Christians are known for a variety of things, but one thing for which we are well known is our insistence on the existence of Absolute Truth. The concept is absolutely necessary. And we will point to a variety of things as absolute. Jesus is God. All humans are sinners. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Absolute truth.
Sometimes, however, as we stand for Absolute Truth, we are not careful about what we hold as Absolute Truth. We say, "It's in the Bible; it must be Absolute Truth." Well, yeah, but not quite. We need to be careful. Take, for instance, Ecclesiastes, which is Solomon's thoughts on various topics. Do we actually agree that, because he said it and it's in the Bible, life is actually pure vanity? Or do we admit that this was his honest view and not necessarily Absolute Truth? One of the big ones is the Book of Proverbs. These are ... proverbs. How many times have I seen Christians take them as Absolute Truth? They aren't intended to be!
There are things that are generally true, but not absolutely true. You can find some of them on bumper stickers. "Treat her like a thoroughbred and she won't be a nag" one sticker said. Yeah, okay ... perhaps. It is true that it is a good idea to treat your wife well. It is true that your best chances of having a happy marriage is to treat your spouse well. But it is not a promise from God. I know husbands who loved their wives with excellence and ended up divorced. I know husbands who abuse their wives and still retain a wife who loves them to the end. Or take another truism we hold dear. "If you want to get a good job in life, you need to go to college." Likely true ... but we know it isn't always the case. There are homeless people with degrees and there are people making good money at complicated jobs without a college education. There are exceptions to these things. They are not absolute.
One such truism is the statement in Proverbs, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov. 22:6). True ... mostly. But I have seen parents at both ends that suffer horribly from this concept. I know some who came to Christ when their kids were in high school or college. What is the chance now that, having messed it all up totally, their kids will go the way they should? And I have known excellent parents who taught their kids to be what they were supposed to be, only to have them stray later in life. What guilt these parents can carry! Clearly if they stray it is because you failed to train them the way they should go. Not true!! Proverbs are proverbial. They are truisms. They are general truths. They are not absolute truths. The nature of a proverb is that there can be exceptions; they are not designed to be promises from God, statements of absolute truth. Still, some Christians suffer from missing that point.
The Bible is full of all sorts of Absolute Truth. We do well to defend it and stand on it. The Bible also has what we call "wisdom", sage advice for living that is mostly true. We do well to recognize the truth of it without trying to defend the exceptions. It is the nature of wisdom. And it is a wise person who can tell the difference. Solomon's point in the Book of Proverbs is "develop wisdom". That would include knowing the difference between Absolute Truth and a truism. We should be careful with that.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Thanks
I was listening to the radio the other day on the way home from work and came across a call-in show. The topic was "Who was your favorite teacher?" Okay. I gave it a mental shot. Funny thing -- I couldn't come up with a name. It wasn't that I didn't remember my teachers. I did. It wasn't that I had lousy teachers. I didn't. It wasn't that I didn't like school. School was fine. It seems that I had a lot of good teachers, and picking a favorite was too hard to do.
It was a moment to reflect, a moment to be grateful. In this world where "dysfunctional" is considered the norm, I had a pretty good childhood, a pretty good life. I have three siblings and I get along with all three. All are married, and I get along just fine with their spouses. I have two living parents -- only two ... no "step" parents -- and I have a wonderful relationship with them. I have a good wife who makes me happy every day. I had it good, and I still do.
My parents taught me when I was growing up without tormenting me. They held a high standard and made sure I met it. They required obedience and loved me regardless. I got a spanking or two, always deserved, but not so many that I need more than two hands to count them. I learned basic necessities like spelling and arithmetic. I learned absolute necessities, being rooted and grounded in the Word. It was a good childhood.
Oh, sure, there have been ups and downs. I had my rebellious period. That served to wake me up to my own stupidity. I've had some serious blows in life, some that knocked me down, but none that knocked me out. There have been stresses and strains ... but it is my sincere suspicion that mine pale in comparison to most other people. All in all, it has been a good life.
We don't look back too often. Life's pressures, past hurts, difficulties, tribulations, just everyday living seem to get in the way. But it's worth it sometimes for me. I get a chance to say, "Thank you" to a Father who looked out for me at every turn, even when I was a prodigal son. He gifted me with wonderful parents, a great set of siblings, an excellent wife, and great children. It serves us well, occasionally, to look back and trace the hand of God in our lives. It teaches us, in the hubbub of life, to be grateful more often than we naturally tend to be.
