Ah, Much Better!

Good news, folks! Life is about to get much easier. If we will only follow a simple standard, things will all be great.

I'm talking about the "homosexuality in nature" argument. It goes something like this. "More than 1500 species of animals have been observed in homosexual acts or even relationships. Since it occurs in the animal kingdom, it must be natural and good."

Now, let's think this through. "Since it occurs in the animal kingdom, it must be natural and good." That would really decrease the amount of rules we're forced to consider, wouldn't it? That is, what moral values can we glean from nature? Well, there is no indication in nature of any religious animals. They have no temples, no altars, no worship gatherings. Say goodbye to religious activity. Religion is not "natural" because it's not part of "nature". Okay, so the animal kingdom is not religious (and, since we're assuming "Since it occurs in the animal kingdom, it must be natural and good."), then religion is bad. But what is good in the animal kingdom? Well, it would appear that there are two basic factors: You are either a good killer or you are a sly hider. Oh, well, of course, or you're dead. You are either great at getting whatever you need however you can get it or you are good at evading those kinds of things. In times of shortage, stealing is wonderful. If you need to, cannibalism is fine. Killing your own offspring to protect your territory or feed yourself is perfectly acceptable. All kinds of silly rules that we have in place right now are out the door in the animal kingdom.

See how much easier it will be? Life becomes "about me". Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. "Right" is defined as "survive and thrive" and "wrong" is ... not. Homosexuality is said to be certainly acceptable in this vision of morality, but, of course, the homosexual animal doesn't reproduce, so we would expect that to die out^*, wouldn't we? No problem, because "survive and thrive" is good and "die out" is not. Ultimately, "good" is defined as "whatever my impulses tell me to do" and "evil" is "preventing me from doing what my impulses tell me." How far are we from that?

Yeah, let's go with that morality model. That should make life a lot better. Or not.

Look, I was obviously being a bit sarcastic here, but only a bit. I'm not actually making a claim here about the morality of homosexual behavior. I'm making an observation about the logic of the argument. My only point is that you think it through. Sometimes it doesn't come out like you think it does.

__________
^* In the interest of fairness, I need to point out two things here. First, my argument -- "we would expect that to die out" -- is faulty because there is no scientific evidence for a "gay gene", no indication that homosexuality is hereditary. Second, science will have to admit that the current perception of "homosexuality" does not actually occur in nature. There are no animals attracted only to the same gender. There are "omnisexual" animals, animals that seem to be willing to attempt sex with anything at all -- male, female, other creatures, a comfy couch, whatever. For animals in the wild to be "homosexual" in the same sense that the term is popularly used today would mean the end of the line for those particular animals. Doesn't actually happen.

Hard Determinism

Philosophy has its own vocabulary sometimes. Like the theological upper crust, there seems to be a set of terms used to confound the "outsiders". Theologians will refer to the likes of "soteriology" or "orthopraxy" or "supralapsarianism" for their specialized terminology. Philosophy has its own.

One of these terms is "determinism". Now, on the face of it, the word seems simple. Do you believe that all things are determined, or do you believe that they are ... not? Of course, as soon as you simplify the term, it becomes necessary to obfuscate (another specialized term just intended to obscure the conversation) it. So there is "determinism", but is it "hard determinism" or "soft determinism"? I don't know. What's the difference?

As it turns out, in the arena of the concept of determinism there is a host of terms. There is determinism, compatibilism, oh, and incompatibilism. In each of these, of course, are further descriptives like "hard determinism" or "classical compatibilism". And the dance just keeps getting more complicated. What was the question, again? Oh, yes. The question that all these terms seek to discuss is the question of free will. Do we have genuine choices or are all our choices determined for us? And you can imagine that the question would have a broad spectrum of possible answers ... everything from "No, free will does not exist" (hard determinism) to "Absolutely! The only thing we have is free will, which means that no choices are determined by anything at all" (indeterminism).

One might think that I, a firm believer in the Absolute Sovereignty of God, would be a hard determinist. I'm not. I'm a compatibilist. I believe that God's Sovereignty is compatible with Man's free will as long as we leave God's Sovereignty with its capital "S" and Man's free will in lowercase letters. (Thus the name "compatibilism" -- Sovereignty and free will are compatible.) But if you thought that I was a determinist, I would not be the only surprise. You might also think that the atheist would be the indeterminist -- that all our choices are our own choices without any causes. And there you'd be wrong, too. As it turns out, the strongest voices these days for hard determinism -- there is no free will -- are atheist voices.

Sam Harris is the well-known American anti-theism (well beyond atheism) author. He published The End of Faith in 2004 that outlined the dangers of religion in America. In 2006 he published the better known Letter to a Christian Nation in which he urged an end to Christianity in America. Harris now has a new book out entitled Free Will. This one is a grand argument that no such thing exists. Free will is a myth. Our choices are determined (hard determinism) by our biology, genetics, environment, and all.

It's difficult to set aside the logical problems. I mean, why tell us there is no free will if there is no free will and we have no option of doing anything about it? Why urge us to a course of action of we have no choice of what course of action we take? Why are you telling us this? But there is another important consideration that would take precedence in my mind over the logical problem. You see, it isn't merely Dr. Harris who is taking this line of thinking. It is most of science. Take, for instance, the continuing declarations of psychology that assures us that most of what we see in human behavior is a product of neuroses, hormones, and brain chemicals. We don't choose these actions; they are the products of ... wait for it ... biology, genetics, environment, and all. People aren't bad; they just come with imperfections that cause bad behavior. Geneticists assure us that it isn't poor character that causes alcoholism or other addictions. We are genetically inclined to them. "Hey, look, man, I know you're struggling with this, but don't let it get you down. It's not your fault." Neuroscience will tell you that some 350 milliseconds before you are conscious of a choice, your brain has already fired off the choice you think you made. See? That's cause and effect, and we've turned it around. So it's not just Harris here. It's a lot of voices getting louder.

So what difference does it make? Well, if Harris et. al. are right, we don't make genuine choices. If we don't make genuine choices, we cannot be held responsible for those choices. If we cannot be held responsible for those choices, then government and God would certainly be unjust for doing so. Crime and punishment would become a moot point. Instead, all "evil" would be a perception that needs to be remedied either by elimination of the concept that "x is evil" or by curing the biological or environmental causes of such occurences, not because they're "evil" but because they're ... inconvenient. Justice becomes meaningless. Punishment is pointless. Remedies become mechanical, physical things over which we actually have no control anyway. But, hey, the good news is that we can eliminate the "Justice Department", right? I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that most hardcore atheists are still unlikely to hang their hats on the Hard Determinism tree. On the other hand, you Free Will folks that are quite sure that God has limited Himself to Man's Free Will have other problems to deal with. Good luck with that.

Overflowing

Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude (Col 2:6-7).

It is said that in Christianity salvation is based on grace, but Christian living is based on gratitude. Paul here talks about "overflowing with gratitude". Jesus spoke of the "abundant life". How does that work?

