Perspective. The word refers (among other things) to one's mental view. It is one's subjective evaluation of what one sees. Many times we tend to discount or even ignore perspective. Other times it is the only important thing. Some people are so intent on "absolute truth" that how another sees something is irrelevant. Other people are so sure that there is no "absolute truth" that how someone sees something is the only relevant thing. In both cases, how the other person sees things is likely not really relevant. You see that quite obviously in the hard-nosed fact-based person, but it's equally there with the relativist when someone suggests, "But, there really is absolute truth." That perspective doesn't count.
Ignoring the perspectives of others is a real problem. Let me give you an example we can all understand. A kind, loving husband wants to get his wife a nice gift for their anniversary. He recalls the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What would he like? Well, he needs new tools and something quite practical like new tools would say "I love you" to him. And she needs a new vacuum. So he goes out, with the most magnanimous heart he can muster and buys her a top-of-the-line vacuum cleaner. Of course, we all know the result of his fine, well-considered, loving gesture. He's sleeping outside in the doghouse with the top-of-the-line vacuum cleaner wrapped around his head. You see, he only took into account his perspective. He didn't take into account her perspective. And while the Golden Rule was a good place to start, he asked the wrong question. The question wasn't "What would say 'I love you' to me?" but "What would say 'I love you' to her?" Perspective can be important. Indeed, perspective is, at times, the most important factor in human interaction.
You see, in human interaction, perspective is a matter of higher importance than I think most of us consider. A husband tells his wife, "Honey, you're beautiful" because from his perspective she is. But if that's not her perspective, it is irrelevant and he will need to do more than tell her. Consider this scenario. He thinks she's beautiful. She thinks she's fat. She says, "I'd like to join a fitness club." What does he do? He's thinking, "Fitness club?? Why? You're already beautiful. Why would we want to spend money on that when you're already beautiful???" But she's thinking, "Yeah, you're blind. I know I'm fat and ugly. If you really care about me, you'll let me join a fitness club so I can be closer to what you think you see." Perspective, you see, is important.
The difficulty, of course, is that the perspectives of others is hard to come by. It takes time and effort. You have to get to know the other person. You have to ask questions. You have to be willing to set aside your own perspective and consider theirs before you can take theirs into account. It takes work. And, frankly, "work" is a four-letter word to everyone and not an acceptable word to too many of us. It's just not worth the effort.
We would do well to consider others' perspectives. When we communicate, we should consider, "What are my words actually saying to them?" When we interact, we should consider, "How does my interaction come across to them?" We must ask the hard questions. "How do they think, see, feel?" Without that very important factor, we cannot effectively communicate with others. If a person has encountered only hostility and you appear hostile to them, they will be at war with you before you finish your sentence, even if you never intended hostility. On the flip side, if the other person is inclined to be on your side, they might accept arguments from you that are wrong (putting them in the embarrassing position of defending faulty arguments) without considering them. In our interactions with others, we must take their perspectives into account if we are to be effective communicators, proper stewards of the truth.
Let me put it another way that might be more effective if you are of the perspective that the Bible is the Word of God. Among other things, love is not self-absorbed. It "seeks not its own" (1 Cor. 13:5). If this is true, then when I proceed without considering the perspective of those to whom we are speaking, "I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor. 13:1). Love takes into account the other person. Maybe we should start there more often than we currently do.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
You Must Be Perfect
Perfectionism -- the word has shades of meaning. We've all known perfectionists, people who want everything to be perfect. They can be annoying because, on one hand, nothing is ever good enough while, on the other hand, they are not perfect either. There are treatments in psychology for what is viewed as a disorder. Most people who are perfectionists see it as a problem and would like to change.
There is another form of perfectionism that is not viewed by its adherents as a problem. In fact, they view it as mandatory. This form is found in Christian doctrine. There are those who would argue that at some point after conversion but before death a true believer will arrive at complete sanctification -- moral perfection. This perfectionism holds that all true believers eventually die completely to sin and that this condition is the only way to end up in heaven.
One of the best known teachers of this concept was John Wesley, the originator of the Methodist Church. It was a popular theme with Charles Finney, and it has also been taken up by certain Pentecostals, often referred to as "the Holiness Movement", who consider this perfectionism part of a "second blessing". And it is based on Scripture. We all know, for instance, that God told His people, "You shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy" (Lev. 19:2). Jesus repeated something very similar: "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). And how else would you interpret John when he wrote, "Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9)?
Now, this perfectionism doesn't hold that a person becomes physically perfect, free from temptation, or infallible in judgment. The idea is that you become sinless -- not sinless in the same sense that Jesus was sinless, but sinless in the sense of ceasing to sin. Wesley said it was perfection in love. Nor did he argue that it obtained salvation, but simply that true believers would obtain it or they couldn't be saved.
So ... what could possibly be the objection to this perspective? I mean, you can clearly see it in the Bible, and big names are behind it. Why would anyone object? To be quite honest, I suspect the first reason is that no one seems to ever find such a thing in experience. Sure, sure, there are those who claim it -- I've met them -- but to maintain the claim you have to redefine sin. If you change it from a violation of God's commands to "mistakes", perhaps you can get away with it. That doesn't work. Worse, in my experience the godliest people I've known are the ones who are acutely aware of their own imperfection. I've never met a single person that can claim and support the claim of living sinlessly. Experience cries out for an answer.
Of course, experience is usually not a good way to interpret Scripture. So the counter position to perfectionism has to come from Scripture. And it's in there. Paul juxtaposes the two positions as if both are true. In his famous prayer about his longing to know Christ to the exclusion of everything else, he prays:
I know. It's a lengthy debate. There are other questions and other answers. There are objections and objections to the objections. And I'm not likely to settle the matter for everyone here and now. (Picture that. "Oh, thanks, Stan, that cleared everything up. What were we thinking?") But if perfectionism is supposed to be the norm for Christians, I have to say that I have yet to meet a Christian ... including the one who wrote the majority of the New Testament -- Paul.
There is another form of perfectionism that is not viewed by its adherents as a problem. In fact, they view it as mandatory. This form is found in Christian doctrine. There are those who would argue that at some point after conversion but before death a true believer will arrive at complete sanctification -- moral perfection. This perfectionism holds that all true believers eventually die completely to sin and that this condition is the only way to end up in heaven.
One of the best known teachers of this concept was John Wesley, the originator of the Methodist Church. It was a popular theme with Charles Finney, and it has also been taken up by certain Pentecostals, often referred to as "the Holiness Movement", who consider this perfectionism part of a "second blessing". And it is based on Scripture. We all know, for instance, that God told His people, "You shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy" (Lev. 19:2). Jesus repeated something very similar: "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). And how else would you interpret John when he wrote, "Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9)?
Now, this perfectionism doesn't hold that a person becomes physically perfect, free from temptation, or infallible in judgment. The idea is that you become sinless -- not sinless in the same sense that Jesus was sinless, but sinless in the sense of ceasing to sin. Wesley said it was perfection in love. Nor did he argue that it obtained salvation, but simply that true believers would obtain it or they couldn't be saved.
So ... what could possibly be the objection to this perspective? I mean, you can clearly see it in the Bible, and big names are behind it. Why would anyone object? To be quite honest, I suspect the first reason is that no one seems to ever find such a thing in experience. Sure, sure, there are those who claim it -- I've met them -- but to maintain the claim you have to redefine sin. If you change it from a violation of God's commands to "mistakes", perhaps you can get away with it. That doesn't work. Worse, in my experience the godliest people I've known are the ones who are acutely aware of their own imperfection. I've never met a single person that can claim and support the claim of living sinlessly. Experience cries out for an answer.
Of course, experience is usually not a good way to interpret Scripture. So the counter position to perfectionism has to come from Scripture. And it's in there. Paul juxtaposes the two positions as if both are true. In his famous prayer about his longing to know Christ to the exclusion of everything else, he prays:
... that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are perfect think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you (Phil. 3:10-15).Paul is likely the most obvious example of a sanctified person in the Bible. Still, here, near the end of his life, Paul says, "Not that I ... am already perfect." He affirms, "I do not consider that I have made it my own." Although Paul claims that he is not perfect, he throws this into the mix: "Let those of us who are perfect think this way." So, he's not perfect in some sense but he's perfect in another sense. Of course, there's always 1 John 1:8 -- "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
I know. It's a lengthy debate. There are other questions and other answers. There are objections and objections to the objections. And I'm not likely to settle the matter for everyone here and now. (Picture that. "Oh, thanks, Stan, that cleared everything up. What were we thinking?") But if perfectionism is supposed to be the norm for Christians, I have to say that I have yet to meet a Christian ... including the one who wrote the majority of the New Testament -- Paul.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
TIS BAD
TIS BAD stands for The International Society to Ban All Dihydromonoxide. The aim of this society is to work for the ban of the dangerous chemical known as dihydromonoxide. This chemical is found in every industrial factory in the world.
The Facts about Dihydromonoxide
• Causes thousands of deaths every year from exposure worldwide.
• In its solid form, can cause serious tissue damage. Has resulted in loss of limb and life.
• In its gaseous form, can cause serious burns to unprotected skin.
• Overexposure can cause an imbalance of electrolytes in the body and may be fatal.
• It is the 2nd leading cause of injury-related death for children aged 1-14 years. Black children ages 5 through 19 years have death rates 2.5 times the rate of whites from this substance. Death rates were at least 3 times greater for males than for females.
• It is found in many other common substances. It is the primary component of acid rain. It has been found in a large variety of cancerous tumors. It is widely used in pesticides and other equally dangerous chemicals.
• It is hazardous to most natural substances. It can erode substances as hard as rock. Worldwide, it is responsible for massive erosion of the environment.
• Many U.S. factories dump untreated dihydromonoxide into rivers and streams without regard for its effects on the environment.
• The government is fully aware of its dangers, but continues to support its general use in a wide range of applications, in many cases subsidizing its use.
• Currently, the U.S. Navy and virtually every military organization are conducting experiments using dihydromonoxide without regard to personnel or environment.
We are working toward the curtailing of the widespread use of this dangerous chemical with the aim of eventually banning it altogether. We would appreciate your support of this movement.
The Facts about Dihydromonoxide
• Causes thousands of deaths every year from exposure worldwide.
• In its solid form, can cause serious tissue damage. Has resulted in loss of limb and life.
• In its gaseous form, can cause serious burns to unprotected skin.
• Overexposure can cause an imbalance of electrolytes in the body and may be fatal.
• It is the 2nd leading cause of injury-related death for children aged 1-14 years. Black children ages 5 through 19 years have death rates 2.5 times the rate of whites from this substance. Death rates were at least 3 times greater for males than for females.
• It is found in many other common substances. It is the primary component of acid rain. It has been found in a large variety of cancerous tumors. It is widely used in pesticides and other equally dangerous chemicals.
• It is hazardous to most natural substances. It can erode substances as hard as rock. Worldwide, it is responsible for massive erosion of the environment.
• Many U.S. factories dump untreated dihydromonoxide into rivers and streams without regard for its effects on the environment.
• The government is fully aware of its dangers, but continues to support its general use in a wide range of applications, in many cases subsidizing its use.
• Currently, the U.S. Navy and virtually every military organization are conducting experiments using dihydromonoxide without regard to personnel or environment.
We are working toward the curtailing of the widespread use of this dangerous chemical with the aim of eventually banning it altogether. We would appreciate your support of this movement.
Monday, July 09, 2007
There Is A Difference
There is a growing tide of people who call themselves Christians and who are calling on their fellow Christians to stop trying to claim that Christianity is right while everyone else is wrong. Our world, of course, is already there, but if you spend any time at all in the news, in the blogosphere, or talking to a lot of Christians, you'll find that the so-called Church is not far behind.
It's not really hard to figure out why. First, since all religions are protected, it stands to reason that all religions must be valid. No, not really, but it is easy to make that leap. Second, it is considered arrogant to claim you are right when so many others are wrong. It is Christian virtue, on the other hand, to be humble, so it would be Christian to stop claiming to be right when so many others are wrong. And, finally, there is the slow decay of any sense when it comes to that which distinguishes Christianity from any other religion. If there is no distinction, why would we claim that we are right and they are wrong? So Christians ease into the world's perspective that there is no difference between religions.
The best place to start with this error, I suppose, is at the basis. Is there anything that distinguishes Christianity from everyone else? You see, if there is an actual, substantial difference, then not all religions are equal and humility is misplaced.
It has been said that religion boils down to two basic concepts: The universal brotherhood of Man and the universal fatherhood of God. If that was the case, then we'd need to shut up about being distinct. It is not the case. Religions generally teach morality, and much of it is held in common. That makes them all the same, right? Perhaps. So what distinguishes Christianity from all other religions?
I'll give you a hint. Christianity is named after its founder -- Christ. What was distinctive about Christ? Well, He lived a perfect life, died in our place for our sins, and rose again. No one ... no one else has that distinction. This leads to the other distinctive. Every single religion in the world teaches that the way you get to heaven is by being good. Never mind that "good" must be defined as something arbitrary for this to work. The biblical standard is "perfect." At this point we obviously have a problem. If the standard is perfection, a single pecadillo places each of us in the category of "in debt." We owe perfection and cannot provide it. We cannot achieve "good enough."
The primary distinctive in Christianity that is not found in any other religion is that salvation comes through Christ, not by works. The primary distinctive is that perfection is attributed, not merited. The primary distinctive is a judicial righteousness -- a declared righteousness -- not an owned righteousness. Here, let me put it simply. Christianity holds that you do not get to heaven by being good; you get to heaven purely as a gift.
Now, for some reason this has been largely forgotten. I understand that the world never got it. Of course they didn't. But it's being forgotten (or missed ... or rejected) by Christians. Those who preach a "social gospel" seem to have missed it. Those who argue that "Christian" is largely "moral" seem to have missed it. They have gotten the cart before the horse. They've mistaken effect for cause. And they have made Christianity indistinct. If you are among those who forgot or missed this, take another look. It's sprinkled clearly and loudly throughout the Bible. Salvation is a gift -- something given, not earned. It is not of works. And if I need to list references for it, you haven't read your Bible enough. That would likely be a good place to start.
