Clearing Away The Brush

          As follow-up to the last post I thought I would continue on the topic of abortion and politics.         

          I remember fondly the times of my youth when my father, sister, brother and I would trek into the woods to spend a Saturday morning gathering wood to replenish our fuel source for upcoming winters.  My job was much the same each year: wait for my father to complete trimming with the chainsaw and then proceed to clear away the brush.  Although our focus was to be on the main trunk of the tree, we could not see how to attack the problem until the brush was removed.  Cutting, splitting, loading, hauling and stacking efforts could not proceed until the impediment was cleared away.  I was reminded of this process recently as scrutiny of comments made by a national politician regarding abortion in cases of rape has intensified.  Were the politicians’ comments just misunderstood or misconstrued because of a verbal misstep or were they completely disgusting and inappropriate?  Should the candidate resign because of the insensitivity of his words and for the good of the party or continue in the race?  Are there, or are there not, natural processes in women’s bodies that react differently in the reproductive process in cases of extreme trauma?  Have the presidential incumbent and challenger correctly handled responses to the comments made and successfully distanced themselves from the political fallout?  In my opinion, these questions and many others surrounding the issue are, at best, secondary.  Similar to the Saturday mornings of my youth, the rightful focus of attention with the issue at hand – abortion - is being obstructed.  The brush needs to be cleared away.

            In every case of abortion something is being killed.  The central question when abortion is discussed is: What is being killed?  If what is being killed is a tumor or parasite, then by all means terminate with impunity regardless of the situation.  If what is being killed is a human being, however, much more thought needs to be given.  Even in the most horrible and unthinkable atrocities of violation, like rape and incest, do the acts and manifestations of the violator substantiate killing another innocent, albeit unborn, human being?  After all, we do not sentence the violator to a penalty of death for committing the crime.  One could argue that a child born from such a horrible circumstance would be a constant reminder of the traumatic event, but again would the horribleness of the event warrant the killing of an innocent human being?  Moreover since the only differences between a child in the womb and a 2-year old is size, location, environment and level of development, would we consider killing a 2-year old that was a constant reminder of a past traumatic event?  What is at issue is the value of human life.

            In the United States of America our very Declaration of Independence makes clear the position of the nation:   “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.”  Because all men are created and endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life and liberty then the Creator, the One responsible for the imputation of the unalienable right, establishes the inception of life.  “So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:27 HCSB).  In short, because we are created as image-bearers, human life is valuable, precious, sacred and must be preserved to the greatest extent possible.

            Answering issues of tragedy, suffering and loss are incomparably weighty and deserve a response beyond the 40-character-or-less variety.  “For God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6 HCSB).  If the brush is cleared and we can view unobstructed Christ and the Cross, then we will see the light of the truth and be able to give meaningful answers for such weighty matters in human experience.

A Question for the Candidates

           This year the citizens of the United States will cast their ballots for the office of President.  As I sit and write in this election year the prospective candidates of the challenging party have been through their first primary vote and have gone through a number of debates.  Following the final choice of contender and running mate, another series of debates and advertisements of both challenger and incumbent will take place en route to the November elections.  Amid all the advertisements and debates, I would contend that the single most important question to be asked of every candidate is never directly raised.

            Is human life sacred?  I have noticed that this question is never directly asked.  Perhaps that is because the answer is seen to be rhetorical: yes.  Which candidate if faced with the question would stumble around with a diatribe of double-talk or an outright response in the negative?  We testify to the truth of a positive response with our very behavior.  Do we not celebrate a stranger charging into a burning building to drag out another that is incapable of escape?  Do we not honor one who sacrifices her own life for that of another?  Does not our own Declaration of Independence clearly state the inalienable right of life to every individual?

            All other topics in a debate depend on the answer to this question.  Economic issues concern goods and services exchanged between people.  Domestic and foreign policy issues concern the interaction between citizens of the same, or of different nations, respectively.  Any issue relative to governance involves people.  If human life is trivial then the issues concerning how people treat or interact with each other must also be trivial.  If human life is sacred, then in issues of governance the primary concern ought to be that the sacredness of every human life is preserved.

