anything.

These are not trite, false or overexaggerated answers. If pressed on these points the secular humanist would have to answer this way or betray the worldview he/she espouses. What is lost therefore is meaning, hope, love, justice, freedom and gratitude; a high price to pay to satisfy the desire to reason among themselves to cast off all restraint and do what seems right in their own eyes.

In contrast, when asked the same set of questions, the Biblical-Christian turns to the Word of God (for perspective in this life) and answers as follows: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in this body, this will mean fruitful labor for me." "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...Love your neighbor as yourself." "After that, we who are still alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words." If we submit ourselves to Jesus we are offered love, joy, peace, contentment, hope, justice, freedom and meaningful and consistent answers to the most important questions in life.

Ultimately it comes down to a simple choice: we tell God "Thy will be done", or we tell ourselves "My will be done."

Critique Two - Part Six - Building without Foundations

2009-11-07T09:58:00.004-05:00

Education is a topic of great importance to me as I have been blessed with four children, one which I look forward to meeting for the first time in early February, all of which my wife and I have chosen to homeschool. Mr. Kurtz makes a few remarks in his sixth principle of “loose consensus” among secular humanists whose logic is blatantly circular and specifically ignores an issue of great difficulty. In this single paragraph synopsis of his beliefs regarding moral education, Mr. Kurtz states the following:

“It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles,” and elsewhere, “We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character…We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent.”

There are many issues that are of great concern to me in this area, but I will deal with only two herein. Firstly, on the statement that secular humanism is merely a method of explanation and discovery of rational moral principles. There seems to be one glaringly obvious omission in this statement; namely, does the secular humanist never ask from whence those moral principles came? Secondarily, with reference to the previous discussion on ethics, on what basis would a secular humanist decide what makes a moral judgment rational? The fatal problem in the secular humanists’ position here is that he or she has to first assume that moral choices exist and that they can be rationally determined without ever asking from whence they came. Is the origin of morals irrelevant to the pronouncement and instruction of them? The humanist is trying to build a house without a foundation. It occurs to me the position is the same with young people today and the use of calculators. Why don’t we only teach children the use of calculators in math classes? After all the children would receive perfect marks in their primary math courses of study. They would know to match up the numbers and symbols on paper with those on the calculator and the teachers in class could simply instruct the students on the sequencing of the keystrokes, or “explain and discover the rational calculative principles in math”. I would submit it is because we know that when they enter reality and are working part time behind the register at a local fast food chain and the computer goes down they would be crippled intellectually.

If the origin of ethics is ignored or purposefully excluded in the instruction of children of all ages, in time what we will have is not a society of free-thinking rational moral agents, but rather a generation of adults who are ethically crippled. You can attempt to show people intellectually the how’s of making moral choices, but without origins you cannot tell them the why’s of making moral choices. Relative to morality this is precisely what the Biblical-Christian offers, the why’s of moral choices. Jesus taught exclusively on the why’s of ethics and morals. Jesus did not spend his approximately three years of active ministry holding seminars on the specifics of moral behavior; instead He walked and talked with people, showed them why their actions were sinful, forgave them and left them with the simple instruction: “Go and sin no more.”

The secular humanists' duplicitous position of attempting to smuggle in an ethic and then proposing to have discovered a moral principle using pure intellect carries over into the issue of education. Mr. Kurtz makes the assertion, quite rightly, that no group can claim as their property important values. However, he then makes the unsupportable claim that therefore public education is the only valid arena in which to deal with the issues of morality. Mr. Kurtz has stated that it is not moral to impose any kind of moral creed on young people before they are of consenting age, but this completely negates his statement on public schools, and is contrary to reality. Wouldn’t public schools be a body of adults (Boards of Education, Principles and classroom instructors) teaching children the ‘right way’ to deal with moral issues? Besides we have already established that the instructors could not even address where those morals came from in the first place. What Mr. Kurtz is promoting is not that children be free from indoctrination, but that they be indoctrinated with secular humanist beliefs as opposed to religious ones, with the hollow justification that religions 'force' morals on people and secular humanism is no religion.

Religion is defined by the unabridged random house dictionary as the following: “concern over what exists beyond the visible world, differentiated from philosophy in that it operates through faith or intuition rather than reason; a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects; a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.” Although Mr. Kurtz tries very hard to classify secular humanism as something other than a religion with his usage of wording such as “loose consensus”, “method” and “develop an appreciation;" make no mistake, secular humanism is a religion based on ideas established on faith, seeking to make disciples through evangelistic efforts and proselytization. More on this next time.

Critique Two - Part Five - Perspective on Ethics

2009-11-04T22:06:00.002-05:00

"Ethics Based on Critical Intelligence" is the next in the line of principles that form the secular humanist "loose consensus". Religion is waved aside in the ethical discussion with the statement "Thus secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral." Ethical discussion are, in my opinion, the weakest of all the humanist positions. It is one of a few areas where they attempt to make a short leap over an uncrossable divide. Because the point is so obviously weak with a little thought, I won't spend much time on this point, and only give a few illustrations for clarity.

This issue is one of perspective and brings to mind the arctic. I have read that in the history of arctic exploration whole parties would be lost. They would be walking along a sea of white and happen upon a crevasse and summarily fall in to the huge split in the ice. The party never saw the crevasse because they were looking on a 2-dimensional plane. With the perspective of the third dimension they could have seen the crevasse and avoided the pitfall. Ethics for the humanist is like this crevasse. The humanist approaches the idea of ethics from a 2-dimensional grid of the cognative and the emotive and try to make the short step to morality. However, real life shows that no amount of reason or emotion can lead to an ethical decision, rather an ethic has to already be in place to make an ethical decision.

C.S. Lewis describes it this way: he says that the humanist is like a person in a hallway devoid of any previous ethical bias and has a series of doors of ethical decision from which to choose. But which door will he choose? He has no ethic to call on to decide which door in correct. One cannot make the ethical decision without first having an ethical intimation of which door is right before choosing. The humanist is left with only selecting one door and waiting to see if he or she happened upon the correct door by chance, and must then live with the consequence of leaving such an important decision to chance.

For the secular humanist the apparent short step from the cognative and emotive to the moral, without the perspective of a transcendent ethic, ends up being a fall into the morass of "grey areas", exceptions, and a wait-and-see consequentialist approach.

For the follower of Jesus with the biblical-christian worldview this problem does not exist.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." John 1:1-2
Providing the perspective on the cognative and emotive grid is the Word of God. Notice carefully that it does not say 'In the beginning was the feeling..." or "In the beginning was the reason...". No, rather "In the beginning was the Word..." The Word of God is the transcendent ethic that provides perspective that guides humankind to moral choices on the intellectual and emotional grid. Those in Nazi Germany who abandoned the perspective of the transcendent ethic reasoned and felt like they should help evolution along in creating a better race of man. They had the majority and were the most cultured and educated in Germany at the time. Even if reason and emotion led the whole world to follow that line of thinking, it was ethically wrong and immoral to attempt to exterminate an entire race of people because the Word of God stands above us all, sees the great cravasse of death, destruction, bloodlust and greed for power and says "Thou shalt not kill" because "...God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."