It's not really hard to figure out why. First, since all religions are protected, it stands to reason that all religions must be valid. No, not really, but it is easy to make that leap. Second, it is considered arrogant to claim you are right when so many others are wrong. It is Christian virtue, on the other hand, to be humble, so it would be Christian to stop claiming to be right when so many others are wrong. And, finally, there is the slow decay of any sense when it comes to that which distinguishes Christianity from any other religion. If there is no distinction, why would we claim that we are right and they are wrong? So Christians ease into the world's perspective that there is no difference between religions.
The best place to start with this error, I suppose, is at the basis. Is there anything that distinguishes Christianity from everyone else? You see, if there is an actual, substantial difference, then not all religions are equal and humility is misplaced.
It has been said that religion boils down to two basic concepts: The universal brotherhood of Man and the universal fatherhood of God. If that was the case, then we'd need to shut up about being distinct. It is not the case. Religions generally teach morality, and much of it is held in common. That makes them all the same, right? Perhaps. So what distinguishes Christianity from all other religions?
I'll give you a hint. Christianity is named after its founder -- Christ. What was distinctive about Christ? Well, He lived a perfect life, died in our place for our sins, and rose again. No one ... no one else has that distinction. This leads to the other distinctive. Every single religion in the world teaches that the way you get to heaven is by being good. Never mind that "good" must be defined as something arbitrary for this to work. The biblical standard is "perfect." At this point we obviously have a problem. If the standard is perfection, a single pecadillo places each of us in the category of "in debt." We owe perfection and cannot provide it. We cannot achieve "good enough."
The primary distinctive in Christianity that is not found in any other religion is that salvation comes through Christ, not by works. The primary distinctive is that perfection is attributed, not merited. The primary distinctive is a judicial righteousness -- a declared righteousness -- not an owned righteousness. Here, let me put it simply. Christianity holds that you do not get to heaven by being good; you get to heaven purely as a gift.
Now, for some reason this has been largely forgotten. I understand that the world never got it. Of course they didn't. But it's being forgotten (or missed ... or rejected) by Christians. Those who preach a "social gospel" seem to have missed it. Those who argue that "Christian" is largely "moral" seem to have missed it. They have gotten the cart before the horse. They've mistaken effect for cause. And they have made Christianity indistinct. If you are among those who forgot or missed this, take another look. It's sprinkled clearly and loudly throughout the Bible. Salvation is a gift -- something given, not earned. It is not of works. And if I need to list references for it, you haven't read your Bible enough. That would likely be a good place to start.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Nearer, My God, To Thee
Time once again for the Sunday Hymn.
The hymn has had a larger impact than Sarah would have thought. Many stories are told about the hymn and its use. Some noted theologians on a trip through the Middle East reported being deeply moved by a band of Syrians standing together and singing it. In 1936, a woman was on her way to the mission field when her train was caught in the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, flood. Hopelessly lost, she stood atop the sinking car and sang, "Nearer, my God, to Thee . . ." In 1912, aboard the ill fated Titanic, survivors said the band played this hymn as the ship sank.
Most of the song can be understood by reading through the Genesis account of Jacob's ladder, but there is an interesting thread through the song that I'd like to illustrate. Jacob was on the run when he had this vision. Times were not good. It is this vision of God in tough times that makes this hymn unusual.
The first line says it quite succinctly. I want to be nearer to God at all costs, even if that cost is a cross. At what cost would you draw nearer to God? Your immediate comfort? Your job? Your family? Your life? The real question is, how important is your relationship with God? The subplot in this hymn is simple. All that occurs in my life is God's attempt to drive me nearer to Him. The sooner I recognize that and cooperate with Him, the better off I'll be.
Look at some of the circumstances mentioned in this hymn. The first verse speaks of a cross. The second refers to being a wanderer, to being in darkness with only a stone for a pillow. The third verse says that all that God gives is given in mercy. The fourth verse cries, in praise, that it is my woes that bring me nearer to God. Verse five says that death itself is merely that which brings me closest to God.
We have forgotten that suffering is God’s chosen method to purify His own. James says that trials bring us to perfection (James 1:2-3). Noah learned that by building an ark and surviving a flood that killed every human being alive. Abraham learned that by leaving all that he new to go to a land that God promised, and by offering his own son as a sacrifice to God. Joseph learned that through being enslaved, wrongfully accused, and falsely imprisoned. Moses learned that in his desert experience before God put him to use freeing Israel from Egypt. Joshua learned it through 40 years in the desert and the rest of his life in battle in Canaan. Paul indicates that perseverance in persecution is evidence of our worthiness to be a part of the kingdom of God (2 Thess. 1:4 5). Peter says suffering proves faith (1 Peter 1:6-7).
Suffering is promised to the believer. Suffering is for our benefit. And we know that God causes all things to work together for our good. May our prayer be the same. “Nearer, my God, to Thee, even though it be a cross that raiseth me.”
Nearer, My God, To TheeSarah Adams was a lover of music. She and her sister put together a hymnal for their church. While they were working on the project, their pastor asked them if there was a song to accompany his upcoming sermon on the story of Jacob's ladder from Genesis 28:10-22. Sarah launched herself into the idea of writing a song for it, and "Nearer, My God, To Thee" was the result.
Sarah F. Adams
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee,
E'en tho' it be a cross that raiseth me;
Still all my song shall be,
"Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!"
Tho' like the wanderer, the sun gone down,
Darkness be over me, my rest a stone,
Yet in my dreams I'll be
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
There let the way appear, steps unto heav'n;
All that Thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n -
Angels to beckon me
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
Then with my waking thoughts, bright with Thy praise,
Out of my stony griefs, Bethel I raise;
So by my woes to be
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
Or if on joyful wing, cleaving the sky,
Sun, moon and stars forgot, upward I fly,
Still all my song shall be,
"Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!"
The hymn has had a larger impact than Sarah would have thought. Many stories are told about the hymn and its use. Some noted theologians on a trip through the Middle East reported being deeply moved by a band of Syrians standing together and singing it. In 1936, a woman was on her way to the mission field when her train was caught in the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, flood. Hopelessly lost, she stood atop the sinking car and sang, "Nearer, my God, to Thee . . ." In 1912, aboard the ill fated Titanic, survivors said the band played this hymn as the ship sank.
Most of the song can be understood by reading through the Genesis account of Jacob's ladder, but there is an interesting thread through the song that I'd like to illustrate. Jacob was on the run when he had this vision. Times were not good. It is this vision of God in tough times that makes this hymn unusual.
The first line says it quite succinctly. I want to be nearer to God at all costs, even if that cost is a cross. At what cost would you draw nearer to God? Your immediate comfort? Your job? Your family? Your life? The real question is, how important is your relationship with God? The subplot in this hymn is simple. All that occurs in my life is God's attempt to drive me nearer to Him. The sooner I recognize that and cooperate with Him, the better off I'll be.
Look at some of the circumstances mentioned in this hymn. The first verse speaks of a cross. The second refers to being a wanderer, to being in darkness with only a stone for a pillow. The third verse says that all that God gives is given in mercy. The fourth verse cries, in praise, that it is my woes that bring me nearer to God. Verse five says that death itself is merely that which brings me closest to God.
We have forgotten that suffering is God’s chosen method to purify His own. James says that trials bring us to perfection (James 1:2-3). Noah learned that by building an ark and surviving a flood that killed every human being alive. Abraham learned that by leaving all that he new to go to a land that God promised, and by offering his own son as a sacrifice to God. Joseph learned that through being enslaved, wrongfully accused, and falsely imprisoned. Moses learned that in his desert experience before God put him to use freeing Israel from Egypt. Joshua learned it through 40 years in the desert and the rest of his life in battle in Canaan. Paul indicates that perseverance in persecution is evidence of our worthiness to be a part of the kingdom of God (2 Thess. 1:4 5). Peter says suffering proves faith (1 Peter 1:6-7).
Suffering is promised to the believer. Suffering is for our benefit. And we know that God causes all things to work together for our good. May our prayer be the same. “Nearer, my God, to Thee, even though it be a cross that raiseth me.”
Saturday, July 07, 2007
The Predestination Objections
Why, why, why does this never end? I read this kind of stuff over and over and it is addressed by better folks than me over and over and still I read this kind of stuff over and over. Why?
In the ceaseless debate over the hot topic of Predestination, you will find these kinds of arguments:
Misconception #1: Predestination is the belief that God has chosen only certain people for salvation.
I know ... that's the common idea. I know ... a lot of proponents of Predestination use that definition. I know ... most of us -- that includes me -- use that definition much of the time. It's so common that it's accepted as normal. But it's not the biblical definition. The biblical definition is more like this: "God works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11). In other words, Predestination says that God has ordained all that comes to pass. Nothing occurs outside of His will. That includes the doctrine that says "God has chosen only certain people for salvation", but that doctrine is more correctly called "Election" and is simply a subset of "Predestination." Now, Predestination as I've just defined it is just as offensive to many Christians as Election, but Predestination is rarely debated in the terms I defined it, so we'll continue on the topic of objections to Election.
Misconception #2: Election means that God has chosen special people, those who are "worthy to spend eternity in His presence".
The idea of Election is not that there are special people. It is absolutely opposed to the idea that God picks people He likes because they're nice people or some such nonsense. The starting place of Election is that all humans are damnable. All humans have sinned. All humans have chosen and deserve Hell. There is none good, no, not one. There is absolutely nothing "special" or "worthy" in the humans chosen for salvation. They are made special and worthy, but only by Christ's sacrifice, not by anything that is within themselves. I know, I know, it is offensive to think that God chooses some because it is popular to think that there is something in the chosen that causes God to choose them, but get that thought out of your head. It's not part of Election. And those "Calvinists" you've met that seem to flaunt their "chosen" status are misrepresenting the concept. For that, I apologize. But don't evaluate the doctrine based on those who erroneously express it.
Misconception #3: Election eliminates Free Will.
The idea of Election is not that God forces people to choose Him. The idea is that He enables people to choose Him, people who would not otherwise have been able to do so. It is predicated on the notion that Man is sinful by nature, dead in sin, and if God didn't intervene, Man would choose nothing other than sin. I know, I know, that's not popular nor accepted across the board. Fine. But it's a red herring to argue that it eliminates Free Will when it's not the argument at all. If you want to object to that characterization of natural Man, object to that, but can't we please drop this red herring argument that it eliminates Free Will? All sane adherents of Election also agree that the chosen must choose Christ. They simply believe that, once they are enabled to do so, they will do so. What's the phrase? There is no "violence offered to the will of the creatures" (Westminster Confession, Chapter III).
Misconception #4: Election eliminates the need for preaching the Gospel.
Very popular objection. You'll find this one lots of places. It's not reasonable, but it's very popular. You see, it is an argument in a vacuum. It assumes that Election holds that God simply and directly causes all things. (Remember? The elimination of Free Will?) It forgets that God is a God of means. He uses means to accomplish His will. What is the biblical means by which God chooses to reach the Elect? (If you object to "the Elect", you can substitute "anyone at all", because the answer is the same.) The means that God has determined will be used is the preaching of His Word. Note that right after Paul's brilliant defense of the doctrine of Election in Rom. 9, he follows with, among other things, this: "But how are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Rom. 10:14). Now, the objectors would say, "Well, if God has chosen to save some and not others, couldn't He do it without the preaching of the Gospel?" And if you believe in the omnipotence and sovereignty of God, you'd have to answer honestly, "Yes, He could." But what He could do and what He has chosen to do appear to be two different things. He has chosen to use people to preach the Gospel, and, by that means, call people to Himself. Thus, the Great Commission is absolutely in effect and the need to spread the Gospel is never diminished because none of us know who is Elect or not. So we spread the Gospel much like that sower in Matt. 13, throwing the seed of the Word indiscriminately and waiting for God to produce a crop.
These are arguably the most popular objections to the doctrine of Election. Not in order, perhaps, but the most popular. 1) It suggests that some people are inherently more special than others. 2) It eliminates Free Will. 3) It eliminates the need to preach the Gospel. There are other objections, and some of them much more interesting to discuss, but these are too often and too easily deflected. There are more interesting questions, like, "Does God choose some for damnation?" or "Doesn't this make God the author of evil?". Surely we can get past these simple misconceptions and move to a more fruitful dialog, can't we?
In the ceaseless debate over the hot topic of Predestination, you will find these kinds of arguments:
Misconception #1: Predestination is the belief that God has chosen only certain people for salvation.
I know ... that's the common idea. I know ... a lot of proponents of Predestination use that definition. I know ... most of us -- that includes me -- use that definition much of the time. It's so common that it's accepted as normal. But it's not the biblical definition. The biblical definition is more like this: "God works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11). In other words, Predestination says that God has ordained all that comes to pass. Nothing occurs outside of His will. That includes the doctrine that says "God has chosen only certain people for salvation", but that doctrine is more correctly called "Election" and is simply a subset of "Predestination." Now, Predestination as I've just defined it is just as offensive to many Christians as Election, but Predestination is rarely debated in the terms I defined it, so we'll continue on the topic of objections to Election.
Misconception #2: Election means that God has chosen special people, those who are "worthy to spend eternity in His presence".
The idea of Election is not that there are special people. It is absolutely opposed to the idea that God picks people He likes because they're nice people or some such nonsense. The starting place of Election is that all humans are damnable. All humans have sinned. All humans have chosen and deserve Hell. There is none good, no, not one. There is absolutely nothing "special" or "worthy" in the humans chosen for salvation. They are made special and worthy, but only by Christ's sacrifice, not by anything that is within themselves. I know, I know, it is offensive to think that God chooses some because it is popular to think that there is something in the chosen that causes God to choose them, but get that thought out of your head. It's not part of Election. And those "Calvinists" you've met that seem to flaunt their "chosen" status are misrepresenting the concept. For that, I apologize. But don't evaluate the doctrine based on those who erroneously express it.
Misconception #3: Election eliminates Free Will.