            I stated previously that the question is never asked directly, and that is because it is routinely asked indirectly; something like, “Would you say your position on abortion is pro-choice or pro-life, and why?”  Responses vary based on the stated platform of each candidate.  I contend that those holding the pro-choice position, as it is most commonly held, does not hold all human life to be sacred.  This is because the choice being made is to kill a unique unborn human.  From conception a unique human life is growing in the mother’s womb; not a mass of benign cells akin to a tumor, not a parasite like a tapeworm, but a unique human life.  Other than size, location, environment and level of development that unique unborn human life is no different than a four-year old toddler, and we do not determine rights of life based on such differences.  To be six feet four inches tall does not make one more deserving of life than another only five feet four inches tall.  Similarly, we do not designate one to be less deserving to live because they take up residence East of the Mississippi River, or because they are underwater.  We cannot choose to kill an eight year old because they have not developed enough to drive an automobile.  If we cannot choose to kill a four year old toddler for these reasons then we cannot kill a unique unborn human for those reasons either.  One might ask about cases of extreme violation like rape or incest.  As horrible and vile as those acts are, the violators themselves are not killed for the crime nor would we advocate killing a four-year old toddler because they are reminders of a horrible violation once endured.  Only in cases of tubal pregnancies would termination be warranted as in that case if the dreadful act of killing one human life is not carried out two human lives will be lost.  If all human life is sacred then we must fight to preserve all human life possible.

            An acute observer will note that the reasons presented above not to kill an unborn human life do not provide a reason why life is sacred.  Why does our Declaration of Independence state in the clearest of written word that all human life is sacred?  If we are here as a result of some combination of undirected natural causes, random chance, evolution by natural selection, genetic drift and the like then human life is remarkable and highly improbable but not sacred.  No, our Declaration makes clear that all human life is sacred because we are created and are endowed by our Creator with those inalienable rights.  The Christian worldview is the only one that could provide for such a statement and in Genesis 1:27 we read, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”  All human life is sacred because all human life is created by the God of the Bible in His image and we all at least act as if it were true.

            January 22 is the 38^th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision giving legal rights for the killing of unique human lives and this is an election year.  In my opinion, we should think soberly of the question of the sacredness of human life and put each candidate under great scrutiny as all other issues of governance hinge on the answer to that question.

Men of Action and Politics

When last we left the book of Ezra, the discussion was focused on several men that were instrumental in the re-building of the temple of God upon return of the exiles from their Babylonian captivity.  In particular, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak began the work under the order from Cyrus king of Persia; stopped the work under orders from King Xerxes and Artaxerxes (based on the complaint of the enemies of Judah and Benjamin); and began the work afresh on the order of God through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah which was later ratified and endorsed by King Darius.

In this post I want to look at the political aspect of this account and what we can and cannot take from it in terms of application in contemporary culture.  Firstly, the return of the exiles and re-building of the temple was ordered by official proclamation.  In the last post we discussed the reason behind this return and how it was nothing short of the miraculous change of heart of the King of Persia, Cyrus himself, by which God brought the return to pass.  This point bears further emphasis here, that God detemined in His Sovereignty and timing that the re-building should take place and so He changed the heart of the King to bring that about.  So, generally speaking God used those in power to bring about His plan for His people.  Can we then make a specific rule then that God works this way all the time?  Obviously not.  Cyrus was King of Persia, not a Jewish leader.  God allowed Nebuchadnezzar to carry away His people into captivity.  God also sent Moses to Pharoh and in that case his heart was hardened such that plagues and death forced a ruler whose heart was hardened to relent and release those under his rule albeit reluctantly and who he later determined to seek to re-acquire only to lead his army to ultimate destruction.  So what we can say without making errors in specifically limited application is that God Sovereignly works all things according to His own good purposes to accomplish His own ends, which are by definition right and good.