Most humans go through life as vacuums. That is, they are constantly wanting more, constantly consuming, constantly seeking. The standard human being is consumed with self. Life, as we know it, revolves around us. The Christian life is not the standard human life. Christianity is premised on "abundant". It starts with "more than I'll ever need or want".

How is that? Well, when properly understood, that's where we are as Christians. We have had our most basic need remedied, the need for a vital relationship with God. Not only are our sins forgiven (oh, such delight!), but we are declared righteous. Do you see the difference? Not only a clean slate, but a full larder of goodness! The debits have been removed and the account has been filled on the credit side. Next, we have the love of God, full and unknowable. Beyond that, we now have the Holy Spirit, "Christ in you". "It is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." Any perception of lack is a misperception because your Father knows how to give good gifts. His eye is on the sparrow; you know He watches over you. So, we have a clean slate, a full righteousness account, everything God knows we need, and God's very Spirit at work in us. That's completion. That's "more than I'll ever need or want".

We are uniquely positioned to break with the standard human being. The fact that we don't is a slap in the face of God. But we can. We can give without loss, love without return, sacrifice without disaster. We cannot outgive God. What a marvelous condition to be in! Perhaps, then, you'll see that it makes little sense to spend a Sunday morning hoping to "get something out of church". What more do you need? Give! Be "overflowing with gratitude."

Seriously???

On the Coal Cares website you can find lots of reasons offered why we should use coal for energy rather than those pesky, more dangerous alternatives. Solar is a problem, for instance, because, well, people get sunburned from it. (Yes, that's what it says.) But this comment about the danger of wind turbines was mind-boggling.

Wind turbines can kill up to 70,000 birds per year, or 4.27 birds per turbine per year. Coal particulate pollution, on the other hand, kills fewer than 13,000 people per year.

"Just do the math," they seem to be saying. "It's much safer to kill 13,000 people a year than 70,000 birds." Birds, you see, are people, too ... right? Thanks, PETA. Good job on getting your message out. It's amazing how many will fall for it. (There are 30,528 "likes" from Facebook on this.)

Yes, but WHICH therapy will we control?

California is at it again. SB1172 is a new amendment intended to prevent anyone who would like treatment for their homosexual desires from getting it.

"Oh, now, Stan, there you go, overdoing it again. No such thing. Fabrication. Imagination. Lies."

Well, now, let's see. Here is the text of the bill without comment from right wing lunatics or left wing crazies. Just the bill. What do we find in this bill?

First, according to the "Legislative Counsel's Digest" at the beginning of the bill:

This bill would prohibit psychotherapists, as defined, from performing sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, in the absence of informed consent of the patient.

Thus, at the outset the point is to prevent "sexual orientation change efforts". It is certainly "in the absence of informed consent", but I'm unaware of anyone who has tried to forceably change sexual orientation. If they have, I'd consider them as foolish as those who might forceably try to get a drug addict off drugs or an alcoholic off alcohol. You have to want to change in order to change. So I would suggest that "informed consent" is not the aim here.

Next we read in Section 1:

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following ...
(a) An individual’s sexual orientation ... is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.
(b) Sexual orientation change efforts pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people ...
(c) Recognizing that there is no evidence that any type of psychotherapy can change a person’s sexual orientation ....

Thus, the determination here by the State is that "sexual orientation" is not an issue in any way. Those who claim it is a moral problem will be declared by the State to be wrong. Those who claim that they have had successful a sexual orientation change will lying. No amount of evidence or proof can be classified as evidence or proof because the State "declares" that "there is no evidence" ... in spite of the evidence that exists. This, you see, is part of the answer to the question, "What difference does it make to you?" The difference it makes is that those who agree with the Bible on the subject will be outlawed and those who care enough about homosexuals to offer them a solution will be banned. The fact that people have benefited from these solutions is irrelevant. Interestingly, although there is precious little evidence that a lot of medical and psychological practices have any benefit, those aren't being banned. It is this alone that is in the gun sights of the legislature.

Okay, I still haven't demonstrated my initial claim that the bill will prevent anyone who would like treatment from receiving it. What I have done thus far is establish the baseline "facts" as they see them. 1) Sexual orientation is not an issue. 2) There is no treatment. 3) No one should be subjected to "treatment" without "informed consent". Thus far.

Now the guts of the bill. In Section 2 we get a list of definitions for the bill. The first definition is for "informed consent". What do they mean when they use that term? "'Informed consent' means consent that is voluntarily provided in writing by a patient to a psychotherapist with whom the patient has a therapeutic relationship." Fine. We got that. Was that really necessary? Yes, it was, because they go on to say:

Consent that is provided as a result of therapeutic deception or duress or coercion is not informed consent.

Now, we understand that "duress" and "coercion" don't constitute "informed consent". But note that they've added another term: "Therapeutic deception". And what is that?

"Therapeutic deception" means a representation by a psychotherapist that sexual orientation change efforts ... can or will reduce or eliminate a person’s sexual or romantic desires, attractions, or conduct toward another person of the same sex.

Did you get that? 1) You can't treat someone for their sexual orientation without informed consent. 2) Informed consent means that no one ever told them that any treatment could provide any beneficial effect. Thus, the only way anyone could legally undergo treatment would be if they did not believe that it would be of any benefit.

It doesn't get better. The bill specifically bans any such therapy to anyone under the age of 18 ever.

Under no circumstances shall a patient under 18 years of age undergo sexual orientation change efforts, regardless of the willingness of a patient’s parent, guardian, conservator, or other person to authorize such efforts.

Since no minor can be treated without parent or guardian consent even if the minor wants the treatment and since no consent can be given here even if the minor wants the treatment, no such treatment even if the minor wants the treatment will be allowed.

There are penalties involved for violations:

A cause of action may be brought against a psychotherapist by a patient, former patient, or deceased former patient’s parent, child, or sibling if the sexual orientation change efforts were conducted ... by means of therapeutic deception ...

That's right. Since "therapeutic deception" is any claim that the treatment might provide some value, if a therapist provides voluntary services to someone who wishes to change their sexual orientation, even if it's amenable and successful, the "parent, child, or sibling" of a dead person receiving the treatment can sue for damages with a minimum of $5,000 plus costs and attorney fees.

Where are we, then? The State is declaring that any evidence offered that indicates that a person can change their orientation is not evidence. Therefore, anyone who wishes to engage in a therapy to obtain this change will do so illegally. Anyone who assists them in their therapy can be sued by relatives. Yes, the State will control therapies, but which therapies will they control? Not questionable ones. No one is suggesting that we question acupuncture or holistic medicine. Apothecaries are still in business where pharmacies won't do. You can even visit witch doctors and palm readers for help. But what you cannot do if you are in California and this bill passes is obtain by choice help in changing your sexual orientation. It won't be long, I'd guess, before even suggesting such a thing will be illegal, but for now they'll just make the treatment illegal. More to follow, I'm pretty sure. Because, you see, this isn't merely an issue of minors or treatment or therapy. It is fundamentally an issue of what you are allowed to believe. It's not far off, then, that believing that Christ can save you from your sin (especially if it's the sin of homosexuality) will get you in trouble with the law. That "therapy" will also be banned simply for believing it.