The idea of Election is not that God forces people to choose Him. The idea is that He enables people to choose Him, people who would not otherwise have been able to do so. It is predicated on the notion that Man is sinful by nature, dead in sin, and if God didn't intervene, Man would choose nothing other than sin. I know, I know, that's not popular nor accepted across the board. Fine. But it's a red herring to argue that it eliminates Free Will when it's not the argument at all. If you want to object to that characterization of natural Man, object to that, but can't we please drop this red herring argument that it eliminates Free Will? All sane adherents of Election also agree that the chosen must choose Christ. They simply believe that, once they are enabled to do so, they will do so. What's the phrase? There is no "violence offered to the will of the creatures" (Westminster Confession, Chapter III).
Misconception #4: Election eliminates the need for preaching the Gospel.
Very popular objection. You'll find this one lots of places. It's not reasonable, but it's very popular. You see, it is an argument in a vacuum. It assumes that Election holds that God simply and directly causes all things. (Remember? The elimination of Free Will?) It forgets that God is a God of means. He uses means to accomplish His will. What is the biblical means by which God chooses to reach the Elect? (If you object to "the Elect", you can substitute "anyone at all", because the answer is the same.) The means that God has determined will be used is the preaching of His Word. Note that right after Paul's brilliant defense of the doctrine of Election in Rom. 9, he follows with, among other things, this: "But how are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Rom. 10:14). Now, the objectors would say, "Well, if God has chosen to save some and not others, couldn't He do it without the preaching of the Gospel?" And if you believe in the omnipotence and sovereignty of God, you'd have to answer honestly, "Yes, He could." But what He could do and what He has chosen to do appear to be two different things. He has chosen to use people to preach the Gospel, and, by that means, call people to Himself. Thus, the Great Commission is absolutely in effect and the need to spread the Gospel is never diminished because none of us know who is Elect or not. So we spread the Gospel much like that sower in Matt. 13, throwing the seed of the Word indiscriminately and waiting for God to produce a crop.
These are arguably the most popular objections to the doctrine of Election. Not in order, perhaps, but the most popular. 1) It suggests that some people are inherently more special than others. 2) It eliminates Free Will. 3) It eliminates the need to preach the Gospel. There are other objections, and some of them much more interesting to discuss, but these are too often and too easily deflected. There are more interesting questions, like, "Does God choose some for damnation?" or "Doesn't this make God the author of evil?". Surely we can get past these simple misconceptions and move to a more fruitful dialog, can't we?
Friday, July 06, 2007
"I was a fanatic"
Okay, look, I didn't say it ... he did. I've never spoken out against "Islam" or made it my crusade to show the evils of it. Indeed, the Muslims that I've known have been quite moderate and baffled by this "kill the infidel" notion. Some I conversed with patiently explained to me, "Yes, it's in the Quran, but it doesn't mean what it says." And when I asked them, "So, why this animosity with the U.S.?" they would reply "foreign policy". Well, I hate to break it to them, but this guy disagrees.
According to this self-proclaimed ex-member of the British Jihadi -- a Muslim extremist -- the reason that Muslims are trying to kill Westerners is because they're not Muslims. Not only that, he claims that it's simply part of their theology. God says it. You gotta do it. That's it.
One has to wonder how true the assertion is. You see, if he is right, it has larger implications. If he is right, for instance, the rosy concept of a "democratic Iraq" is a foolish pipe dream that will be derailed by its own religion before it can come to fruition. We had good intentions, but we're simply feeding them stuff they don't want. It would be like feeding a devout Jew your finest cut of pork. "No, really, it's excellent stuff!" "Yes, thank you, but if I eat it I'm defying God." That kind of puts an end to it, doesn't it? "Yes, we can see how nice democracy would be, but it defies God." So much for that one.
If he is right there can be no "end to terrorism". There can be no "war on terrorism". It would, by definition, become a "war on Islam", and no one wants that. I remember watching a PBS special (years ago now) on the Vietnam War. They said that what the U.S. never quite understood was the ideology of the people of North Vietnam. We saw them as imperialists of sorts, trying to take land. They didn't. They saw themselves as freedom fighters, trying to free their southern brothers. So dedicated to the freedom of their family were they that they would have fought to the death to obtain it ... like any good family would. In this case, ordinary war doesn't work. Winning in Vietnam was impossible because it required the death of nearly every North Vietnamese citizen to achieve. Here we are again. We think we're defending people against terrorism and, as it turns out, their theology requires that they live the way they do and we are just in the way.
I can't say. I'm not a Muslim. I can debate Christianity. I can explain biblical values and theology. But I'm not a Muslim, so I won't try to tell you what their beliefs require of them. It seems, however, from two aspects that we are in for trouble. First, the declared reason that Islamic militants are trying to kill non-Muslims is that their religion tells them to. Big problem. Second, the "moderate Muslims" are keeping quiet. That's very disturbing. When a Fred Phelps steps up and yells stupid things in the name of Christianity, Christians shout him down. But Muslims are keeping quiet about what appears to be extreme Islam ... and that suggests that it's not so extreme. They're just not willing to be as open about it. I suspect that it's going to get worse -- much worse -- before it gets better. And this from "the religion of peace."
According to this self-proclaimed ex-member of the British Jihadi -- a Muslim extremist -- the reason that Muslims are trying to kill Westerners is because they're not Muslims. Not only that, he claims that it's simply part of their theology. God says it. You gotta do it. That's it.
One has to wonder how true the assertion is. You see, if he is right, it has larger implications. If he is right, for instance, the rosy concept of a "democratic Iraq" is a foolish pipe dream that will be derailed by its own religion before it can come to fruition. We had good intentions, but we're simply feeding them stuff they don't want. It would be like feeding a devout Jew your finest cut of pork. "No, really, it's excellent stuff!" "Yes, thank you, but if I eat it I'm defying God." That kind of puts an end to it, doesn't it? "Yes, we can see how nice democracy would be, but it defies God." So much for that one.
If he is right there can be no "end to terrorism". There can be no "war on terrorism". It would, by definition, become a "war on Islam", and no one wants that. I remember watching a PBS special (years ago now) on the Vietnam War. They said that what the U.S. never quite understood was the ideology of the people of North Vietnam. We saw them as imperialists of sorts, trying to take land. They didn't. They saw themselves as freedom fighters, trying to free their southern brothers. So dedicated to the freedom of their family were they that they would have fought to the death to obtain it ... like any good family would. In this case, ordinary war doesn't work. Winning in Vietnam was impossible because it required the death of nearly every North Vietnamese citizen to achieve. Here we are again. We think we're defending people against terrorism and, as it turns out, their theology requires that they live the way they do and we are just in the way.
I can't say. I'm not a Muslim. I can debate Christianity. I can explain biblical values and theology. But I'm not a Muslim, so I won't try to tell you what their beliefs require of them. It seems, however, from two aspects that we are in for trouble. First, the declared reason that Islamic militants are trying to kill non-Muslims is that their religion tells them to. Big problem. Second, the "moderate Muslims" are keeping quiet. That's very disturbing. When a Fred Phelps steps up and yells stupid things in the name of Christianity, Christians shout him down. But Muslims are keeping quiet about what appears to be extreme Islam ... and that suggests that it's not so extreme. They're just not willing to be as open about it. I suspect that it's going to get worse -- much worse -- before it gets better. And this from "the religion of peace."
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Eight Things Meme
Dana of Principled Discovery tagged me for a meme. Now, many of my readers don't know what a meme is. The correct definition is "a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition." In the world of blog it's a repeated theme among bloggers. "Eight things I like about Thursdays." "Eight ways to cook eggs." "Eight things I have in my closet that I shouldn't." For reasons I don't comprehend they often revolve around "eight", and for reasons that I do comprehend I dislike them intensely. However, I like what Dana writes and don't wish to be a snob, so I'll play along.
The rules are simple. Each player lists 8 facts/habits about themselves. The rules of the game are posted at the beginning before those facts/habits are listed. At the end of the post, the player then tags 8 people and posts their names, then goes to their blogs and leaves them a comment, letting them know that they have been tagged and asking them to read your blog.
There ... the rules are now posted at the beginning. Well, almost the beginning. Next, I have to come up with 8 things about myself that you don't know. Let's see ...
1. At the age of 3 I contracted spinal meningitis. They tell me it was a strain called "H flu". They tell me that it normally kills within 24 hours. And they tell me that I had it for 24 hours before they figured it out. Mom's first clue? Her 3-year-old wouldn't wake up. I was in a coma for a day and they administered (out of desperation) some questionable treatment because the prognosis was so bleak ... and I lived. Of course, there is the brain damage, but that should be obvious from my writing. Otherwise I came through with only a scar on my ankle. (An IV got infected.) The only other side effect was a sense from a very young age that I should be dead, so God must have kept me around for a reason. I'm still waiting to find out what that is.
2. I spent 10 years in the Air Force. It was part of God's amazing work in directing my life. I was uneducated and my big plan was to be a security guard. When I lost that job (and my wife was pregnant), I acted out of desperation and joined the first place I could find that might give me a job skill that would help provide for my family. Ten years and two children later, I had learned electronics and had spent 3 years as a military electronics instructor (which is a good training ground for things like being a Bible teacher). I emerged with skills I never would have acquired "voluntarily" and got a good job right off the bat. I've never looked back.
3. It has been amazing watching God's hand in my life. A prime example was when I got out of the military. I was in the middle of an enlistment period in New York when a friend from a previous assignment called me from California (my home state) and said, "Get out here as fast as you can. I have a great job for you." Of course, I had two years left, so I couldn't ... until the military announced that they were having a force reduction and anyone who wanted out could get out. Well, I couldn't afford to fly to sunny California for an interview. "That's okay," he told me ... and the vice president of the company flew out to interview me. "I would have to have $x to leave the military," I told him, to which he assured me they had planned to start me at $x + $5000. "Oh, you can't get out," my supervisor assured me. "You're the only instructor here with your skills and we're planning to make this the depot for the area. We'll need you and three others like you." Still, the military honorably discharged me. And when we arrived in California, the bad news: "Oh, I'm sorry ... the job we were going to offer you is gone. In fact, we're laying people off." But after a couple of weeks of job searching I went on an interview in another county. "How did you hear about us?" they asked. "I read your ad in the newspaper." "But," they assured me, "we didn't put an ad in the newspaper." For a non-advertised job that was a hallucination of mine, it sure was a good job ... for the next 15 years. Yes, it's been fun to watch God open and close doors as He sees fit whether or not circumstances seemed amenable.
4. Deep down, I'm a rebel. I struggle with this because I like to get along and I don't like the consequences of breaking rules, so part of me doesn't like being a rebel. The result is that I only break rules when they aren't significant rules. I'm talking about rules like "list 8 facts about yourself" or "tag 8 other people". I'm not gonna do it. That's the rebel in me. I can't think of 8 things nor would I wish to inflict this on 8 people. You're just going to have to live with it.
Now, if 8 of you who have blogs and read my blog would like to tag yourselves on my behalf and do this because it's just so much fun for you, have at it. And let me know! I'd love to see what you have to say.
The rules are simple. Each player lists 8 facts/habits about themselves. The rules of the game are posted at the beginning before those facts/habits are listed. At the end of the post, the player then tags 8 people and posts their names, then goes to their blogs and leaves them a comment, letting them know that they have been tagged and asking them to read your blog.
There ... the rules are now posted at the beginning. Well, almost the beginning. Next, I have to come up with 8 things about myself that you don't know. Let's see ...
1. At the age of 3 I contracted spinal meningitis. They tell me it was a strain called "H flu". They tell me that it normally kills within 24 hours. And they tell me that I had it for 24 hours before they figured it out. Mom's first clue? Her 3-year-old wouldn't wake up. I was in a coma for a day and they administered (out of desperation) some questionable treatment because the prognosis was so bleak ... and I lived. Of course, there is the brain damage, but that should be obvious from my writing. Otherwise I came through with only a scar on my ankle. (An IV got infected.) The only other side effect was a sense from a very young age that I should be dead, so God must have kept me around for a reason. I'm still waiting to find out what that is.
2. I spent 10 years in the Air Force. It was part of God's amazing work in directing my life. I was uneducated and my big plan was to be a security guard. When I lost that job (and my wife was pregnant), I acted out of desperation and joined the first place I could find that might give me a job skill that would help provide for my family. Ten years and two children later, I had learned electronics and had spent 3 years as a military electronics instructor (which is a good training ground for things like being a Bible teacher). I emerged with skills I never would have acquired "voluntarily" and got a good job right off the bat. I've never looked back.
3. It has been amazing watching God's hand in my life. A prime example was when I got out of the military. I was in the middle of an enlistment period in New York when a friend from a previous assignment called me from California (my home state) and said, "Get out here as fast as you can. I have a great job for you." Of course, I had two years left, so I couldn't ... until the military announced that they were having a force reduction and anyone who wanted out could get out. Well, I couldn't afford to fly to sunny California for an interview. "That's okay," he told me ... and the vice president of the company flew out to interview me. "I would have to have $x to leave the military," I told him, to which he assured me they had planned to start me at $x + $5000. "Oh, you can't get out," my supervisor assured me. "You're the only instructor here with your skills and we're planning to make this the depot for the area. We'll need you and three others like you." Still, the military honorably discharged me. And when we arrived in California, the bad news: "Oh, I'm sorry ... the job we were going to offer you is gone. In fact, we're laying people off." But after a couple of weeks of job searching I went on an interview in another county. "How did you hear about us?" they asked. "I read your ad in the newspaper." "But," they assured me, "we didn't put an ad in the newspaper." For a non-advertised job that was a hallucination of mine, it sure was a good job ... for the next 15 years. Yes, it's been fun to watch God open and close doors as He sees fit whether or not circumstances seemed amenable.
4. Deep down, I'm a rebel. I struggle with this because I like to get along and I don't like the consequences of breaking rules, so part of me doesn't like being a rebel. The result is that I only break rules when they aren't significant rules. I'm talking about rules like "list 8 facts about yourself" or "tag 8 other people". I'm not gonna do it. That's the rebel in me. I can't think of 8 things nor would I wish to inflict this on 8 people. You're just going to have to live with it.
Now, if 8 of you who have blogs and read my blog would like to tag yourselves on my behalf and do this because it's just so much fun for you, have at it. And let me know! I'd love to see what you have to say.