Politically speaking God used a king to release His people so that they could re-build His temple.  So what of the stoppage ordered by Xerxes and Artaxerxes?  Was God unable to see that one coming?  God had brought his people from captivity with orders and supplies so why did His people stop when orders came down from governing authorities?  Were God's plans thwarted by a simple decree and disruptive behavior by a small group?  Obviously that would be an error in thinking since that sort of description of God does not comport with the rest of Scripture, nor does it acknowledge the many accounts of God Himself fighting the battle for His people, turning opposing forces against themselves and routing whole armies without the loss of even one of His people.  Again, we don't want to make a mistake in the particular case, rather we want to see the Truth that is applicable across circumstances.  Again, God is Sovereign - it may not seem to make sense to have the work stop, but whether it is obvious to man or not, God is most capable of knowing how things must work such that He receives maximum glory.  In this case, the work stoppage brought about two prophets who spoke for the Lord about not only the continued re-building in the absence of permission from ruling authorities, but also regarding the coming Messiah - all of which came to pass!

Finally, and again politically, why didn't Zerubbabel and Jeshua stage a rebellion when word came down that they had been ordered to cease and dissist in their efforts.  Why didn't they organize and declare that they were building the temple of the Lord (which He had directed by means of a heart change of previous leadership) and no human king was going to stop the Lord's work and fight to the death to continue working?  It seems best to always consider the context and the Truth.  In this time, God spoke to the people through the prophets.  Cyrus decrees the Israelites be given materials and released to re-build the temple - no problem there.  No prophet has spoken, but returning to their land and re-building the temple is a great blessing, so praise God for moving on Cyrus's heart to bring this about.  The stop work order comes down from the same authority that decreed the work start.  Perhaps confusing and disappointing, but God made a way before and He will do so again.  Then the prophets speak.  God has said re-build.  Now, there is no waiting and no fear of retribution from government.  The men immediately begin re-building.  Later the records are checked and the re-building is not hindered by government or others, praise God for working this out in His timing.  God's people are not called to political activism as a pursuit in order to bring about justice in this world.  God's people are called to love God with all their hearts and to love others as themselves, with this love manifested in the bearing of the fruits of the Spirit.  This is not to say belivers should not be politically active, but great care should be taken, as with everything else in the life of the believer, that motivations remain focused and pure and that we do not behave as though God is not Sovereign or somehow needs our help to make sure the problems of this world get solved, whether by sit-in, occupation, or armed rebellion.  Where the sacred is being profaned, believers must be in opposition even unto personal persecution, without fear, but in much prayer and knowing that God is Sovereign and will bring about all things according to His own good pleasure and for His ultimate glory.

What is the one main idea to take away - God is Sovereign over all things and He knows best how things must come to pass such that His glory is maximized.  Let us not presume to need to help out or know better than God.  Love and obedience is a great place for us to start, and i'm thankful we can see that even in a book like Ezra written so long ago.

A Cascade of Errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy in Action

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?

What's It All About

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.

Musings on the Environment

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.

Which Values are Those?

Typically following a State of the Union address I will listen or watch the address real time and then go back and re-read the speech from the transcript available on the government website.  This year was no different; I listened to President Obama deliver his speech and then revisited the address yesterday afternoon late.  As usual the same set of comments that caught my attention during the real-time delivery jumped out from the written transcript.  It's something different every time and this year it occurred toward the end of the address and centered around the topic of "American values."  Following is the quote from the transcript and a link for the transcript in its entirety:

State of the Union Transcript

"Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals.  The same is true at home.  We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."

I was fascinated by this paragraph, especially the part about how we find unity in our diversity.  I have posted on this before and how this has always been the ultimate search; namely how to find unity in diversity.  We have universities across this nation looking for knowledge to unite diverse ideas; on our coinage we have the phrase E Pluribus Unum (out of the many, one; or from the many come one); even in ancient Greek the search was for the fifth essence that would unite the other four.  The unity does not exist within the diversity, there is an outside source that provides the unity within the diversity; that unity in diversity comes from a unity in a diversity in the first cause embodied in the community of the Trinity.