Rewriting History

I've been reading some really bizarre things lately and all of the sudden I realized that I have been the victim of a whitewashed version of history. Over at Democrats.org we read:

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union.

This is what we've heard. This is what we've been told. As we're all aware, Republicans are racist and wish to bring back "Jim Crow" laws. Republicans oppose President Obama not simply because he's a Democrat, but because he's black. Republicans are opposed to civil rights. We all know this. The Democrats are the people's party and the Republicans are elitist and racist. And then ...

Well, let's try this. How is your history? From the National Black Republican Association we get a history test. Here are some of the questions:

1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

It goes on and on. You ought to take a look. (Hint: All the answers to these questions are "b".) (Oh, I guess that's not a hint, is it?)

But, look, that's from a biased perspective ... the National Black Republicans Association. So is that the best you can do? Let's look at "better" sources. Let's look at PBS, for instance. They tell us, "After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights. The Democratic Party identified itself as the 'white man's party' and demonized the Republican Party as being 'Negro dominated,' even though whites were in control." (Emphasis mine.)

Wait ... wait ... that's not what we've been told. What happened? The Wall Street Journal says it was a whitewashing (ironic, eh?) of the true history of the Democratic Party. No reference to the fact that it was the Democrats who instituted the "Jim Crow" laws that segregated the South. No reference to the fact that Rosa Parks was protesting rules set in place by Democrats. No recognition at all that the Ku Klux Klan was started as the military arm of the Democratic Party. No mention of the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson or that the veto was overrided by a Republican Congress. The list goes on and on.

What do the Democrats think now? Well, obviously, they're opposed to "Jim Crow" and any of those nasty (and imaginary) Republicans who favor it. They're opposed to slavery. (Of course, the reason the Republican party was first founded in the 1850's was to eliminate slavery.) Oddly, it appears that the Democratic Party has proudly adopted the position of the Republican Party. And we are greatly pleased to hear their apology for the centuries of abuse of the earlier Democrats. Oh, you didn't hear that apology? No, I guess not. That was taken care of by rewriting history. Simple thing. All fixed. Happens all the time. Let's move on against those evil racists, the Republicans.

Are the Democrats the "axis of evil"? No, not the point. Are Republicans the answer to our problems? Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that the mainstream media is not giving you the truth and the politicians are not giving you the truth and making judgments based on blurbs from biased sources is a tricky business to undertake. It is my suspicion that we're not being told the truth a lot more than we are. I call it "the suppression of truth in unrighteousness". You can quote me.

Then They Came for the Scouts*

Have you heard this story yet? A Boy Scout troop in Ohio lost their den mother because she was a lesbian. Why? Because she was predatory? No. Doing bad things? No. A hint of complaint or controversy? No. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that as a private organization it has the right to exclude gays and atheists from its ranks. Upheld by the Supreme Court, they have maintained that position since their beginning. So they were obligated, out of consistency, to ask Jennifer Tyrrell to resign from her post.

This, of course, won't fly. Tyrrell isn't sure if it's because she's gay or because she raised questions about finances. Neither is a suitable reason for her. Several parents from the group have complained. They want her back. Many knew about her orientation and they didn't care. They're worried about their children. "They're asking questions they shouldn't have to ask at this point." "I teach my children to judge people on their actions, whether you agree with their lifestyle or not." Gay rights groups are petitioning the Scouts to change their policy. "This just won't do at all!"

I have no reason to question Jennifer Tyrrell's ability as a Scout leader. I have no reason to worry about her "infecting the kids" or any such thing. And certainly "gay rights groups" can petition the Scouts to change their policy. These are not my concerns. My concern is the precedent. Do the Scouts, as a private organization, have the right to maintain their own standards? If not, who else does not? How far is it from "The Scouts must not be allowed to hold their position on this subject" to "The Church must not be allowed to hold their position on this subject"? We've already seen Christians sued (and lost) for this kind of thing. When does the public and the State get to decide the standards and beliefs of a private organization, and when does the public and the State get to decide the standards and beliefs of the Church? They don't seem very far apart.

As a footnote, I'm interested in the similarities between the concerns of these parents and the concerns of illegal immigration protesters, brought to light recently in Arizona's SB1070 in front of the Supreme Court. The outcry in the latter is against "immigration policy", racism, and anti-immigration. This completely misses the point. SB1070 is an immigration enforcement law requiring law enforcement officials to enforce federal law, not establish policy. Immigration policy says you must have the proper documentation and permission to reside in this country. When people don't meet that requirement, they are violating the law. It isn't "immigration policy" or racism or even "anti-immigration" to enforce the law. In the case of the former, it's the same. There is as rule. Tyrrell violated that rule. The Scouts enforced the rule. "Oh, my, what do I tell my kids??!!" How about this? Tell them to follow the rules. Tell them that their Scout leader violated the rules and was required to stop violating the rules. This isn't homophobia or a determination of the morality of homosexuality. It's a question of rules. There is a rule. It was violated. Violating rules has consequences. If those kind of lessons are too tough for this Scout troop -- if these are "questions they shouldn't have to ask at this point" -- I don't know what is. Do we follow rules, or do we violate them? What happens when we violate rules? These are the questions kids that age should be facing.
________
^*Some may not get the reference to "Then they came for the Scouts ..." It's a reference to a famous quote from a German pastor on the inactivity of Germans over the Nazi atrocities:

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Be Careful What You Wish For

You may have never heard of Manasseh. No, not the half-tribe ... Manasseh, the king of Judah. Manasseh was among the very last kings of Judah. Manasseh was the son of Hezekiah, one of the good kings of Judah. In fact, he was among the very best. In 2 Kings 24 we read, "The LORD sent against [Jehoiakim] bands of the Chaldeans and bands of the Syrians and bands of the Moabites and bands of the Ammonites, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD that He spoke by His servants the prophets. Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the LORD, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood that he had shed. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD would not pardon" (2 Kings 24:2-4). Get that? According to the Bible, the final reason that God sent Judah off into exile was the sins of Manasseh. That's a pretty heavy burden there.

So who was Manasseh? Well, you may remember the stories of Hezekiah. One is famous because it's odd. In 2 Kings 20 he became sick "at the point of death". God told Isaiah to tell him he was about to die. Hezekiah, receiving the news, prayed that God would remember his faithfulness. God did. So God added 15 years to Hezekiah's life and signified it by having the shadow on the stairs move back ten steps. Odd story. Fine. But Hezekiah didn't care. He got 15 more years. Then we read "And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and Manasseh his son reigned in his place. Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign" (2 Kings 20:21-21:1). Got the time frame in mind? Manasseh was 12 when he took office. Manasseh hadn't been born when Hezekiah almost died. And how did Manasseh do? "He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the despicable practices of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel" (2 Kings 21:2). The text goes on to list a litany of horrendous practices as if he was trying to live to the lowest he could live. He mimicked Ahab (who was the primary downfall of Israel) and worse. He built altars to gods in the Temple. He burned his son as an offering. He put an Asherah idol in the Temple. The Bible says, "Manasseh led them astray to do more evil than the nations had done whom the LORD destroyed before the people of Israel" (2 Kings 21:9). And it doesn't mean that in a good way.