Workplace Discrimination
Careerbuilder.com, a website for job seekers, has a report out on Discrimination on the American Job. It was an interesting read.
It was interesting because of the terminology. The report was a stufy "on seven diverse groups." The groups they call "diverse" were "African American, Hispanic, Asian, Female, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT), Individuals with disabilities and Mature workers age 50 or older." These are labeled "diverse", which would mean that your average 30-something white male would be ... non-diverse. It seemed like a long way to go to avoid "offensive" terminology.
According to the study, "one-in-five working Americans feel they have faced discrimination on the job." Of the "75,768 discrimination charges" filed last year against employers, they found that "the most frequent charges were race (27,238), followed by sex (23,247) and retaliation against reporting discrimination (22,555). Other frequently cited charge bases were age (16,548), disability (15,575), national origin (8,327) and religion (2,541)."
Just what types of discrimination did the "diverse" group experience?
I happen to be, in the terms of this study, "non-diverse". I have none of the factors that they reported on. I am not black, Asian, or female. I am a heterosexual white male (currently) under the age of 50 with no discernible disabilities. (Oh, yeah, you readers know better -- "This guy's crazy" -- but we'll keep that our secret.) And it's really, really odd because I have experienced all of those discriminatory events. Every single one. But that's a problem, isn't it? I mean, this type of discrimination is brought about because of "diversity discrimination" ... and I'm ... non-diverse. In fact, it is my suspicion that anyone who has spent any time at all in the working world has experienced some or all of these regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age ... whatever you want to list.
It brings up a problem. Over 27,000 reports of racial discrimination in the work place were filed last year. The question is how many were actually because of race and how many were simply perceived to be because of race? How many employers said, "Sorry, I'm not going to promote you because you just aren't working up to our expectations" and the worker assumed a racial discrimination? The same is true for the rest of the discrimination reports. How many are really discrimination, and how many are just because? Are they talking behind your back because you did something stupid or because you're gay? Are they not assigning you to the high profile jobs because you're incompetent or because you're over 50? Are they making derogatory comments because they're humans and Most humans make derogatory comments or is it because you're a woman? How do you know?
As I said, I know it happens. I don't mean to belittle those to whom it has actually happened. But I also know that there is a segment of people who are gunshy -- conspiracy theorists of sorts. They see discrimination around every corner. They are the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton types who are certain that if anything was done, it was done malevolently because of their race. Oh, and by the way, "diverse" people never discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or any such thing. And I have to wonder how many of those complaints are from the alarmists rather than the realists.
Here's what I've seen. This kind of stink gets raised, real or imagined. Lawsuits are filed. People are fired. Companies pay money. And it becomes ugly for everyone. In some cases, "diverse" people become pariahs, where people are afraid to hire them exactly because of lawsuits, not because of discrimination. In other cases, "diverse" people become a millstone. No one dares touch them because they have their finger on that "Discrimination!" button. But they aren't actually working. So everyone else has to pull the extra weight ... without receiving credit ... and getting overlooked for promotion ... without gaining more visibility ... spawning more derogatory comments. Oh, it's just ugly.
So ... what should I do? I've experienced all these discriminatory practices. I'm not in the "diverse" category. Do I file a complaint and throw off all the statistics? Or do I keep quiet and assume it's part of the job? Oh, what to do, what do do?
It was interesting because of the terminology. The report was a stufy "on seven diverse groups." The groups they call "diverse" were "African American, Hispanic, Asian, Female, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT), Individuals with disabilities and Mature workers age 50 or older." These are labeled "diverse", which would mean that your average 30-something white male would be ... non-diverse. It seemed like a long way to go to avoid "offensive" terminology.
According to the study, "one-in-five working Americans feel they have faced discrimination on the job." Of the "75,768 discrimination charges" filed last year against employers, they found that "the most frequent charges were race (27,238), followed by sex (23,247) and retaliation against reporting discrimination (22,555). Other frequently cited charge bases were age (16,548), disability (15,575), national origin (8,327) and religion (2,541)."
Just what types of discrimination did the "diverse" group experience?
- Not receiving credit for one's work (48 percent)Now, I don't want to be perceived as minimizing the problem here. I know it happens. And I don't want to seem blithe about discrimination. I know it happens. And I'm absolutely sure that at times it happens because of factors like race, gender, age, disability, national origin, and religion. And, absolutely, there are laws against it ... as there should be. But, I have to wonder exactly how much it actually happens.
- Not having concerns addressed or taken seriously (42 percent)
- Having co-workers talking behind one's back (33 percent)
- Being overlooked for a promotion (32 percent)
- Not being assigned to projects that will help worker gain more visibility in the company (32 percent)
- Having co-workers say derogatory comments to or in front of worker (31 percent)
- Feeling ideas or input are generally ignored (30 percent)
I happen to be, in the terms of this study, "non-diverse". I have none of the factors that they reported on. I am not black, Asian, or female. I am a heterosexual white male (currently) under the age of 50 with no discernible disabilities. (Oh, yeah, you readers know better -- "This guy's crazy" -- but we'll keep that our secret.) And it's really, really odd because I have experienced all of those discriminatory events. Every single one. But that's a problem, isn't it? I mean, this type of discrimination is brought about because of "diversity discrimination" ... and I'm ... non-diverse. In fact, it is my suspicion that anyone who has spent any time at all in the working world has experienced some or all of these regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age ... whatever you want to list.
It brings up a problem. Over 27,000 reports of racial discrimination in the work place were filed last year. The question is how many were actually because of race and how many were simply perceived to be because of race? How many employers said, "Sorry, I'm not going to promote you because you just aren't working up to our expectations" and the worker assumed a racial discrimination? The same is true for the rest of the discrimination reports. How many are really discrimination, and how many are just because? Are they talking behind your back because you did something stupid or because you're gay? Are they not assigning you to the high profile jobs because you're incompetent or because you're over 50? Are they making derogatory comments because they're humans and Most humans make derogatory comments or is it because you're a woman? How do you know?
As I said, I know it happens. I don't mean to belittle those to whom it has actually happened. But I also know that there is a segment of people who are gunshy -- conspiracy theorists of sorts. They see discrimination around every corner. They are the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton types who are certain that if anything was done, it was done malevolently because of their race. Oh, and by the way, "diverse" people never discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or any such thing. And I have to wonder how many of those complaints are from the alarmists rather than the realists.
Here's what I've seen. This kind of stink gets raised, real or imagined. Lawsuits are filed. People are fired. Companies pay money. And it becomes ugly for everyone. In some cases, "diverse" people become pariahs, where people are afraid to hire them exactly because of lawsuits, not because of discrimination. In other cases, "diverse" people become a millstone. No one dares touch them because they have their finger on that "Discrimination!" button. But they aren't actually working. So everyone else has to pull the extra weight ... without receiving credit ... and getting overlooked for promotion ... without gaining more visibility ... spawning more derogatory comments. Oh, it's just ugly.
So ... what should I do? I've experienced all these discriminatory practices. I'm not in the "diverse" category. Do I file a complaint and throw off all the statistics? Or do I keep quiet and assume it's part of the job? Oh, what to do, what do do?
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Happy Birthday to US
It's July 4th -- American Independence Day. It struck me, with all the negative going around all the time from seemingly everywhere that perhaps I ought to muse for a moment on the positive. So, despite my recent expression of concern, let's take some look at the positives lest we find ourselves ungrateful and short-sighted.
The rest of the world complains about the U.S. because ... well ... from the perspective of the rest of the world we're rich. We're not merely "well off." We're stinkin' rich. Now, I might beg to differ, but it would be futile. I mean, I live from paycheck to paycheck. I can't afford a new car. We don't take exorbitant vacations or own multiple homes. If we wanted to move back to a modest home in southern California where we came from, we simply couldn't afford to do it. We don't use our air conditioning as much as we would like and we conserve on our utilities and we don't buy the best food. But we eat ... every day. We have transportation. We have a house. We have more than one TV and more than one computer and ... more of just about everything than the vast majority of the world. Compared to the rich folks of Beverly Hills or Scottsdale or whatever other rich community you wish to mention, we're not rich. Compared to the world economy we're very rich.
In this country we have freedoms that we take for granted. Humans in general tend to look at the negative. I suspect, in fact, that realists are just as rare as the "pollyannas" of the world. So we complain about our government and we complain about our society and we complain about our churches because there are valid things in just about anything you want to mention that bear complaint. However, we enjoy freedoms that are rare indeed. Here you can find just about every religion known to Man -- protected by law. It is our right to express our opinion, even if that opinion is that the government should be overthrown. George Mitchell said, "What is good about the United States is the sense that you can disagree with the government and not be seen as unpatriotic." I recently wrote about how it is wrong to disrespect our leaders, but it is within your rights to do so -- protected by law. We have unequaled freedoms of speech, religion, and security. We are protected against unwarranted search and seizure. We are promised "innocent until proven guilty". We have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. We abolished slavery, gave other races the right to vote, gave women the right to vote, and limited the term of a President. Sure, you can find problems wherever you wish to look, but the system is truly phenomenal, and very few in the world enjoy such rights as we do.
We can always look for mistakes and blunders in history, but spend a moment today looking at the amazing accomplishments of this great country of ours. We formed a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", something very few others have done. We settled most of this continent, putting to use this great land of ours in ways that few ever envisioned. The Monroe Doctrine told Europe to stay out of the Americas. During a turbulent 19th century we held together a divided country, surviving a civil war and emerging stronger -- without slavery. We survived the Great Depression. We defended Europe against tyrants who would take over the world and stopped Japan from occupying China. We held off Communist North Korea from taking over a free South Korea. President Reagan put an end to the Cold War, loosing the Soviet Union's grip on much of Europe and making them free again. We freed Kuwait from Iraq's ambitions to take their country and freed Afghanistan from the crushing leadership of the Taliban. We have led the world in technology, from space travel to television. We put men on the Moon. No, we're not perfect. We have an imperfect record, but who else can boast the accomplishments of a single nation like ours?
There is a constant complaint today among minorities of American racism and the like. It would, in fact, be foolhardy of me to deny that racism exists. But to what extent? Barak Obama is running for president; who cares that he's black? Where else do you find such varieties of opportunity for such varieties of people without regard for their race, color, or creed? In my neighborhood there are Hispanics, Arabs, blacks, whites, Indians (people from India), Asians ... just about every race you can imagine. No one cares. Your race is irrelevant here. No, we have not achieved perfection in this country on racism, but there are precious few places on this planet that have such diversity and so little racism.
It is a great country. It is not flawless. It may not be improving. We don't have to search hard to find problems. But for all its problems, it is still unequaled in its greatness. I am blessed and grateful to God for being allowed to live in this unique and marvelous "American experiment". Sometimes we ought to stop our complaining long enough to be grateful. Today seems like a good time for it. May God bless America.
The rest of the world complains about the U.S. because ... well ... from the perspective of the rest of the world we're rich. We're not merely "well off." We're stinkin' rich. Now, I might beg to differ, but it would be futile. I mean, I live from paycheck to paycheck. I can't afford a new car. We don't take exorbitant vacations or own multiple homes. If we wanted to move back to a modest home in southern California where we came from, we simply couldn't afford to do it. We don't use our air conditioning as much as we would like and we conserve on our utilities and we don't buy the best food. But we eat ... every day. We have transportation. We have a house. We have more than one TV and more than one computer and ... more of just about everything than the vast majority of the world. Compared to the rich folks of Beverly Hills or Scottsdale or whatever other rich community you wish to mention, we're not rich. Compared to the world economy we're very rich.
In this country we have freedoms that we take for granted. Humans in general tend to look at the negative. I suspect, in fact, that realists are just as rare as the "pollyannas" of the world. So we complain about our government and we complain about our society and we complain about our churches because there are valid things in just about anything you want to mention that bear complaint. However, we enjoy freedoms that are rare indeed. Here you can find just about every religion known to Man -- protected by law. It is our right to express our opinion, even if that opinion is that the government should be overthrown. George Mitchell said, "What is good about the United States is the sense that you can disagree with the government and not be seen as unpatriotic." I recently wrote about how it is wrong to disrespect our leaders, but it is within your rights to do so -- protected by law. We have unequaled freedoms of speech, religion, and security. We are protected against unwarranted search and seizure. We are promised "innocent until proven guilty". We have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. We abolished slavery, gave other races the right to vote, gave women the right to vote, and limited the term of a President. Sure, you can find problems wherever you wish to look, but the system is truly phenomenal, and very few in the world enjoy such rights as we do.
We can always look for mistakes and blunders in history, but spend a moment today looking at the amazing accomplishments of this great country of ours. We formed a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", something very few others have done. We settled most of this continent, putting to use this great land of ours in ways that few ever envisioned. The Monroe Doctrine told Europe to stay out of the Americas. During a turbulent 19th century we held together a divided country, surviving a civil war and emerging stronger -- without slavery. We survived the Great Depression. We defended Europe against tyrants who would take over the world and stopped Japan from occupying China. We held off Communist North Korea from taking over a free South Korea. President Reagan put an end to the Cold War, loosing the Soviet Union's grip on much of Europe and making them free again. We freed Kuwait from Iraq's ambitions to take their country and freed Afghanistan from the crushing leadership of the Taliban. We have led the world in technology, from space travel to television. We put men on the Moon. No, we're not perfect. We have an imperfect record, but who else can boast the accomplishments of a single nation like ours?
There is a constant complaint today among minorities of American racism and the like. It would, in fact, be foolhardy of me to deny that racism exists. But to what extent? Barak Obama is running for president; who cares that he's black? Where else do you find such varieties of opportunity for such varieties of people without regard for their race, color, or creed? In my neighborhood there are Hispanics, Arabs, blacks, whites, Indians (people from India), Asians ... just about every race you can imagine. No one cares. Your race is irrelevant here. No, we have not achieved perfection in this country on racism, but there are precious few places on this planet that have such diversity and so little racism.