It was a moment to reflect, a moment to be grateful. In this world where "dysfunctional" is considered the norm, I had a pretty good childhood, a pretty good life. I have three siblings and I get along with all three. All are married, and I get along just fine with their spouses. I have two living parents -- only two ... no "step" parents -- and I have a wonderful relationship with them. I have a good wife who makes me happy every day. I had it good, and I still do.
My parents taught me when I was growing up without tormenting me. They held a high standard and made sure I met it. They required obedience and loved me regardless. I got a spanking or two, always deserved, but not so many that I need more than two hands to count them. I learned basic necessities like spelling and arithmetic. I learned absolute necessities, being rooted and grounded in the Word. It was a good childhood.
Oh, sure, there have been ups and downs. I had my rebellious period. That served to wake me up to my own stupidity. I've had some serious blows in life, some that knocked me down, but none that knocked me out. There have been stresses and strains ... but it is my sincere suspicion that mine pale in comparison to most other people. All in all, it has been a good life.
We don't look back too often. Life's pressures, past hurts, difficulties, tribulations, just everyday living seem to get in the way. But it's worth it sometimes for me. I get a chance to say, "Thank you" to a Father who looked out for me at every turn, even when I was a prodigal son. He gifted me with wonderful parents, a great set of siblings, an excellent wife, and great children. It serves us well, occasionally, to look back and trace the hand of God in our lives. It teaches us, in the hubbub of life, to be grateful more often than we naturally tend to be.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The "Wise" Leading the Blind
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ..." (Rom. 1:22)
What an indictment of the human race! According to Paul, "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:19-20). Human beings have an innate recognition of God. Simple logic dictates this. Human beings around the world are fundamentally religious, regardless of their culture or circumstances. Atheists are made, not born. Nonetheless, the human race as a whole and Americans in particular have decided to be "wiser" than that. "Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21).
A prime example of the really "wise" today is Dr. Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Dr. Singer suggests, in his advanced "wisdom", that there is no reason to defend children in the womb because they aren't people yet. But Dr. Singer takes it further. He holds that there is no reason to protect disabled children either because they aren't human either. It would, in his estimation, be perfectly moral to use these children for experimentation. But "human" isn't really significant to Dr. Singer; he holds that people are no better than other animals, and to suggest they are is simply speciesism.
Now, the "less wise" of our society would mostly reject the "wise" doctor's views. Oddly, they do so at their own peril. You see, while they would suggest that we need to defend children and that people are more valuable than animals, they do so with a complete inconsistency of their own position. Our society has decided that humans are evolved, not made, and that God is irrelevant to the discussion. If He exists at all, He has no place in matters of law, politics, morality, or the public exchange of ideas. So humans are simply some steps beyond lower animals which are merely some steps beyond bugs which are just some steps beyond amoeba. Dr. Singer says that animals and humans are of equal worth, and that is consistent. Society cries, "No! People are more valuable," ignoring completely that they have no basis for such a claim. Instead, the rule of Evolution is "the survival of the fittest." Now, our society has laws in place that protect children and the elderly. We have Child Protective Services and the Disability Act and rules against elderly abuse because we believe that the role of humans in general and government in particular is to protect the "less fit." So we claim to toss out God and then act as if there is one. We hold that humans are evolved animals but pass laws to treat them as if they're something more. We make rules to protect them against ... the primary rule of our origins. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ..."
On 60 Minutes last Sunday, Joel Osteen talked up his new book, Become a Better You. The reporter who interviewed him, Byron Pitts, had some interesting questions.
I think we're in trouble ... real trouble. Some years ago I taught on a Sunday evening on the passage in 2 Tim. 3 about "the last days" and the moral conditions of that time. As I was teaching it I realized that I wasn't just talking about our society; I was talking about many churches. If people have a tendency to suppress the truth, if they have a tendency to surrender God, believing they are wise, and become fools, if they suffer from a deceitful, wicked heart, and if God is capable of giving them up, then we are in the process of being given up. We have managed to qualify ourselves for that. The really scary part to me is this: Humans face judgment on the last day, but nations face temporal judgment. We know that final judgment for us doesn't occur until after we die, but no nation has that assurance. And if America and the church continues to profess to be wise while becoming more and more foolish, perhaps a Hillary is exactly what is needed for God to finish the job of terminating the good that was once a nation predicated on "In God we trust."
What an indictment of the human race! According to Paul, "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:19-20). Human beings have an innate recognition of God. Simple logic dictates this. Human beings around the world are fundamentally religious, regardless of their culture or circumstances. Atheists are made, not born. Nonetheless, the human race as a whole and Americans in particular have decided to be "wiser" than that. "Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21).