I have to wonder, "What happened?" I wonder what Hezekiah did with his 12 years with this son. This apple fell very far from its tree. Did Hezekiah not pass on the depth of his devotion to the Lord? I wonder what pushed Manasseh to the limits like this. Sin? Yeah, that's understandable. But so deep! He didn't mess around. He didn't, say, worship God but keep the high places like so many others. Oh, no, he pushed Judah to new lows, worse than the pagans whom the Lord destroyed. Where did that come from? But here's the real question. What happened with God? God told Hezekiah he had three days to live. At that point in time, there was no Manasseh at all. No evil son. No fatherly mistakes. No Manasseh to influence the wrong way. No such thing. End of story. But God, knowing what Manasseh would do and knowing that it would result in the exile of Judah, approved Hezekiah's request for mercy. The result of Hezekiah's prayer was the annihilation of Judah. That's what God ordained.

Now here's what you have to ask yourself. Is God good? You may think that carting the last of the Israelites off to captivity is bad, and it certainly looks that way, but God ordained that it would happen and God put that king in place. It wasn't a surprise to Him. So is God good? You see, if you agree that God was good when He approved Hezekiah's prayer which resulted in the worst sin the land had seen which finally brought about the banishment of Judah entirely, then you have your answer about what happened with Manasseh and God. God did good. Beyond that, however, you will have to ask yourself about your situation. We seek for what we think is good and hope for it. Hezekiah did. It had an unpleasant result. But you've just decided that God is good, so the unpleasant result was good. Hezekiah did what was right and God did what was right and the unpleasant outcome was right. Then you have to ask about, for instance, the upcoming election. Will you do what's right and anticipate that God will do what's good even if it's unpleasant, or will you compromise what's right in order to get a "pleasant outcome" even it if's not a good outcome? The elections, by the way, are just an example. Feel free to come up with some of your own. You need to decide in all cases, "Is God good?" It will change your perspective in all cases.

Theistic Evolution and Me

There are good Christian people who believe in Theistic Evolution. They are trying to align Scripture with Science (and I didn't mistakenly capitalize "Science"). There is a certain amount of trepidation that standing against Science solely on the basis of Scripture could damage our credibility and even put Christianity in general and the Bible in particular in question. I am not one who believes in theistic evolution. I don't suggest that those who do are false believers. I just have certain problems I can't overcome to make that leap.

1. Genesis says that God created everything, and that "it was very good". Theistic evolution would require that no such thing happened. Or it would require that the millenia of death and destruction wrought upon humans prior to the mythical events of Genesis 1 was "very good".

2. While the Bible is not science, it presents things as fact that touch on history, biology, and other factual areas. The suggestion is that the authors of the Bible simply weren't privy to this information and were, well, wrong. This brings God into question. Why couldn't He tell them what was right?

3. Paul refers to Adam as a real person, the "first Man". Jesus is "the second Man". However, if Adam was not a real person, what was he? If no actual sin occurred (the reason Paul references Adam as the "first Man" as the source of sin entering the world), what did occur? If there was no such event, what event is the Bible referring to? What is the source of the curse on the ground of Genesis 3 and the curse of creation in Romans 8? If there is no "first Man", in what sense is Christ "second" anything?

4. If theistic evolution is true, it calls into serious question the capabilities of the God I worship. It would require that He was incapable of properly informing the writers of Scripture about the truth. Further, He played on His own inability by commanding His people to "honor the Sabbath" in the same way that He rested on the seventh day ... which, of course, never happaned. "Do what I never did," He commands His own. It would demand that the God, the Holy Spirit, failed to get across the fact that Genesis was just myth to 2000 years of Christendom. It would suggest that God is using Science as a crutch to finally explain to His followers what He could never get across in the history of Man.

5. The Bible is riddled with myths and legends. You won't really know where they are. You'll just likely have to wait until Science points them out to you. It's good to have an atheistic materialism around to correct the errors of millenia of Christendom so we can finally get this stuff straightened out. Did God create the heavens and the earth? No. He "made" them by natural processes like a farmer "makes" a crop of corn. Did God form Adam out of the dust? Don't be ridiculous! There was no actual Adam. Was there a worldwide flood? Of course not! Science can inform you of better than that. Localized, maybe. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Of course He did!! Oh, wait, I suppose Science would disagree. Maybe not. Maybe it's another legend. You know, telling us about victory and joy and that kind of thing. No, certainly not real.

6. Evolution starts with the simple and works its way up. Creation operates as creation built for a purpose -- humans. In Evolution, Man is an after-thought, the latest in an ongoing changing universe. In Christianity, we were the point -- the created beings who would reflect His glory. Theistic evolution would like to make us an after-thought that was the point.

7. Since Genesis is full of myths and the Old Testament is riddled with "historical events" that didn't really occur, what am I to believe? When Paul bases his statement about women in leadership on the order of creation and no such order of creation occurred, what am I to believe? When Paul says that Eve was deceived when no Eve existed, what am I to believe? When Paul compares and contrasts Christ to Adam and no Adam ever existed, what am I to believe?

8. Where else? Where else do we give in? We're surrendering the historical comprehension of Genesis. Science has informed us we were mistaken. Science also assures us that no Flood ever occurred, no silly crossing of some "Red Sea" could have happened, no extended day happened in Joshua's time, Hezekiah never had the shadow move, and certainly Elijah didn't raise the widow's son. Or Jesus Lazarus. Nor, in fact, is it possible that someone named Jesus rose from the dead. It's all pretty clear with modern Scientific examination that none of this could happen, so let's put aside the myths and legends of a 2,000-year-old book and move on with fact, okay? Where else do we surrender? How about God? Is He now just "the God of the gaps", the filler for the empty spaces while we wait for Science to figure out the rest?

That last, in fact, is the bottom line. We're holding two truth claimants. One is the Bible. One is Science. Often they agree. (Happy day!) Sometimes they don't. So, what do we do when they don't? The current trend is to figure out what we did wrong when we read our Bibles and, if possible, set aside what has always been the case in order to subscribe to a truth claimant centered on a naturalistic world with open hostility to anything spiritual. Yeah, that sounds like the best approach. Let's do that.

Show Me Your Glory

There is a passage in Exodus (Exo 33) where God, exasperated with His people, tells Moses, "You guys go on to the Promised Land. Just do it without Me." Moses prays that God would not desert His people and God agrees. "I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name" (Exo 33:17). Moses's response is somewhat out of the blue, and, yet, perfectly understandable. For the God of the Universe, the One God, the Lord of All, to say, "You have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name" is quite stunning. So Moses answers, "I pray You, show me Your glory!"

That's quite a prayer. "Show me Your glory!" It's quite a prayer because it is the prime purpose for which humans were created. It's quite a prayer because God's glory is the thing we've missed. It's quite a prayer because, as it turns out, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!" That is, for normal humans to see God in all His glory unmitigated is fatal.