It is a great country. It is not flawless. It may not be improving. We don't have to search hard to find problems. But for all its problems, it is still unequaled in its greatness. I am blessed and grateful to God for being allowed to live in this unique and marvelous "American experiment". Sometimes we ought to stop our complaining long enough to be grateful. Today seems like a good time for it. May God bless America.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Sunday School
Is Sunday School our undoing?
I mused recently about what could turn out to be serious damage caused by a "good thing", the United States of America. I'm wondering about "Sunday School" now, one of our "prized possessions". Is it a good thing, or is it a bad thing? I'm not entirely sure.
The idea of Sunday school has its origins back in the 18th century England, but it is better associated with Robert Raikes in the 19th century which was founded to prevent poor kids from descending into a life of crime. Sunday schools today are generally a time parallel to church time that is designed to teach kids about the Bible. It's a chance to provide them with some sort of Christian education, often while their parents are off at the church service. Of course, there are also adult Sunday school classes in many cases, intending to provide adults with a deeper understanding of the Bible and Christian doctrine, but most of us connect "Sunday school" with "children" first and foremost.
"So, Stan, what could possibly be wrong with that? Teaching kids about Christ, providing Christian education ... how could that possibly be a problem?"
I have a couple of concerns about the concept these days, and maybe pointing them out might spur some interest. I've noticed that Sunday school has changed quite a bit since I was a child. When I was young, my Sunday school was parallel to my parents' Sunday school. That is, they would go to their classes and we would go to ours. Then, either before or after, we would go to church. Admittedly I don't recall perfectly, but I think there were always nurseries, but I know that I sat every Sunday in church with my parents for as long as I can remember. I learned some interesting lessons there. I learned that there were times that I had to dress up and times that I couldn't talk loud and times when I wasn't able to simply run around and do what I wanted. I had to figure out ways to be quiet while adults were doing things that I didn't understand, and it wasn't long before I figured out that one of the better ways to keep quiet was to try to figure out what the adults were doing. So my mom gave me paper and I'd listen to that long-winded sermon and write questions about what he said so that they could tell me over dinner (When I was a kid, "dinner" was the main meal, and the main meal on Sunday was lunch.) what the pastor was talking about.
It was really some time ago that this changed. I remember walking into a Calvary Chapel in the early 80's with my 10-year-old niece who was visiting and being told, "She can't come in here. You'll have to take her to Sunday school." What? Children were not allowed in the sanctuary? Why? "They're too often distracting." Oh, I see, so because parents refuse to control their children, children are not allowed to be in church. "So," I wondered, "when do children learn to be in church?" No one really had an answer. (And I didn't go back to that Calvary Chapel, big name preacher and all notwithstanding.) Now we have children's classes that are designed to remove them from church. Some start there. Others are "excused" before the sermon. But children are not expected or allowed to sit in the sanctuary and listen to the sermon until they are old enough to know how to do that. Parents are not taught how to teach their kids how to do that. Sunday schools don't teach the kids how to do that. It's just assumed, I guess, that after a certain age (likely teen age) they become "well-behaved" (which is ludicrous if you consider the typical behavior of teens). To me, this is a problem.
The other big problem with Sunday school is a problem with regular school as well, only bigger. Many of us send our kids to school to teach them stuff they need so that we don't have to. Likely we feel inadequate to the task. Most are occupied with their occupations and don't really have the time. Besides, we have professionals to do the job. We don't need to teach them to read and write and do 'rithmetic because someone who has been taught how to do it will do it. And so our kids are sent off to school (public or private) and, according to some studies, not learn what they should be learning from those who are best prepared and paid to teach them. And then we get to Sunday school. Most Sunday school teachers are folks that have a heart for kids. They don't mind sitting out from the church service because they really want to teach the kids. Of course, they aren't trained teachers. They don't have any special teaching education. But, hey, it's just Sunday school, and, I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure that trained teachers are any better than untrained. Besides, they have good tools. They have displays and videos and storybooks. When I was in Sunday school we were entranced with the flannel boards, but now they can sit and show them a Veggie Tales movie and the kids will be quiet and, hopefully, learn something. They have crafts and things to keep the kids occupied. Nothing like a stick figure made from popsicle sticks to teach them about Noah and the ark. And parents are happy. They have a brief respite (very brief in some churches) from the kids and the kids are learning what they need.
They are learning what they need, right? I mean, they're in "school" for pity's sake. The teachers generally care about the kids and they have tools. What more could you ask? Well, unfortunately, there is a dearth of doctrinal foundation in the church today. Teachers with big hearts unfortunately often don't possess the biblical depth to pass on to the kids. And parents, thinking that their kids are getting all they need in Sunday school, fail to do their job -- "train up a child in the way he should go." Like their general education, parents leave the spiritual education of their children in the hands of others. Why? Well, surely it's good enough, isn't it? And besides, we're not qualified to teach them. (Remember, the primary qualifications of Sunday school teachers are 1) willingness, and 2) caring about the kids.) So we shortchange our kids, shortchange ourselves (because any teacher will tell you that they always learn far more than their students do), and sin in refusing to be the parents that God requires us to be.
Sunday school was a good idea. It likely still has many good uses. I know it was valuable for me when I was growing up. I am concerned, however, that today's Sunday school has become dangerous. It removes children from church where they likely ought to be and removes parents from the responsibility that God has given them to train their children. It provides an excuse for sin all in the name of "peace in the church service" and "better education for children", resulting in untrained children. I know. There are exceptions. If yours is an exception to these problems, let's just say another "Thank you" to the Father. But I fear that too many parents and too many churches are allowing a good thing to be abused and turning what was good into an excuse to sin. That could be the undoing of some.
I mused recently about what could turn out to be serious damage caused by a "good thing", the United States of America. I'm wondering about "Sunday School" now, one of our "prized possessions". Is it a good thing, or is it a bad thing? I'm not entirely sure.
The idea of Sunday school has its origins back in the 18th century England, but it is better associated with Robert Raikes in the 19th century which was founded to prevent poor kids from descending into a life of crime. Sunday schools today are generally a time parallel to church time that is designed to teach kids about the Bible. It's a chance to provide them with some sort of Christian education, often while their parents are off at the church service. Of course, there are also adult Sunday school classes in many cases, intending to provide adults with a deeper understanding of the Bible and Christian doctrine, but most of us connect "Sunday school" with "children" first and foremost.
"So, Stan, what could possibly be wrong with that? Teaching kids about Christ, providing Christian education ... how could that possibly be a problem?"
I have a couple of concerns about the concept these days, and maybe pointing them out might spur some interest. I've noticed that Sunday school has changed quite a bit since I was a child. When I was young, my Sunday school was parallel to my parents' Sunday school. That is, they would go to their classes and we would go to ours. Then, either before or after, we would go to church. Admittedly I don't recall perfectly, but I think there were always nurseries, but I know that I sat every Sunday in church with my parents for as long as I can remember. I learned some interesting lessons there. I learned that there were times that I had to dress up and times that I couldn't talk loud and times when I wasn't able to simply run around and do what I wanted. I had to figure out ways to be quiet while adults were doing things that I didn't understand, and it wasn't long before I figured out that one of the better ways to keep quiet was to try to figure out what the adults were doing. So my mom gave me paper and I'd listen to that long-winded sermon and write questions about what he said so that they could tell me over dinner (When I was a kid, "dinner" was the main meal, and the main meal on Sunday was lunch.) what the pastor was talking about.
It was really some time ago that this changed. I remember walking into a Calvary Chapel in the early 80's with my 10-year-old niece who was visiting and being told, "She can't come in here. You'll have to take her to Sunday school." What? Children were not allowed in the sanctuary? Why? "They're too often distracting." Oh, I see, so because parents refuse to control their children, children are not allowed to be in church. "So," I wondered, "when do children learn to be in church?" No one really had an answer. (And I didn't go back to that Calvary Chapel, big name preacher and all notwithstanding.) Now we have children's classes that are designed to remove them from church. Some start there. Others are "excused" before the sermon. But children are not expected or allowed to sit in the sanctuary and listen to the sermon until they are old enough to know how to do that. Parents are not taught how to teach their kids how to do that. Sunday schools don't teach the kids how to do that. It's just assumed, I guess, that after a certain age (likely teen age) they become "well-behaved" (which is ludicrous if you consider the typical behavior of teens). To me, this is a problem.
The other big problem with Sunday school is a problem with regular school as well, only bigger. Many of us send our kids to school to teach them stuff they need so that we don't have to. Likely we feel inadequate to the task. Most are occupied with their occupations and don't really have the time. Besides, we have professionals to do the job. We don't need to teach them to read and write and do 'rithmetic because someone who has been taught how to do it will do it. And so our kids are sent off to school (public or private) and, according to some studies, not learn what they should be learning from those who are best prepared and paid to teach them. And then we get to Sunday school. Most Sunday school teachers are folks that have a heart for kids. They don't mind sitting out from the church service because they really want to teach the kids. Of course, they aren't trained teachers. They don't have any special teaching education. But, hey, it's just Sunday school, and, I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure that trained teachers are any better than untrained. Besides, they have good tools. They have displays and videos and storybooks. When I was in Sunday school we were entranced with the flannel boards, but now they can sit and show them a Veggie Tales movie and the kids will be quiet and, hopefully, learn something. They have crafts and things to keep the kids occupied. Nothing like a stick figure made from popsicle sticks to teach them about Noah and the ark. And parents are happy. They have a brief respite (very brief in some churches) from the kids and the kids are learning what they need.
They are learning what they need, right? I mean, they're in "school" for pity's sake. The teachers generally care about the kids and they have tools. What more could you ask? Well, unfortunately, there is a dearth of doctrinal foundation in the church today. Teachers with big hearts unfortunately often don't possess the biblical depth to pass on to the kids. And parents, thinking that their kids are getting all they need in Sunday school, fail to do their job -- "train up a child in the way he should go." Like their general education, parents leave the spiritual education of their children in the hands of others. Why? Well, surely it's good enough, isn't it? And besides, we're not qualified to teach them. (Remember, the primary qualifications of Sunday school teachers are 1) willingness, and 2) caring about the kids.) So we shortchange our kids, shortchange ourselves (because any teacher will tell you that they always learn far more than their students do), and sin in refusing to be the parents that God requires us to be.
Sunday school was a good idea. It likely still has many good uses. I know it was valuable for me when I was growing up. I am concerned, however, that today's Sunday school has become dangerous. It removes children from church where they likely ought to be and removes parents from the responsibility that God has given them to train their children. It provides an excuse for sin all in the name of "peace in the church service" and "better education for children", resulting in untrained children. I know. There are exceptions. If yours is an exception to these problems, let's just say another "Thank you" to the Father. But I fear that too many parents and too many churches are allowing a good thing to be abused and turning what was good into an excuse to sin. That could be the undoing of some.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Emergency
Okay ... confused again. Why is the Midwest Emergent Gathering having the eBay Atheist speak at their conference on "how to create a missional faith community"? And why would a self-proclaimed Christian organization wonder why the rest of us are seriously concerned when they draw some of their direction from an anti-Christian?
The Obsolete Male
What do we learn from this? The headline: Will science render men unnecessary? It seems that some scientists have made artificial sperm from human bone marrow. There you have it. Never mind that the truth is that they have managed to make "something that resembles an immature sperm cell." Men are unnecessary.
I guess we learn what society in general has come to think of the male gender. We are sperm donors ... nothing more. We are not fathers in the sense of a necessary member of a family structure that offers vital input to his children. We are not husbands, highly recommended, a nearly indispensable part of a "married couple" that form the structure called "parents". We are not protectors of the family, providers for the home, role models for children ... oh, anything of any real necessity at all in the lives of women and children. Gone are the days when people felt badly for women who had to raise children without a husband or for children who were facing the unfortunate trial of being without a father. We are unnecessary. We are simply sperm donors ... and that could change.
In this day of "sexual equality", it's interesting how things have devolved. Put together a mixed gender group of open-minded people and, on the topic of sexual equality, discuss the question, "What do women do better than men?" You'll likely get a reasonable list. They're more nurturing. They're better at multitasking. Men and women alike will contribute suggestions, because we're open-minded and we all know and can freely admit that there are some things that women do better than men. Good! Now ask the reverse. "What do men do better than women?" I suspect that you'll get nothing but awkward silence. There are two reasons. Either the group doesn't recognize anything that men do better or they are unwilling to admit it. It would be incorrect, somehow, to list those things. So much for gender equality.
If men are primarily sperm donors, what else is their contribution to society? Well, as we all know, almost all sexual crimes are committed by men. Oh, sure, there are women committing prostitution, but that is simply due to a male market, isn't it? Rarely do you find a woman pedophile, rapist, or the like. No, no, that's a guy thing. In fact, most violent crimes are committed by males. It's a surprise when you hear that a woman commits a violent crime. That's a guy thing. There is a perception that more men leave their wives than wives who leave their husbands, and that adultery is primarily a male problem. (Seriously, think about it. If a husband commits adultery, he's a "horn dog" or some such. If a woman commits adultery, it was simply because her husband wasn't giving her what she needed, poor thing.) Women don't start wars; men do. It's a guy thing. According to the most common stereotypes, men are active, aggressive, energetic, physical, and risk-taking, while women are sensitive, whiny, social, and striving to please others. Great! In other words, men contribute sperm, crime, and violence to society.
I'm not really surprised at this perception. The women's movement has largely gone unchallenged, mostly because the things they were arguing had merit, even if the core was faulty. So we ignored the core and swallowed the whole apple, not realizing there were worms in it. I am disappointed that Christians have so eagerly devoured this apple. Their view on the subject shouldn't come from the popular world perspective, the women's movement, or even the people around them. It should come from the source book written by the Creator of human beings. Sadly, even among Christians, that perception is being discarded.