As the Declaration of Independence is the preamble to the Constitution then we do see that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with those inalienable rights.  But inalienable means it is contingent only on the Creator, no man gives them and no man or institution may molest them.  Why then the if-then statements that followed:  "if you abide by the law you will be protected by it, if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."  Whether or not you abide by the laws of the land, life remains inalienable; even if you don't adhere to the values common to the many, liberty remains inalienable.  This is the beauty of the Biblical-Christian or Judeo-Christian worldview on which this country was founded, and on which the Declaration and Constitution were established.  We are created by the Creator with that Imago Dei in the image of God and it transcends actions or behaviors, that is the reason why all are treated equally, not because they agree with us.

"In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still.  Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers.  Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country.  They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit.  These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values.  There American values."

And there it was jumping out at me; American values.  And the question arose in my mind, "The American values that the country began with, or contemporary American values?"  Are they in fact the same?  This State of the Union ended as all speeches tend to, with the familiar line: "Thank you.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America."  The God of the Bible is eluded to throughout the speech although not explicitly stated.  I'll leave the question open for dialouge and leave with just a few quotes from those signers of the Constitution who established the framework for this nation.  Perhaps we could think seriously for more than a few seconds about their words and if in fact the American values posited and promulgated by the founders of this nation continue to be interwoven with life in contemporary American culture.

"It pleased God to write his law upon the heart of man at first.  And the great lines of duty, however obscured by their original apostasy, are still so visible to afford an opportunity of judging what conduct and practice is or is not agreeable to its dictates.  Such authority hath natural conscience still in man that it renders those...inexcusable in the sight of God (Rom. 1:20-2:14)...The pollution of the heart brings a corrupt bias on the judgment, in the man's own case...whereas in determining the character of others, this bias is less sensibly felt."         John Witherspoon, New Jersey

"...the establishment proposed by this Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion.  To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them...

...It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. The duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.  Before any man can be considered a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe.  And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association; must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegience to the Universal Sovereign.  We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."           James Madison, Virginia

"The depravity which mankind inherited from their first parents, introduced wickedness into the world.  That wickedness rendered human government necessary to restrain the violence and injustice resulting from it.  To facilitate the establishment and administration of government, the human race became, in the course of Providence, divided into seperate and distinct nations.  Every nation instituted a government, with authority and power to protect it against domestic and foreign aggressions.

It is true that one of the postitive ordinances of Moses, to which you allude, did ordain retaliation or, in other words, a tooth for a tooth.  But we are to recollect that it was ordained, not as a rule to regulate the conduct of private individuals toward each other, but as a legal penalty or punishment for certain offences.  Retaliation is also manifest in the punishment prescribed for murder-life for life.  Legal punishments are adjusted and inflicted by the law and magistrate, and not by unauthorized individuals.  These and other positive laws or ordinances established by Divine direction, must of necessity be consistent with the moral law.  It certainly was not the design of the law or ordinance in question, to encourage a spirit of personal or private revenge."         John Jay, New York

"One great Advantage of the Christian Religion is that it brings the great Principle of the Law of Nature and Nations, Love your Neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you, to the Knowledge, Belief and Veneration of the whole People.

...religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.

There is no such thing [as morality] without a supposition of God.  There is no right or wrong in the universe without the supposition of a moral government and an intellectual and moral governer.

No other Institution for Education, no kind of political Discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary Information, so universally among all Ranks and Descriptions of Citizens.  The Duties and Rights of the Man and the Citizen are thus taught from early Infancy to every Creature.  The Sanctions of a future Life are thus added to the Observance of civil and political, as well as domestic and private Duties.  Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude, are thus taught to be the means and Conditions of future as well as present Happiness."        John Adams,  Massachusetts