God agreed. He had caveats. He hid Moses in a cleft in a rock and passed before him, covering the rock so Moses would be spared a life-ending view. But God agreed. What did God declare in this moment of highest revelation?

Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations" (Exo 34:6-7).

There is a lot to the glory of God -- so much that it is inconceivable to humans. Even fatal. But there are some key components that would allow us a lifetime of contemplation and wonder. There is His self-existence of God. Fundamental. The concept behind YHWH. "I AM." Nothing else is self-existent; only God. There is His compassion and grace. There is His patience and lovingkindness. Christ referred to Himself as the Truth. There is His mercy on one hand and His justice on the other.

These, apparently, are the primary components of His glory that He wanted to express most clearly when He passed before Moses. These are the main components to contemplate. Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, even love are contained in these primary components. All that God is seems to have its roots in these components. While the vastness and immeasurability of God exceed human comprehension, these are a start. A good start. God's opinion of a good start. A wonderful place to dwell when we contemplate the glory of God.

Paradigm Shift

A paradigm is, in light terms, a pattern of thinking, but in broader terms it is a worldview. A worldview is the underlying theory and methodology that explains ... well, everything. It can, of course, be a limited worldview. That is, "in the world of biology, the paradigm is ..." wouldn't require that the paradigm in question explains what happens in the entire world. Still, a paradigm is a pretty big thing. It is the approach and understanding of a large way of thinking.

So, here I am, operating on a particular paradigm when it comes to Christianity. What paradigm? My paradigm is an interwoven rug on which my theological understanding stands. It stands on the belief that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. It is premised on the belief that the Bible is God's Word. I have to pause at that to be understood. It is the belief that God breathed the Bible to authors who, in their own vernacular and under His supervision, wrote what He wanted written. It is not merely "inspired writing", but "God-breathed". Because of this, it is inerrant in its original form and absolutely rational. By rational I don't mean "makes perfect sense to me in every case", but logical. Nor is it contradictory. While the Bible is made up of 66 books, nothing in any of the books will contradict anything else in any of the books. I believe in the perspecuity of Scripture, a crazy word, hard to understand, that indicates that the Bible is not hard to understand. This doesn't require that it takes no effort to understand or that some parts are not as clear as others. It simply means that God, via the Holy Spirit, communicates His person and will to the ordinary reader using the text of the Bible. Key to my paradigm here is the belief that God uses the Holy Spirit to communicate the truth of His Word to His followers. Thus, while historic understanding is not the authoritative explanation, it is certainly informative. When I come across a new understanding of a particular passage, I get concerned. If I cannot trace my understanding of a particular passage back through history, I get concerned. I don't believe the Holy Spirit to be inept, so I see this as a vital piece of the paradigm pie.

So, along comes a "progressive" or a "liberal" or a "skeptic" or (oh, I don't know, sometimes they're all hard to tell apart). They assure me that reading the Bible "as written" is a foolish venture. Inerrancy is a myth. The Bible is full of stuff that never really happened and taking it as a historical narrative where it appears to be a historical narrative or a list of rules where it appears to be a list of rules or a moral statement on this particular behavior where it appears to be exactly that is foolishness. "Use your head," they tell me, the suggestion being that up until now I haven't. "Your way makes no sense. We've discovered a new, better way." And that "new, better way" may range from converting historical documents to myths and legends or tossing out plain references to unpleasant things like Atonement, blood sacrifice, Resurrection, or Judgment/Justice.

In my mind I hear, "Come to the dark side, Stan." But that's not entirely fair, is it? So what am I being asked to do? Simple. A paradigm shift. "Sure, sure," they suggest, "you've spent decades studying this stuff, fitting together logical trains, piecing together rational arguments and fitting Scripture to Scripture, but forget all that. Sure, sure, you've come to a clear understanding with footnotes and logical deductions included, but set all that aside. We'd like you to set aside your logic, your inerrancy, your personal history, your Church history, all that you've taken apart, examined, and put back together to see how it fits. No, no, we wouldn't exactly say, 'Throw out your Bible'. We just recommend you throw out all you've figured out so far and start our way. It's progress! It's liberal! It's ..."

Foolish. That's what it is. I hear the voice behind it. "Did God say ...?" So, no, I think I'll keep my paradigm. I think I'll keep the paradigm that the saints throughout history have kept. I think I'll stand in the company of those who have gone before and those who today stand with them. Sometimes "progressive" isn't progress and sometimes "liberal" isn't generous or freeing. On the other hand, I have it on rather good authority that those who are outside the faith will see the Gospel as foolishness. So I'll stick with Scripture, evident reason, and the saints who have gone before. I'll rely on the Holy Spirit to use the Word of God to tell me what's right, what's real, what's truth. Certainly He's a better source than those who are calling on some unsupported paradigm shift.

Confusion on all levels

Here's a story for you. According to CBS New York, "Controversial Website Offers $1M For Proof Of Sex With Jets’ Tim Tebow". Huh? Yes, that's right. A website that advertises itself as "The world's leading married dating service for discreet encounters" (and I won't link to it) -- a website devoted to promoting adultery -- wants to ... how does the story put it ... "challenge one of Tebow’s core beliefs."

Oh, now that's interesting. What core belief is that? Apparently the concept is that Tebow's Christian beliefs include, at their core, abstinence until marriage. That's right. If you fail that command, you are no longer a Christian. Christianity is a hoax. No true believer in Christ would engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. In fact, the founder of the "most recognized name in infidelity", Noel Biderman, said, "If Mr. Tebow is indeed abstaining from adult relationships, I would encourage him to find a nice lady or two and enjoy his youth and fame as much as possible."

So confused on so many levels. Christianity is not based on premarital sex. Christianity is based on the belief that we're sinners. The starting point to becoming a Christian is not perfection, but perversion.

Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:9-11).

But those of this world that are hostile to God "although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (Rom 1:32).

How many problems do I count in that one little story? Christianity is not based on perfection (sexual or otherwise). The reality of Christianity is not dependent on Tim Tebow's (or anyone else) ability to achieve perfection. Sex is not about recreation. Keeping sexual relations for marriage and for marriage alone is not something to be ridiculed. Indulging in sin and encouraging others to do the same is not something to be proud of. Being willing to indulge lust rather than value Christ or even other people is not a trait worth encouraging.

Rest assured. If they find that Tebow has remained true to his convictions, they will not pat him on the back and affirm his courage. If they find that Tebow has not remained true to his convictions, it is not a reflection on the reality of Christianity. And it isn't open-minded, good-hearted, moral people who would seek to miss the point and besmirch someone who is recognized as moral.

The Screwtape Letters

One of my favorite authors is C.S. Lewis. I've read much of what he has written. Not all. But right now I'm re-reading The Screwtape Letters. If you haven't, you must. You really must. Such well-written insight into the mind of Satan (and, by contrast, God).

So many good quotes in there. So many great concepts. The senior devil, Screwtape, tells his nephew, Wormwood, that, while demons want to make humans into slaves so they can become food, God wants to make them into servants so they can become sons. He talks of how God does His best work when we are at our lowest. So very true. But early on I came across this phenomenal quote. Screwtape tells Wormwood:

Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

Think about that for a moment. That speaks of a changed heart, not driven by emotion but truth, not thriving merely on reward but on reality. It speaks of the blessing of duty. And, I suppose, I appreciate it because I've been there ... and likely will be again.