What do we learn from the biblical perspective about men? We learn several things that are counter to the popular perceptions of the day. We learn that God takes a decidedly patriarchal view of families. He is always referred to as "the God of your fathers". He always prescribed things in terms of fatherly lines. (See, for instance, Exo. 6:14, Num. 1:2, and Heb. 1:1. It is a very long list. These are merely examples.) holds men responsible for the family's spiritual health (Exo. 20:5; Num. 14:33; Gal. 4:1-2). He commands fathers, "Do not exasperate your children" (Col. 3:21) because He holds fathers responsible for the proper discipline and teaching of children. (Don't misunderstand. That doesn't require that the father perform all the discipline and teaching. It means that he must manage it and is responsible for it.) He holds husbands responsible for wives (1 Cor. 11:3, for instance). While it is certainly a fine thing if a woman provides an income to a family (Prov. 31:16, 24), it is to the husband that the Scriptures say, "If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). Instead of being peripheral at best and detrimental at worst to anything having to do with wives, families, and society, the Bible places men at the center.
Men have long failed to meet their responsibilities. That is partly due to their sin nature. That is partly due to societal failures. It is partly due to women who have failed to ask them to meet their responsibilities. But one thing it is not -- it is not because they don't have those responsibilities. And it is not because men are irrelevant and detrimental to society in general and families in particular. God ordained their roles and responsibilities. A failure to meet them does not negate what God says. And a society that has rejected God doesn't get to determine what the people of God think. They may decide that men are peripheral, but let's not let them tell God that He was mistaken, at least in our own thinking. Let's choose instead to stick with a biblical perspective and recognize when the world is feeding us their garbage so we can reject it. There has already been too much eating of bad apples, don't you think?
I guess we learn what society in general has come to think of the male gender. We are sperm donors ... nothing more. We are not fathers in the sense of a necessary member of a family structure that offers vital input to his children. We are not husbands, highly recommended, a nearly indispensable part of a "married couple" that form the structure called "parents". We are not protectors of the family, providers for the home, role models for children ... oh, anything of any real necessity at all in the lives of women and children. Gone are the days when people felt badly for women who had to raise children without a husband or for children who were facing the unfortunate trial of being without a father. We are unnecessary. We are simply sperm donors ... and that could change.
In this day of "sexual equality", it's interesting how things have devolved. Put together a mixed gender group of open-minded people and, on the topic of sexual equality, discuss the question, "What do women do better than men?" You'll likely get a reasonable list. They're more nurturing. They're better at multitasking. Men and women alike will contribute suggestions, because we're open-minded and we all know and can freely admit that there are some things that women do better than men. Good! Now ask the reverse. "What do men do better than women?" I suspect that you'll get nothing but awkward silence. There are two reasons. Either the group doesn't recognize anything that men do better or they are unwilling to admit it. It would be incorrect, somehow, to list those things. So much for gender equality.
If men are primarily sperm donors, what else is their contribution to society? Well, as we all know, almost all sexual crimes are committed by men. Oh, sure, there are women committing prostitution, but that is simply due to a male market, isn't it? Rarely do you find a woman pedophile, rapist, or the like. No, no, that's a guy thing. In fact, most violent crimes are committed by males. It's a surprise when you hear that a woman commits a violent crime. That's a guy thing. There is a perception that more men leave their wives than wives who leave their husbands, and that adultery is primarily a male problem. (Seriously, think about it. If a husband commits adultery, he's a "horn dog" or some such. If a woman commits adultery, it was simply because her husband wasn't giving her what she needed, poor thing.) Women don't start wars; men do. It's a guy thing. According to the most common stereotypes, men are active, aggressive, energetic, physical, and risk-taking, while women are sensitive, whiny, social, and striving to please others. Great! In other words, men contribute sperm, crime, and violence to society.
I'm not really surprised at this perception. The women's movement has largely gone unchallenged, mostly because the things they were arguing had merit, even if the core was faulty. So we ignored the core and swallowed the whole apple, not realizing there were worms in it. I am disappointed that Christians have so eagerly devoured this apple. Their view on the subject shouldn't come from the popular world perspective, the women's movement, or even the people around them. It should come from the source book written by the Creator of human beings. Sadly, even among Christians, that perception is being discarded.
What do we learn from the biblical perspective about men? We learn several things that are counter to the popular perceptions of the day. We learn that God takes a decidedly patriarchal view of families. He is always referred to as "the God of your fathers". He always prescribed things in terms of fatherly lines. (See, for instance, Exo. 6:14, Num. 1:2, and Heb. 1:1. It is a very long list. These are merely examples.) holds men responsible for the family's spiritual health (Exo. 20:5; Num. 14:33; Gal. 4:1-2). He commands fathers, "Do not exasperate your children" (Col. 3:21) because He holds fathers responsible for the proper discipline and teaching of children. (Don't misunderstand. That doesn't require that the father perform all the discipline and teaching. It means that he must manage it and is responsible for it.) He holds husbands responsible for wives (1 Cor. 11:3, for instance). While it is certainly a fine thing if a woman provides an income to a family (Prov. 31:16, 24), it is to the husband that the Scriptures say, "If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). Instead of being peripheral at best and detrimental at worst to anything having to do with wives, families, and society, the Bible places men at the center.
Men have long failed to meet their responsibilities. That is partly due to their sin nature. That is partly due to societal failures. It is partly due to women who have failed to ask them to meet their responsibilities. But one thing it is not -- it is not because they don't have those responsibilities. And it is not because men are irrelevant and detrimental to society in general and families in particular. God ordained their roles and responsibilities. A failure to meet them does not negate what God says. And a society that has rejected God doesn't get to determine what the people of God think. They may decide that men are peripheral, but let's not let them tell God that He was mistaken, at least in our own thinking. Let's choose instead to stick with a biblical perspective and recognize when the world is feeding us their garbage so we can reject it. There has already been too much eating of bad apples, don't you think?
Sunday, July 01, 2007
I'd Rather Have Jesus
Okay, last week's hymn was rather stuffy, perhaps, although I loved it myself. How about a "more contemporary" hymn?
In Philippians 1, Paul writes, "For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain." Paul's focus was on the greater glory of God. Paul, writing from Roman imprisonment, awaiting possible execution, recognized the true purpose of life Christ. Given this focus, living would further the cause of Christ and dying would put him in the presence of his beloved Savior. Paul's position was a no lose proposition. Regardless of the outcome, Paul would gain.
This song carries the same focus. "I'd rather have Jesus." For most of us, to live is something other than Christ. Life consists of silver or gold, riches and the quest for it, property, power, or applause. We want so many other things other than Christ. The problem is, all of that is lost at death. If, for me, to live is wealth, power, or fame, then to die is loss. It is only in a sole focus on Jesus that we can obtain gain here and in death. We need that eternal focus.
Some of our reasons for failing this focus are hinted at in the song. One is the bright baubles offered by the world. We've bought into the lie that success is measured in dollars. We believe that power is worth something. We long for our much vaunted "15 minutes of fame." All are lies, offering nothing of eternal value.
On the negative side, what Christ seems to offer is unwanted or inconsequential. His nail pierced hands are a sad reminder of sin, our sin. Our culture doesn't want to face personal sin. Then there is His "dear cause." We consider that irrelevant to our lives. His "holy Name" is little more than an expletive to us. How sad that we fail so miserably to see the truth.
In truth, His nail pierced hands represent ultimate victory over sin and death, a feat unequalled anywhere. His cause encompasses paths and plans we can't even comprehend. His holy Name is the Name, the Name above all names. It is sheer foolishness not to align ourselves with Him, and our failure to see that is proof of the deceitfulness of our hearts (Jer. 17:9).
The songwriter recognized this truth and more. "I'd rather have Jesus than anything this world affords today." Why? Because of the victory of the cross. Because of the richness of His plans. Because of His sovereignty. And more. His beauty exceeds our comprehension. The lily pales in comparison. His sweetness is beyond our experience. Honey doesn't hint at it. The fact is, while we believe that money, power, or recognition are necessities in life, Christ is all we need.
This viewpoint alters our entire approach to life. If what we think is necessary isn't necessary, what is? Christ is. A relationship with the sovereign Lord is. A connection with the omnipotent, omniscient, loving God is. A realization that "He is God and I am not" is. These are necessary. Pursuit of anything this world has to offer is a waste. How much of your life are you wasting? Is Jesus your focus?
I'd Rather Have JesusOriginally a poem by Rhea Miller, the song was set to music and popularized by George Beverly Shea. It demonstrates a focus almost unknown in the church today.
I'd rather have Jesus than silver or gold,
I'd rather be His than have riches untold;
I'd rather have Jesus than houses or land,
I'd rather be led by His nail-pierced hand:
Refrain
Than to be the king of a vast domain or be held in sin's dread sway!
I'd rather have Jesus than anything this world affords today.
I'd rather have Jesus than men's applause,
I'd rather be faithful to His dear cause;
I'd rather have Jesus than worldwide fame,
I'd rather be true to His holy name:
He's fairer than lilies of rarest bloom,
He's sweeter than honey from out of the comb;
He's all that my hungering spirit needs -
I'd rather have Jesus and let Him lead:
In Philippians 1, Paul writes, "For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain." Paul's focus was on the greater glory of God. Paul, writing from Roman imprisonment, awaiting possible execution, recognized the true purpose of life Christ. Given this focus, living would further the cause of Christ and dying would put him in the presence of his beloved Savior. Paul's position was a no lose proposition. Regardless of the outcome, Paul would gain.
This song carries the same focus. "I'd rather have Jesus." For most of us, to live is something other than Christ. Life consists of silver or gold, riches and the quest for it, property, power, or applause. We want so many other things other than Christ. The problem is, all of that is lost at death. If, for me, to live is wealth, power, or fame, then to die is loss. It is only in a sole focus on Jesus that we can obtain gain here and in death. We need that eternal focus.
Some of our reasons for failing this focus are hinted at in the song. One is the bright baubles offered by the world. We've bought into the lie that success is measured in dollars. We believe that power is worth something. We long for our much vaunted "15 minutes of fame." All are lies, offering nothing of eternal value.
On the negative side, what Christ seems to offer is unwanted or inconsequential. His nail pierced hands are a sad reminder of sin, our sin. Our culture doesn't want to face personal sin. Then there is His "dear cause." We consider that irrelevant to our lives. His "holy Name" is little more than an expletive to us. How sad that we fail so miserably to see the truth.
In truth, His nail pierced hands represent ultimate victory over sin and death, a feat unequalled anywhere. His cause encompasses paths and plans we can't even comprehend. His holy Name is the Name, the Name above all names. It is sheer foolishness not to align ourselves with Him, and our failure to see that is proof of the deceitfulness of our hearts (Jer. 17:9).
The songwriter recognized this truth and more. "I'd rather have Jesus than anything this world affords today." Why? Because of the victory of the cross. Because of the richness of His plans. Because of His sovereignty. And more. His beauty exceeds our comprehension. The lily pales in comparison. His sweetness is beyond our experience. Honey doesn't hint at it. The fact is, while we believe that money, power, or recognition are necessities in life, Christ is all we need.
This viewpoint alters our entire approach to life. If what we think is necessary isn't necessary, what is? Christ is. A relationship with the sovereign Lord is. A connection with the omnipotent, omniscient, loving God is. A realization that "He is God and I am not" is. These are necessary. Pursuit of anything this world has to offer is a waste. How much of your life are you wasting? Is Jesus your focus?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Discrimination is Good?
The headline reads Supreme Court Quashes School Desegregation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot decide who goes to school where solely on the basis of race. It's a bad thing. We all know it. Or, at least, to hear the public outcry it is. According to the NPR story, it's "a clear blow to the concept of racial diversity."
The case stems from, for one, an event at a school in Seattle. A white family moved to a neighborhood to get their white child into a particular school. The school refused to allow the child into their school, requiring instead that she travel half an hour across town to go to another school. This, the protesters claim, is racism. Wait! No. They're proclaiming that it's discrimination against black people. Hold on. Once again, I'm confused.
I'm confused about the argument that government should discriminate on the basis of race. That, they say, is the right thing to do. That, they say, is more non-racist than the reverse. I don't get it.
I'm confused because from my observation most people who live in particular neighborhoods populated by particular ethnic groups do so by choice. Chinatowns are not Chinatowns because Chinese people are forced to live there; they live there by choice. Korean neighborhoods are typically Korean neighborhoods by choice. White people live with white people because they want to, and black people live in black neighborhoods because they want to. Admittedly it's a generalization, but I think that for the most part it is true. Most people prefer to live with those with whom they are most comfortable, and most people are most comfortable with people like themselves. That also means that rich white people prefer to live in rich white neighborhoods rather than middle-class white neighborhoods because the rich white people are more like them than the middle-class white people. It's not racism; it's xenophobia. Look it up. Human beings are, largely, xenophobic. They are afraid of the foreign -- anything that is not like them. If it's not a different skin color, it's a different language or a different religion or a different income level. It's not "white" -- it's human. The primary reason that predominantly black schools are predominantly black is not due to racism, but because black people have chosen to congregate in an area. The same is true in predominantly white schools.
I'm confused because I went to an "integrated school". In high school I was in a school that was part of a racial integration plan. Hispanics were bussed from the Hispanic area and blacks were bussed from the black area and rich whites were bussed from the rich white area and me ... well, I was a middle-class white boy who lived near the school, so I went there, too. What I observed, however, was not integration. What I observed was self-imposed segregation. Sure, we all went to school together, but the Hispanics hung out over here and the blacks hung out over there and the rich whites hung out across the way and the middle class whites hung out someplace else. Me? I was never given the proper training. I didn't know that I was supposed to be part of a cliqué. I didn't know I was supposed to discriminate on the basis of race or income. I had friends in all groups. Three of us in particular hung out together because we knew each other from church. There was me, the token white kid, with Clarence, a blind black kid, and Dan, a kid whose mom was from Columbia and whose dad was from Chile. They teased us, of course. They called us "the United Nations". I didn't think that was a bad thing. So we were friends through high school. We weren't "integrated" because of bussing. We were integrated because no one remembered to tell us we weren't supposed to be.