Truth, Justice, and ...

Many would recognize that phrase and finish it. "Truth, Justice, and the American Way!" You know, the values Superman holds. You know, the mythical guy. Mythical, of course, because he's a comic book hero, but clearly mythical because his values are sorely outmoded.

Setting aside "the American Way" in a global environment, we already know the truth about humans and truth. As a group we "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." Pilate was speaking for most of us when he asked Jesus, "What is truth?" Even in our courtrooms where we're supposed to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", we know that truth is not at issue there. It's who can win.

So we arrive at the question of justice. Surely justice is something we all favor. Maybe not. Take, as evidence, the case of Anders Breivik. Remember him? He was the guy that detonated a car bomb last July killing 8. His plan was to capture and decapitate the Norwegian prime minister. When he arrived on the youth camp island where she (the prime minister) was supposed to be, she had already left. So Anders started killing the youth he could find. Before he was stopped, he managed to execute 69 of them. So, how is justice looking for Mr. Breivik? According to the Washington Post story, "If found sane, Breivik could face a maximum 21-year prison sentence or an alternate custody arrangement that would keep him locked up as long as he is considered a menace to society." Wait ... wait ... a "maximum 21-year prison sentence"? For murdering 77 people? That's justice?

While many would say, "No!", Norway would disagree. They think that the notion of "punishment" for crimes is barbaric. While we debate "cruel and unusual punishment", they consider punishment of any kind "cruel and unusual". They tout their recitivism rates as proof. Reporter Stefan Theil points out that "only 20 percent of former convicts end up back in jail after two years, compared to nearly 60 percent in America. With only 71 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, Norway’s incarceration rate is less than a tenth of America’s." Norway's maximum-security Halden Prison has room for 250 inmates whose cells are more like college dorms -- flat-screen TV, private bath, large unbarred window, and all. "Inmates take cooking classes and work out with personal trainers; there’s a deluxe gym with a rock-climbing wall as well as a professional music studio for prisoners’ bands. Half the guards are women, which prison governor Are Hoidal says creates a less aggressive atmosphere. For the same reason, the guards don’t carry weapons and freely mingle with the inmates. Prisoners even fill out questionnaires to rate the level of service." Prisoners rate the level of service. The goal is not punishment, you see. It is "to reacclimatize the prisoner to society." The goal is not justice. The goal is living nicely in society.

What we're looking at here is a post-Christian society. Europe is considered the most secularized continent on the planet. A full 33% of France considers itself atheist. A quarter of those asked in the UK believed that the world would be better off if no one believed in God. The website devoted to Secular Humanism lists the top three countries with the highest percentage of nonbelievers as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. So why is this significant?

You might remember Immanuel Kant. He was best known for his work the Critique of Pure Reason. In it he argued that we cannot prove the existence of God. Now, understand, Kant was not an atheist. Kant argued elsewhere that if we are to have a common moral code, it requires one thing: Justice. And since people universally violate common moral codes without encountering justice, this Justice must be beyond the immediate experience. There must be a Judge who is Himself beyond reproach -- holy. He must be omniscient so He doesn't have faulty information with which to judge. He must be omnipotent in order to carry out the penalty. He must be immutable so He doesn't vary in justice. And so it goes. Kant argued that we may not be able to prove the existence of God, but we must believe in His existence if morality is to have any force at all. And that force would be Justice.

Say goodbye to justice. As we edge away from a world dominated by Christianity, we edge away from a world that even recognizes justice. It is only by relying on the echoes of Christianity that justice continues today. While they argue vehemently against having religion in the public square, they continue to claim the rights bestowed by the Creator whose existence they deny. It's wrong to kill, but they can't offer solid reasons why. We are outraged by the suggestion that a mass murderer might get 21 years for killing 77 people (and be eligible for parole in less than that), but we've stripped off the value that God gave humans made in His image. There are even those who classify themselves as Christians who argue that justice is not an issue at all. "Forgive and forget ... that's the right thing to do." Without regard, then, to "the American way", we have already suppressed "truth", and we are working hard to eliminate justice, because, after all, that will make a better world. There is no wonder, then, that the Bible tells us, "Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools." I shudder to think about the world where truth and justice have no real bearing at all.

Theistic Evolution

Maybe you're not up to date on this stuff. I know I'm a bit lagging at times. So, there is this self-proclaimed Christian organization called The BioLogos Foundation that is seeking to argue Christianity into the 21st century by assuring us that a literal interpretation of Scripture is a stupid way to go since science has demonstrated that at the very least Genesis is wrong. No "Creation". No "Flood". No literal Adam and Eve. Get over it. Get on the bus. We need to get this train moving out of the Dark Ages so we can reach the world for Christ in the now. Okay, there's that. Recently a well-known, fairly well-respected Christian preacher named Tim Keller wrote a paper for BioLogos to help Christians see evolution and the Bible as compatible. That, you see, should solve a lot of the conflicts between the world and Christianity, and for many Christians between what they see in science and what they see in Scripture. Keller argues for "theistic evolution".

Now, we've all likely heard that term, but we're all likely unclear on what it means to varying degrees. Just so we're on the same page, here's what it means. Theistic evolution argues that God used evolution as His means of creating the world. He guided natural processes to make the world we see today. (Understand that this concept, intended to align Christianity with science, is opposed by science at its core because science here is dedicated to a naturalistic-only view.) So while science (ignoring God) would see natural processes at work, we Christians would know that behind those processes there was a guiding hand. There, see? All fixed.

Well, maybe not. There are problems. Theistic evolution requires some premises, some conditions that we must accept. We must accept (and Keller agrees) that Genesis 1 (at least) is not an actual account of Creation. Indeed, we have to rule out Adam and Eve as the proto-parents of the world. Adam was not the "first Man" as Paul suggests, but one of a many. Sin did not bring death to humanity. It had been happening for millenia. Then, of course, more of Scripture starts to break down. Adam was not made from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7) and Eve was not made from Adam's rib (Gen 2:22). Not all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Genesis 3 is mistaken when it says that God cursed the ground and Paul was mistaken when he said that all creation groans under the curse (that never happened). God spoke strangely to the Israelites when He told them to honor the Sabbath on the seventh day like He did at Creation (which never happened, certainly not in seven days). Indeed, every time we come up against science, it appears that the Bible needs to give ground. An underlying premise must, therefore, be in place here. Science is right; the Bible is in question.

Look, if, after all, we just need to realign our understanding of the Bible to correspond with science, why bother with the Bible. It's clearly not an understandable, reliable document. Stupid Christians for thousands of years have failed to figure out what we enlightened believers have only recently discovered thanks to the anti-theist scientists of the day ... that the plain reading of the Bible is wrong. I suspect, if we're careful in our dealings, holding the Bible to the shining light of modern science, we can eventually eliminate all those silly difficulties like miracles, divine intervention, or Resurrection. If we're very careful and faithful to the anti-theists of the day, we can probably eliminate Christianity entirely. Now, can't we all just get along?

Incrementalism

What is incrementalism? According to the dictionary, incrementalism is "a policy of making changes, especially social changes, by degrees." So, what is incrementalism? It's the process of changing things a little at a time so that no one will notice. It's the fabled "frog in the pot" concept. Make little changes at a time and we'll never notice we're being cooked.

People have an interesting tendency. We tend to think that things have always been as they are now. The Democrats, for instance, will tell you that "For more than 200 years, Democrats have represented the interests of working families, fighting for equal opportunities and justice for all Americans." As it turns out, the Republican Party (you know, those labeled today as racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded) was founded in the 1850's to free the slaves. They sought abolition of slavery. Andrew Johnson, President Lincoln's Vice President, was a former Democrat selected as a compromise to get the votes of Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts to recognize civil rights for freed slaves. But, you can do your own search. I think you'll find that while we may view the Democrats today as those interested in equal opportunities and such, it hasn't always been the case. And that's just one example. Of what? Incrementalism. We think that things have always been the same as they are now, but they aren't.

This is a problem for Christians. Much of what we practice and believe today is traceable not to Scripture, but to culture. Our views on how church is supposed to be, how marriage is supposed to be, how to raise a family, oh, a host of things are more influenced by culture shaped by incrementalism than we realize. We think, "Well, it's how we see it today; it's likely how we've always seen it." And, again, it's not necessarily the case. A couple of easy examples. The concept of arranged marriages in Christianity was a given, not an exception. The concept of a pre-Tribulation Rapture is new, not historical. Contraception, up until the 1950's or so, was universally considered wrong among Christians. And, yet, most of us believe today that marriages must not be arranged, there will certainly be a pre-Trib Rapture, and who could even question the morality of contraception? That's outrageous! And the cause of all this? Incrementalism. Baby steps bit by bit into something radically different that we never saw coming.

The question I'm faced with, then, is this. What do you do when your incrementalism runs into your biblical understanding? That is, if you are used to something, convinced of something, relatively confident of something, and then you read a clear and unavoidable concept in Scripture that denies what you've always held true, which one wins out? Will you shift the meaning of the text to align with the present culture, or will you surrender your present understanding to align with Scripture? I know what you'd like to say, but what is the real answer? So, let's do a test case to see what you do with it.

The text of 1 Corinthians 11 is not vague. It isn't popular, but it isn't vague. It starts with that whole "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" thing. Yuck! Patriarchy. Well, okay, a few of you are still on board. It says it, so let's go with it. But Paul is just using that as the basis for his next zinger. "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" (1 Cor 11:4-5). The text goes on to refer to head coverings as "a symbol of authority" (1 Cor 11:10). Paul references universals here, like the angels and "nature itself". Historically, women wore head coverings of various sorts as symbols of submission. (Note: "Submission" does not equal "inferiority". Don't get confused.) Up through the 19th century the Church understood that it was proper for a woman to wear a head covering especially when involved in matters of worship or prayer. Now we today are much more liberated, much wiser. We've figured out that it had to do with prostitution (although no such reference is made in the text) or long hair (although the text makes no sense in reference to hair as a head covering, considering "if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short" (1 Cor 11:6). "If she won't have long hair, she should have short hair!" Yeah, that's not working.). We're told that it's a cultural thing but can find no cultural link and no historical belief that it was a cultural thing until the incremental steps away from it in the late 1800's until today when we don't give it a passing nod.

So, what is it? Do we say that we've figured it out when all those silly folk from Paul through Augustine through, oh, I don't know, R.C. Sproul understand it to mean just what it says? Do we add on some cultural dimension that isn't there to explain it away? Do we shudder at the thought of burkas for Christians (which, by the way, would be a false dilemma -- no one is going there)? Or is it possible that women have removed the symbol of authority on their heads along with the rise of radical feminism and the denial of the authority of the husband (yeah, try that phrase out in public these days -- "the authority of the husband") and we've allowed it as a product of incremental sin?

Now, like I said, this is a test case to see what you do with it. I offered a text that is opposed to our current way of thinking and asked questions. You decide. But understand that deciding on something that is opposed to your current way of thinking can be a difficult step to take. Don't let that determine what is right or biblical. Rather, let what is right and biblical alter your thinking. If you dare.

Walk by Faith

"In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

I was always fascinated by the story of the Exodus. Particularly the part about the Red Sea. You recall how that went. Israel had just undergone the 10 plagues without suffering from them. The last was the angel of death and they were spared by the blood on the door and the Passover. Pharaoh begged them to leave and the people showered them with riches just to get them out. Then he changed his mind (again) and hunted them down. That evening, stuck between Pharaoh's army and the Red Sea, they got to observe up close and personal an undeniable miracle. The sea parted and they walked through on dry land. When they got to the other side, it closed again and Pharaoh and his army were destroyed. Magnificent! Truly amazing! And they were so excited and elated that they practically danced all the way to the Holy Land and walked in victorious, knowing without a doubt that the hand of God was with them.

No, wait, that's not quite what happened, was it? No, they walked to the Holy Land and turned back, too scared to go forward. Cost them 40 years in the desert. Before that, they walked to Mount Sinai, received the Decalogue directly from God, and forgot so soon that before Moses came down the mountain they were having a worship orgy with a golden calf. Before that, they got hungry. No, catch this. It's important. Exodus 14 is the story of God telling Moses to prepare the people, then getting them across the Red Sea on dry land, then annihilating the Pharaoh and his army. Exodus 15 is the song of Moses, exulting in God's reign. Exodus 16 ... almost no time elapsed, you see ... begins with "And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and the people of Israel said to them, 'Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger'" (Exo 16:2-3). They went from "Hallelujah!" to "Hell in a handbasket" in nothing flat. Fascinating!

I know that we're being told that the economy is turning around. I know that they say we're on the rise again, that the jobless situation is improving, that incomes are inching up, that things are getting better. Maybe. All I know is that my little corner of the world it isn't necessarily so. They just cancelled the project I've been working on for 7 years. New contracts aren't showing up. One source says, "We've been promised another year of support" and another says, "I don't think we'll make it past July." Jobs in my qualifications are scarce and getting one that pays the bills is scarcer. Things aren't looking too good.

"Okay, now wait," some of you are saying. "Normally you may write a bit odd, but it flows from thought to thought. What's this leap from 'Aren't those Israelites funny?' to 'My job is in jeopardy'?" Reasonable question. You see, I'm just as foolish as they. We tend to think that we're going through life on our own. We find a spouse, we find a job, we forge a career, have a family, all that goes into life. We don't. You see, "In Him we live and move and have our being."