I'm confused because it appeared that the complaints center around "diversity". Apparently, and without telling me, the concept of "diversity" has become an absolute moral imperative. It is "good". It benefits everything it touches. Any attempt to block it is "evil" and anywhere that it is not will suffer loss because of its absence. I, of course, have never figured that one out. We don't want "diversity" in the arrangements of public bathrooms. Men's rooms should be for men and women's for women. We don't want diversity there. It's odd that most people are quite sure that women should be allowed to play on men's teams, but men are not allowed to play on women's teams. Wouldn't diversity be good there? When you're an engineering company designing a technical product, would it be good to have a white and a black engineer instead of two white engineers? I don't know what difference that would make. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not against diversity. Exposing people in certain conditions to things with which they are not familiar or comfortable can be a good thing. I'm just saying that the present perspective that "Diversity is always good in all circumstances and those who disagree are immoral and unkind" doesn't make sense.
I don't get it. I don't get it at all. The NAACP is upset because they are saying that government should discriminate on the basis of race? Is that really what we want to see? It seems to me that the way we stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. And now that they have ruled that in this case the government shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race, that's a bad thing? Someone ... anyone ... help me out here. I don't get it.
The case stems from, for one, an event at a school in Seattle. A white family moved to a neighborhood to get their white child into a particular school. The school refused to allow the child into their school, requiring instead that she travel half an hour across town to go to another school. This, the protesters claim, is racism. Wait! No. They're proclaiming that it's discrimination against black people. Hold on. Once again, I'm confused.
I'm confused about the argument that government should discriminate on the basis of race. That, they say, is the right thing to do. That, they say, is more non-racist than the reverse. I don't get it.
I'm confused because from my observation most people who live in particular neighborhoods populated by particular ethnic groups do so by choice. Chinatowns are not Chinatowns because Chinese people are forced to live there; they live there by choice. Korean neighborhoods are typically Korean neighborhoods by choice. White people live with white people because they want to, and black people live in black neighborhoods because they want to. Admittedly it's a generalization, but I think that for the most part it is true. Most people prefer to live with those with whom they are most comfortable, and most people are most comfortable with people like themselves. That also means that rich white people prefer to live in rich white neighborhoods rather than middle-class white neighborhoods because the rich white people are more like them than the middle-class white people. It's not racism; it's xenophobia. Look it up. Human beings are, largely, xenophobic. They are afraid of the foreign -- anything that is not like them. If it's not a different skin color, it's a different language or a different religion or a different income level. It's not "white" -- it's human. The primary reason that predominantly black schools are predominantly black is not due to racism, but because black people have chosen to congregate in an area. The same is true in predominantly white schools.
I'm confused because I went to an "integrated school". In high school I was in a school that was part of a racial integration plan. Hispanics were bussed from the Hispanic area and blacks were bussed from the black area and rich whites were bussed from the rich white area and me ... well, I was a middle-class white boy who lived near the school, so I went there, too. What I observed, however, was not integration. What I observed was self-imposed segregation. Sure, we all went to school together, but the Hispanics hung out over here and the blacks hung out over there and the rich whites hung out across the way and the middle class whites hung out someplace else. Me? I was never given the proper training. I didn't know that I was supposed to be part of a cliqué. I didn't know I was supposed to discriminate on the basis of race or income. I had friends in all groups. Three of us in particular hung out together because we knew each other from church. There was me, the token white kid, with Clarence, a blind black kid, and Dan, a kid whose mom was from Columbia and whose dad was from Chile. They teased us, of course. They called us "the United Nations". I didn't think that was a bad thing. So we were friends through high school. We weren't "integrated" because of bussing. We were integrated because no one remembered to tell us we weren't supposed to be.
I'm confused because it appeared that the complaints center around "diversity". Apparently, and without telling me, the concept of "diversity" has become an absolute moral imperative. It is "good". It benefits everything it touches. Any attempt to block it is "evil" and anywhere that it is not will suffer loss because of its absence. I, of course, have never figured that one out. We don't want "diversity" in the arrangements of public bathrooms. Men's rooms should be for men and women's for women. We don't want diversity there. It's odd that most people are quite sure that women should be allowed to play on men's teams, but men are not allowed to play on women's teams. Wouldn't diversity be good there? When you're an engineering company designing a technical product, would it be good to have a white and a black engineer instead of two white engineers? I don't know what difference that would make. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not against diversity. Exposing people in certain conditions to things with which they are not familiar or comfortable can be a good thing. I'm just saying that the present perspective that "Diversity is always good in all circumstances and those who disagree are immoral and unkind" doesn't make sense.
I don't get it. I don't get it at all. The NAACP is upset because they are saying that government should discriminate on the basis of race? Is that really what we want to see? It seems to me that the way we stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. And now that they have ruled that in this case the government shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race, that's a bad thing? Someone ... anyone ... help me out here. I don't get it.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Talking about Leaders
I'm reading in Acts these days. Good stuff. In Acts 23, Paul is taken before the Sanhedrin. Paul makes the simple claim, "I have a clear conscience", and the high priest, Ananias, orders someone to slap that man. Paul says, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?" (Acts 23:3). It seems like a reasonable response, but those standing near him warn him that he's speaking to the high priest. Notice his response to this news. "I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people'" (Acts 23:5). Paul withdraws his comment, which seemed perfectly suitable, because Paul believed that the comment violated God's command of Exodus 22:28, which he understood to say, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people."
Yes, yes, I know. That was then. That was a different time. And, yes, I know, "We are no longer under the Law." A different time; a different law. Okay. But I find it fascinating that Paul didn't seem to think that, even though he was right and even though he was the one who wrote, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (Gal. 5:18), he didn't believe that it was right to speak evil of a ruler of the people. It didn't matter that Ananias was twisted, himself violating the Law. It didn't matter that Paul was right and Ananias was wrong. It didn't even matter that Paul withheld personal judgment while leaving it in God's hands ("God is going to strike you."). Paul believed, despite the fact that the ruler was wrong and that Paul was not "under the Law" that it was wrong for Paul to speak evil of a ruler.
Where does that leave us? I see it all the time. Oh, I know, non-Christians hate our current government, and they will speak evil of it all the time. But what is the Christian excuse? What is my excuse? If I don't think that the president or the Congress is doing the right thing, am I within my rights as a Christian to "speak evil of a ruler of the people"? If I am, why am I? I mean, what changed? When did God change His mind on that count? Why was Paul right for withdrawing his statement but we Christians are perfectly right in verbally raking our leadership over the coals?
When I was a kid, my mother told me, "You can disagree with me, but you have to show me respect when you do it." When I got to be an adult and joined the military, they told me, "You don't have to respect the man, but you must respect the office." And it is exactly this that concerns me. Have we Christians become so immersed in the world that we think that we can do what they do? I wonder because we read in Rom 13:1,
"There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." We may disagree with those in authority, but if they are established by God, isn't our obligation to show respect? And even though we disagree with them, if we disrespect them aren't we disrespecting God?
Well, here I am again, wondering.
Yes, yes, I know. That was then. That was a different time. And, yes, I know, "We are no longer under the Law." A different time; a different law. Okay. But I find it fascinating that Paul didn't seem to think that, even though he was right and even though he was the one who wrote, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (Gal. 5:18), he didn't believe that it was right to speak evil of a ruler of the people. It didn't matter that Ananias was twisted, himself violating the Law. It didn't matter that Paul was right and Ananias was wrong. It didn't even matter that Paul withheld personal judgment while leaving it in God's hands ("God is going to strike you."). Paul believed, despite the fact that the ruler was wrong and that Paul was not "under the Law" that it was wrong for Paul to speak evil of a ruler.
Where does that leave us? I see it all the time. Oh, I know, non-Christians hate our current government, and they will speak evil of it all the time. But what is the Christian excuse? What is my excuse? If I don't think that the president or the Congress is doing the right thing, am I within my rights as a Christian to "speak evil of a ruler of the people"? If I am, why am I? I mean, what changed? When did God change His mind on that count? Why was Paul right for withdrawing his statement but we Christians are perfectly right in verbally raking our leadership over the coals?
When I was a kid, my mother told me, "You can disagree with me, but you have to show me respect when you do it." When I got to be an adult and joined the military, they told me, "You don't have to respect the man, but you must respect the office." And it is exactly this that concerns me. Have we Christians become so immersed in the world that we think that we can do what they do? I wonder because we read in Rom 13:1,
"There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." We may disagree with those in authority, but if they are established by God, isn't our obligation to show respect? And even though we disagree with them, if we disrespect them aren't we disrespecting God?
Well, here I am again, wondering.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Choice is Yours
"Christ gave His life so that we would have the opportunity to choose life." I don't know if that's word for word what is commonly believed, but it's basically the idea. God wants people to freely choose Him. People lack the capacity to save themselves. So He sent His Son to die for us so that we can now choose Him. Of course, the most common belief is that we choose Him -- place our faith in Him -- and then we're born again. Regeneration follows faith.
The cornerstone of this very common perspective is human free will. Remember, God wants people to freely choose Him. Most people accept without challenge that God doesn't want robots. And it goes without saying that if humans don't have the capacity to make choices, they can't be held responsible for their choices, good or bad. But there is a problem with this concept that has been termed "decisional regeneration".
Let me illustrate the problem with an everyday example. It is said that God has done 99.9% of what is required to save us and that we need to do the last 0.1% -- choose Him. Consider a parallel. Who is responsible for turning on the lights in your home? You don't generate the power. You don't run the wires from the generator to your house. You don't run the wires in your home or make the lights. But when it comes down to it, you are responsible for turning on the lights in your home. It's not a great effort. Throw a switch. That's it. Still, without your effort, as minimal as it is, no light would occur in the dark room. The power company isn't responsible. The electrician isn't responsible. The light manufacturer isn't responsible. You are. In the end, you determine whether there will be light in your house.
This is the problem with decisional regeneration. Lay as much as you want at the foot of Christ. Say that He has done the lion's share of the work. Argue that He has done almost all of what is required to provide salvation for us. In the end, if it is our decision that determines whether or not we are saved, it is we who are responsible. And that is the end of grace. It is your responsibility and the direct result of your decision and that is meritorious. In the end, God only made something possible, but you made it real ... something God couldn't or wouldn't do.
You see, if the popular perspective is true, we humans have become huge. We have acted while dead to accomplish something that God didn't. We have managed something really, really miraculous. That's something to be proud of, and the fact that someone else generated the power, ran the wires,and invented the light doesn't negate the fact that we are the final reason we are saved. I, as you might guess, have a problem with that.
The cornerstone of this very common perspective is human free will. Remember, God wants people to freely choose Him. Most people accept without challenge that God doesn't want robots. And it goes without saying that if humans don't have the capacity to make choices, they can't be held responsible for their choices, good or bad. But there is a problem with this concept that has been termed "decisional regeneration".
Let me illustrate the problem with an everyday example. It is said that God has done 99.9% of what is required to save us and that we need to do the last 0.1% -- choose Him. Consider a parallel. Who is responsible for turning on the lights in your home? You don't generate the power. You don't run the wires from the generator to your house. You don't run the wires in your home or make the lights. But when it comes down to it, you are responsible for turning on the lights in your home. It's not a great effort. Throw a switch. That's it. Still, without your effort, as minimal as it is, no light would occur in the dark room. The power company isn't responsible. The electrician isn't responsible. The light manufacturer isn't responsible. You are. In the end, you determine whether there will be light in your house.
This is the problem with decisional regeneration. Lay as much as you want at the foot of Christ. Say that He has done the lion's share of the work. Argue that He has done almost all of what is required to provide salvation for us. In the end, if it is our decision that determines whether or not we are saved, it is we who are responsible. And that is the end of grace. It is your responsibility and the direct result of your decision and that is meritorious. In the end, God only made something possible, but you made it real ... something God couldn't or wouldn't do.
You see, if the popular perspective is true, we humans have become huge. We have acted while dead to accomplish something that God didn't. We have managed something really, really miraculous. That's something to be proud of, and the fact that someone else generated the power, ran the wires,and invented the light doesn't negate the fact that we are the final reason we are saved. I, as you might guess, have a problem with that.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Predestination?
The doctrine of Predestination has been debated, embraced, rejected, and debated again for centuries. Some refuse to accept that the Bible teaches predestination (even though it's actually in there). Others take it to places it was never intended to go (like the absolute removal of any ability to make choices). Some take up arms for their position, arguing that anyone who believes the opposite is a heretic or worse. People have actually died over the concept.
Odd. It is a part of Scripture. The word is in there. The doctrine is biblical. Of course, there are a variety of perceptions on it, some supportable and some not. I suspect, however, that the conclusions regarding the doctrine come from a prior position. Calvinists who hold to predestination don't start there. They start with the condition of Man. We hold that Man is sinful by nature, "that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). We believe that "the flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63). We start from the "bad news", the position that Man is spiritually dead and incapable of doing anything to make himself alive again. If we start there and nothing or no one intervenes, that would be the end of the story. All of mankind would sin himself into Hell. All of his choices would be sin and the only possible outcome would be the damnation of all human beings.
That, of course, isn't the end of the story. God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, lived a sinless life, died in our place for our sins, and rose again. "There," they say, "that provides us all the opportunity we need to be saved." Well, not exactly. You see, we're still stuck with the condition of Man. God has done all that to put us in good stead with Him, but we lack the capacity to respond ... because we're dead. Something else is required. What is required should be clear -- life. We need spiritual life, a change in nature, to be able to respond to the offer.
That's where predestination comes in. God has to choose apart from our choice to quicken -- give life to -- some people. Left to our own choices, we will never do it. He has to intervene. Predestination doesn't say that God forces us to choose Him. It says that He enables us to choose Him. And we do. Of our own free will.
It is my suspicion that the objections are anchored somewhere else. There is a root of autonomy in every human being. We don't want to think that we are under anyone else. Self-sufficiency is the aim of everyone, it seems. Yeah, yeah, Paul calls himself a "bond-servant", but that's not us. And, sure, the Bible says natural Man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1), hostile to God (Rom. 8:7), blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), unable to comprehend spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and all that, but surely we're able to do all that is necessary to come to Christ. Of course, "autonomy" is a euphemism. It is the equivalent of "I will be like the Most High" (Isa. 14:14). That's a problem.