So what about me and my job? Well, as it turns out, I can trace a history of God and my employment. My wife was pregnant and I was out of work. What was I to do? Well, look! The military will let me in ... and they will let me in immediately (instead of the 6 months they originally told me) as long as I took this job ... which turned out not to be the job I would ever choose, but to be the best possible job they could give me. Nice. And when that finished? We went cross country to get another job which I lined up and turned out to be unavailable. But there was another job there and when I was asked, "Where did you hear about us?" I said, "Your ad in the paper." "We didn't put an ad in the paper," they told me. And then there was the next move and I landed this job out of the blue without the proper qualifications after looking for 6 months without any luck and doing stuff I really enjoy. Look, just in jobs alone I've been through the plagues and walked through the Red Sea. I've watched the hand of God in my employment record. So how could I possibly say, "Things aren't looking too good"? How? Because, like the Israelites, I forget too easily. I tell God, "I'm worried about this job" and He asks, "What makes you think you got this job in the first place?" Oh, yeah, I forgot.

"In Him we live and move and have our being." I make choices. I walk by sight or I walk by faith. I choose paths and select a wife and raise kids and all that. In the final analysis, however, "It is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." Oh, and He is good. Really good. It's much better to walk by faith than by sight because my sight isn't so good. God is.

Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise Him, my salvation and my God (Psa 42:11).

The Devil's Advocate

The phrase, "playing the devil's advocate", comes from a task in Roman Catholic polity. When someone was/is nominated for sainthood, a team of people from the Church would go out and gather evidence that so-and-so deserved to be a saint. Another, however, was assigned the task of "digging up dirt", so to speak. This special office served as a canonical lawyer -- the concept of the "advocate". This one -- the "devil's advocate" -- had the job of explaining why the nominee should not be sainted. He served as a check and balance against falsely declaring someone a saint who didn't deserve the position. Of course, that's a Catholic thing. We who are not Catholic believe with Scripture that all believers are saints. But I'm interested here in the concept of a lawyer for the devil. I present to you, then, a Cease and Desist order from the Devil's Advocate.
________

Dear Christians:

This law firm represents Satan. If you are represented by legal counsel, you might think of directing this letter to your attorney immediately and have your attorney notify us of such representation. Don’t bother.

You are hereby directed to cease and desist all defamation of Satan’s character, reputation, and plans.

Satan is a respected entity in the community. He has spent years serving the community in his campaign against religion and morality – well, against God – and building a positive reputation. Satan is aware that you continue to engage in spreading destructive and defamatory rumors about him.

Your defamatory statements involved references to the Bible as truth and then leaping to the conclusions like "because the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin, it's a sin". You have suggested that he is "the god of this world" and that he has blinded people. You have made him out to be the "father of lies" and "the prince of the power of the air", and not in a good way. You have portrayed him as seeking to destroy God's work and His people. Surely you can see that none of this is complimentary regardless of whether or not it's true. And then you suggest that he was beaten at the Cross and defeated at the Resurrection? Obviously these statements demean and degrade our client.

Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease and desist your defamation of Satan and provide us with prompt assurance within ten (10) days that you will cease and desist from further defamation of Satan’s character and reputation.

If you do not comply with this cease and desist demand within this time period, Satan, as a roaring lion, is entitled to seek damages and equitable relief for your defamation. In the event you fail to meet this demand, please be advised that Satan has asked us to communicate to you that he will pursue all available remedies, including seeking damages, swaying public opinion, and additional co-opting of your government and societal laws to more closely align with his schemes. Your liability and exposure under such action could be considerable.

Before taking these steps, however, my client wished to give you one opportunity to discontinue your disruptive conduct by complying with this demand within ten (10) days. You have been warned.

I recommend that you do not consult with an attorney regarding this matter. Please contact me directly or, in your own best interest, stop making claims regarding biblical truth.

Sincerely,

The Devil’s Advocate
Legal Counsel for Satan

If God is like that ...

It is not uncommon to hear people, believers and unbelievers, say something like "If God is like that, I want nothing to do with Him." Think about that for a moment. The position is remarkable.

It requires several things to hold that position. It requires the ability to judge God. It requires a moral superiority over God. It requires that God submit to my standards.

And, yet, here we are. I would venture to guess that a large number of people, even classifying themselves as "Christian", deny the biblical explanations of God and His character because "If God is like that, I want nothing to do with Him." "If God chooses whom He will save, I want nothing to do with Him." "If God creates light and calamity, I want nothing to do with Him." "If God willingly allows people to go to Hell, I want nothing to do with Him." "If God ordered the deaths of the Amorites, I want nothing to do with Him." And on and on.

In Defense and Explanation of All the Articles, pg. 81 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 32, Luther said, "Even Lucifer was not guilty of so great a sacrilege in heaven, for he only presumed to be God’s equal." Not us. Some presume to be His superior. As long as He aligns with our allowed pattern of what God ought to be and what our version of "good" is, they will allow Him. I guess that makes some of us more demonic than the demons.

Hate Crimes

With the Trayvon Martin case blaring almost daily on the front page news, we're all well aware of the problem of hate crimes. Most of America is quite certain that George Zimmerman coldly cut down this fine young man in the prime of youth simply because of racial hatred.

And you can see why. According to the FBI, a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses of hate crimes were reported in 2006 alone. Of the 7,330 known offenders, 58.6% were white and 20.6% were black. Some 9,652 victims were identified, with 52% of them targeted because of race. Something like 19% of them were because of sexual orientation. Those are big numbers.

Of course, some hate crimes go unnoticed. The Gay and Lesbian community assures us that many of the hate crimes they experience go unreported. Others are reported, but go unnoticed. Last month, for instance, seven white people were beaten by mobs of black men in Grand Rapids, MI. While Zimmerman is assumed to have shot Martin based on race, these mobs left no doubt. They told one of their victims, "This is what you deserve you white piece of ...". It's a hate crime that has gone unnoticed. While the unjustice (as opposed to "injustice" because so far justice has not been served) of the Trayvon Martin case has the nation's attention, the murder of Daniel Adkins has gone unnoticed. He was an unarmed hispanic man walking his dog and was shot to death by a black man because he felt threatened. No uproar there.

But perhaps the biggest hate crime of all is going by silently. No one appears to notice. No one appears to care. If someone does raise their hand -- "Um, excuse me ... is anyone aware of this?" -- they are ridiculed as reactionary and over-zealous. What hate crimes are these? According to Massimo Introvigne, a human rights representative for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Christian dies every 5 minutes for their faith. According to Assist News, more Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than were martyred in the total history of Christianity. You must understand. In 2000 years of Christendom, an estimated 70 million Christians died for their faith. Some 45.5 million of those died in the 20th century.

Hate crimes are deplorable. Truly awful. Violence, cruelty, killing because of racial prejudice or even sexual preference. (Wikipedia reports that in 2004 2% of hate crimes were against heterosexuals, so it happens to all types.) We're all agreed (well, almost all -- someone is doing these crimes) that hate crimes are horrendous. Apparently, though, while all hate crimes are created evil, but some are more evil than others. Given the silence of the lambs (because people tend to be sheep) on the deaths (let alone violence and cruelty) of Christians, it would appear that this kind of hate crime is much more acceptable in the world than others. In some places it is endorsed. In some places it is the law. And while it's not as big in America today, it looks, based on the talk, like some would like it to be. We are opposed to hate ... as long as it's not those we hate.