Odd. It is a part of Scripture. The word is in there. The doctrine is biblical. Of course, there are a variety of perceptions on it, some supportable and some not. I suspect, however, that the conclusions regarding the doctrine come from a prior position. Calvinists who hold to predestination don't start there. They start with the condition of Man. We hold that Man is sinful by nature, "that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). We believe that "the flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63). We start from the "bad news", the position that Man is spiritually dead and incapable of doing anything to make himself alive again. If we start there and nothing or no one intervenes, that would be the end of the story. All of mankind would sin himself into Hell. All of his choices would be sin and the only possible outcome would be the damnation of all human beings.
That, of course, isn't the end of the story. God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, lived a sinless life, died in our place for our sins, and rose again. "There," they say, "that provides us all the opportunity we need to be saved." Well, not exactly. You see, we're still stuck with the condition of Man. God has done all that to put us in good stead with Him, but we lack the capacity to respond ... because we're dead. Something else is required. What is required should be clear -- life. We need spiritual life, a change in nature, to be able to respond to the offer.
That's where predestination comes in. God has to choose apart from our choice to quicken -- give life to -- some people. Left to our own choices, we will never do it. He has to intervene. Predestination doesn't say that God forces us to choose Him. It says that He enables us to choose Him. And we do. Of our own free will.
It is my suspicion that the objections are anchored somewhere else. There is a root of autonomy in every human being. We don't want to think that we are under anyone else. Self-sufficiency is the aim of everyone, it seems. Yeah, yeah, Paul calls himself a "bond-servant", but that's not us. And, sure, the Bible says natural Man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1), hostile to God (Rom. 8:7), blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), unable to comprehend spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and all that, but surely we're able to do all that is necessary to come to Christ. Of course, "autonomy" is a euphemism. It is the equivalent of "I will be like the Most High" (Isa. 14:14). That's a problem.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Musings of a Wandering Mind
I wonder sometimes.
Have you ever thought about whether or not we're getting the best technology? The most obvious example is video tape. Most people know that the Beta system was technically superior to the VHS system. However, market forces eliminated the Beta and left us with the inferior VHS as the standard. We got shortchanged. Or how about computers? Two basic versions were on the forefront at one time. You had what is known as PC and you had what is known as Mac. In their original forms, the truth is that the Mac format was superior technology. But they chose to go closed architecture while PC chose open architecture and market forces almost pushed Mac all the way out the door, leaving us with the inferior PC as the standard. So it begs the question: Are we getting the best technology? If Henry Ford had not made such a success of the internal combustion engine, would a more efficient, less oil-dependent engine been around the corner? We can't know. Market forces made the internal combustion engine the industry standard and it has taken almost a century to start producing anything else. And in how many other areas of life is this the case? How have market forces or other forces shortchanged us so that we don't have the superior technology today that we could have had? I wonder sometimes.
I wonder about other things, too. Is America a good thing? Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm a patriot. I love my country. I suspect it is likely the best country on the face of the Earth. But sometimes I wonder about its condition and its future. When we started, we were a country founded as a moral republic. We had a government that provided more freedoms and protections than any other had seen ... because we had a strong moral underpinning. It's very easy to allow freedom to those who won't abuse it. But America has devolved. Morality has dissipated and people have found that the freedoms they have been guaranteed and the protections they are given offer them large opportunities for selfish gain and abuse. We see this in our litigous society, where everything, it seems, is a matter for lawsuit. You spill coffee on yourself and you can sue the person that gave it to you. A drunk hits a pothole and careens into your car, and you can sue the city for the pothole. A company doesn't provide you the service you want even though they never offered that service and never intended to and you can sue the company for discrimination. Strip away a moral foundation and this country's freedoms and protections become tools and weapons of vice and greed.
There is another problem that has arisen because of this country's basis in equality and individuality. It is a problem of truth. In this country we hold that all religions are protected equally. Fine. No problem. But slowly this descends into "All religions are equal" and from there we get to "All religions are equally valid" ... and we've run out of truth. Defending the right of people to believe what they want, we end up endorsing the idea that whatever you want to believe is valid. And what havoc has this wrought? In the 19th century the American Church was a huge mission organization. Para-church organizations sprang up for this cause. Churches sent people all over the world to spread the Gospel. The truth was being spread everywhere. But as America has encountered its truth crisis, Christian doctrine has taken its equal share of the blows. Today we can easily find within the Church people who ask, "What is truth?" Doctrine is a four-letter word. (That only works because of our truth-crisis.) Creeds are evil. "Good" is defined as "Whatever you want to believe" and "evil" is "Those who suggest that there is truth." It's wrong to say, "I'm right and you're wrong" and those who say it will be told they are not only wrong -- they're evil. As a result, we end up with muddled theology, muddled doctrine, muddled Christianity. We end up with ... "did God say?"
I wonder sometimes. What started out as a grand experiment in a Christian-oriented, morally-based method of government seems to have been the fertile ground for the devolution of morality and Christianity. We're still sending our Christianity out around the world, but it is now tainted by our truth crisis. It seems, in fact, that if you want to find doctrinally-pure Christianity, you will have an easier time of it outside of the American influence. Watch the news. You'll find that the Episcopaleans outside of Europe and the U.S. are decrying the appointment of a gay bishop and now a Muslim bishop, while American Episcopaleans applaud it. (I mean, seriously folks, in what reality can one be a Christian Muslim let alone a bishop Christian Muslim??? Only in America.) The Anglican Church in England is falling apart while the Anglican Church in Nairobi is flourishing and demanding doctrinal purity. The biggest churches in the world are not found in the "Christian nation" of the United States. They're found in South America and Asia and Africa. (According to NPR, the largest Christian church in the world is found in ... get this ... the Ivory Coast.) The Church is doing much better out there without our doctrinal ambiguity and "seeker-sensitive" approach, it seems.
So I wonder sometimes. Is what we think of as "good" really as "good" as we think it is? Or can it be that sometimes what we think of as "good" is seriously detrimental to our well-being? I wonder.
Have you ever thought about whether or not we're getting the best technology? The most obvious example is video tape. Most people know that the Beta system was technically superior to the VHS system. However, market forces eliminated the Beta and left us with the inferior VHS as the standard. We got shortchanged. Or how about computers? Two basic versions were on the forefront at one time. You had what is known as PC and you had what is known as Mac. In their original forms, the truth is that the Mac format was superior technology. But they chose to go closed architecture while PC chose open architecture and market forces almost pushed Mac all the way out the door, leaving us with the inferior PC as the standard. So it begs the question: Are we getting the best technology? If Henry Ford had not made such a success of the internal combustion engine, would a more efficient, less oil-dependent engine been around the corner? We can't know. Market forces made the internal combustion engine the industry standard and it has taken almost a century to start producing anything else. And in how many other areas of life is this the case? How have market forces or other forces shortchanged us so that we don't have the superior technology today that we could have had? I wonder sometimes.
I wonder about other things, too. Is America a good thing? Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm a patriot. I love my country. I suspect it is likely the best country on the face of the Earth. But sometimes I wonder about its condition and its future. When we started, we were a country founded as a moral republic. We had a government that provided more freedoms and protections than any other had seen ... because we had a strong moral underpinning. It's very easy to allow freedom to those who won't abuse it. But America has devolved. Morality has dissipated and people have found that the freedoms they have been guaranteed and the protections they are given offer them large opportunities for selfish gain and abuse. We see this in our litigous society, where everything, it seems, is a matter for lawsuit. You spill coffee on yourself and you can sue the person that gave it to you. A drunk hits a pothole and careens into your car, and you can sue the city for the pothole. A company doesn't provide you the service you want even though they never offered that service and never intended to and you can sue the company for discrimination. Strip away a moral foundation and this country's freedoms and protections become tools and weapons of vice and greed.
There is another problem that has arisen because of this country's basis in equality and individuality. It is a problem of truth. In this country we hold that all religions are protected equally. Fine. No problem. But slowly this descends into "All religions are equal" and from there we get to "All religions are equally valid" ... and we've run out of truth. Defending the right of people to believe what they want, we end up endorsing the idea that whatever you want to believe is valid. And what havoc has this wrought? In the 19th century the American Church was a huge mission organization. Para-church organizations sprang up for this cause. Churches sent people all over the world to spread the Gospel. The truth was being spread everywhere. But as America has encountered its truth crisis, Christian doctrine has taken its equal share of the blows. Today we can easily find within the Church people who ask, "What is truth?" Doctrine is a four-letter word. (That only works because of our truth-crisis.) Creeds are evil. "Good" is defined as "Whatever you want to believe" and "evil" is "Those who suggest that there is truth." It's wrong to say, "I'm right and you're wrong" and those who say it will be told they are not only wrong -- they're evil. As a result, we end up with muddled theology, muddled doctrine, muddled Christianity. We end up with ... "did God say?"
I wonder sometimes. What started out as a grand experiment in a Christian-oriented, morally-based method of government seems to have been the fertile ground for the devolution of morality and Christianity. We're still sending our Christianity out around the world, but it is now tainted by our truth crisis. It seems, in fact, that if you want to find doctrinally-pure Christianity, you will have an easier time of it outside of the American influence. Watch the news. You'll find that the Episcopaleans outside of Europe and the U.S. are decrying the appointment of a gay bishop and now a Muslim bishop, while American Episcopaleans applaud it. (I mean, seriously folks, in what reality can one be a Christian Muslim let alone a bishop Christian Muslim??? Only in America.) The Anglican Church in England is falling apart while the Anglican Church in Nairobi is flourishing and demanding doctrinal purity. The biggest churches in the world are not found in the "Christian nation" of the United States. They're found in South America and Asia and Africa. (According to NPR, the largest Christian church in the world is found in ... get this ... the Ivory Coast.) The Church is doing much better out there without our doctrinal ambiguity and "seeker-sensitive" approach, it seems.
So I wonder sometimes. Is what we think of as "good" really as "good" as we think it is? Or can it be that sometimes what we think of as "good" is seriously detrimental to our well-being? I wonder.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Urban Legends
A friend sent me this email the other day:
I wonder, however, why this kind of thing floats around the Internet for so long? What is it that causes it to circulate? Why is it still here? Likely, the first reason is that it strikes a harmonic note with people. They see truth in it. And when it strikes that note, they pass it on. Couple that with the fact that, seeing truth in it, they tend not to be critical. Critical thinking is something most people reserve for the select few. They might try some critical thinking on something they really don't like. They might allow the critical thinking of others to influence them. But it seems clear that very few who pass this stuff on actually examine the truth claims of a story like this, and that's likely because they agree with it. But I think there is another noteworthy reason that it survives.
Flaws and all, I think there is enough truth in the content that it gives people something to consider. I think, for instance, that, while no Scottish history professor named Alexander Tyler wrote this, there is still truth to the notion -- "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury" -- and people recognize that. I think that, while Joseph Olson didn't actually do this research and there are factual flaws, there is still enough truth to make the point. Look, for instance, at the 2000 election result map. The number of states may not be accurate or the square miles of land or the numbers of counties or even the murder rate, but it is clear that the "blue" areas tend to be larger cities and the "red" areas tend to be less populated. The "blue" areas likely have higher crime rates and higher welfare rates than the "red". And while "the square miles of land won by" is irrelevant (since land doesn't vote) and murder rates aren't a valid means of determining who should be president, it still points to the cycle that is seen in the Bible and explained in that eight-step process from bondage to bondage. In other words, to many people it strikes a harmonic note because, despite the details that are flawed, the concept is likely true.
Is the U.S. doomed to collapse in five years? I think that's impossible to say and, in fact, unlikely. Is it a problem that much of America is becoming government-dependent instead of independent? It would, in my view, be foolish to deny that fact. Errors aside, the story points to a serious problem. While we need to be clear on the truth and verify our facts and sources, we cannot afford to dismiss something as serious as this because the murder rate numbers aren't quite right. We need to look to ourselves to make sure we're not in that "abundance to complacency to apathy to dependence" category, and we need to pray for those in government.
I don't know who wrote this astonishing read. A sad thing about it is the fact that we seem to be on a relentlessly short path to national suicide. How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:So I did my due diligence and found it on Snopes.com. Of course, as expected, it's not accurate. There was no "Alexander Tyler", Professor Olson didn't do the research, Gore actually took 20 states and Bush 30, and murder rates are closer to 6.5 to 4.1. Fine. Another inaccurate email floating around the Internet. What's new?
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
I wonder, however, why this kind of thing floats around the Internet for so long? What is it that causes it to circulate? Why is it still here? Likely, the first reason is that it strikes a harmonic note with people. They see truth in it. And when it strikes that note, they pass it on. Couple that with the fact that, seeing truth in it, they tend not to be critical. Critical thinking is something most people reserve for the select few. They might try some critical thinking on something they really don't like. They might allow the critical thinking of others to influence them. But it seems clear that very few who pass this stuff on actually examine the truth claims of a story like this, and that's likely because they agree with it. But I think there is another noteworthy reason that it survives.
Flaws and all, I think there is enough truth in the content that it gives people something to consider. I think, for instance, that, while no Scottish history professor named Alexander Tyler wrote this, there is still truth to the notion -- "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury" -- and people recognize that. I think that, while Joseph Olson didn't actually do this research and there are factual flaws, there is still enough truth to make the point. Look, for instance, at the 2000 election result map. The number of states may not be accurate or the square miles of land or the numbers of counties or even the murder rate, but it is clear that the "blue" areas tend to be larger cities and the "red" areas tend to be less populated. The "blue" areas likely have higher crime rates and higher welfare rates than the "red". And while "the square miles of land won by" is irrelevant (since land doesn't vote) and murder rates aren't a valid means of determining who should be president, it still points to the cycle that is seen in the Bible and explained in that eight-step process from bondage to bondage. In other words, to many people it strikes a harmonic note because, despite the details that are flawed, the concept is likely true.
Is the U.S. doomed to collapse in five years? I think that's impossible to say and, in fact, unlikely. Is it a problem that much of America is becoming government-dependent instead of independent? It would, in my view, be foolish to deny that fact. Errors aside, the story points to a serious problem. While we need to be clear on the truth and verify our facts and sources, we cannot afford to dismiss something as serious as this because the murder rate numbers aren't quite right. We need to look to ourselves to make sure we're not in that "abundance to complacency to apathy to dependence" category, and we need to pray for those in government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)