A prime example of the really "wise" today is Dr. Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Dr. Singer suggests, in his advanced "wisdom", that there is no reason to defend children in the womb because they aren't people yet. But Dr. Singer takes it further. He holds that there is no reason to protect disabled children either because they aren't human either. It would, in his estimation, be perfectly moral to use these children for experimentation. But "human" isn't really significant to Dr. Singer; he holds that people are no better than other animals, and to suggest they are is simply speciesism.
Now, the "less wise" of our society would mostly reject the "wise" doctor's views. Oddly, they do so at their own peril. You see, while they would suggest that we need to defend children and that people are more valuable than animals, they do so with a complete inconsistency of their own position. Our society has decided that humans are evolved, not made, and that God is irrelevant to the discussion. If He exists at all, He has no place in matters of law, politics, morality, or the public exchange of ideas. So humans are simply some steps beyond lower animals which are merely some steps beyond bugs which are just some steps beyond amoeba. Dr. Singer says that animals and humans are of equal worth, and that is consistent. Society cries, "No! People are more valuable," ignoring completely that they have no basis for such a claim. Instead, the rule of Evolution is "the survival of the fittest." Now, our society has laws in place that protect children and the elderly. We have Child Protective Services and the Disability Act and rules against elderly abuse because we believe that the role of humans in general and government in particular is to protect the "less fit." So we claim to toss out God and then act as if there is one. We hold that humans are evolved animals but pass laws to treat them as if they're something more. We make rules to protect them against ... the primary rule of our origins. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ..."
On 60 Minutes last Sunday, Joel Osteen talked up his new book, Become a Better You. The reporter who interviewed him, Byron Pitts, had some interesting questions.
"You said 'I like to see myself as a life coach, a motivator to help them experience the life of God that God has for them. People don’t like to be beat down and told 'You’ve done wrong.' What do you mean?" Pitts asks.Joel, for all his good intentions, is mistaken when he says, "I think that most people already know what they’re doing wrong." He has ignored the accusation that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). He missed the fact that the primary problem of natural man is the suppression of truth (Rom. 1:18). He has missed the point that God has surrendered Man to his own foolishness -- "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ..." And if we follow Paul's logical progression of Romans 1, we find a series in which God "gave them up" (Rom. 1:24, 26). In other words, people do not know how sinful they are, and to fail to tell them the problem is to fail to offer them a real solution.
"Well, I think that most people already know what they’re doing wrong. And for me to get in here and just beat ‘em down and talk down to ‘em, I just don’t think that inspires anybody to rise higher. But I want to motivate. I wanna motivate every person to leave here to be a better father, a better husband, to break addictions to come up higher in their walk with the Lord," Osteen says.
I think we're in trouble ... real trouble. Some years ago I taught on a Sunday evening on the passage in 2 Tim. 3 about "the last days" and the moral conditions of that time. As I was teaching it I realized that I wasn't just talking about our society; I was talking about many churches. If people have a tendency to suppress the truth, if they have a tendency to surrender God, believing they are wise, and become fools, if they suffer from a deceitful, wicked heart, and if God is capable of giving them up, then we are in the process of being given up. We have managed to qualify ourselves for that. The really scary part to me is this: Humans face judgment on the last day, but nations face temporal judgment. We know that final judgment for us doesn't occur until after we die, but no nation has that assurance. And if America and the church continues to profess to be wise while becoming more and more foolish, perhaps a Hillary is exactly what is needed for God to finish the job of terminating the good that was once a nation predicated on "In God we trust."
Friday, October 19, 2007
What is This Thing Called "church"?
I would really like some input here. It has been some years now that this has rolled around in my head, and I'm still unclear on the concept. Someone has to be able to clear it up for me.
The fundamental structure of most churches (building on the corner, not "Body of Christ" Church) is that it is led by a pastor, a single leader. There are variations on this theme. Some have "senior pastors" with subordinate pastors also on the list, but this still boils down to a single leader. I have known of one or two that had "co-pastors", two or more leaders, but it's still the same concept in that you have a pastor who leads the church. Some churches have elders that have some influence over pastors. Others have the pastor as part of the board -- generally leading it. Some don't have elders at all (ignoring, as I understand Scripture, the biblical model). Some have pastors who answer to a higher structure, organizations like the Southern Baptists or the Presbyterians or so many others. Still, to the congregation there is still a pastor at the head of the local church. Some pastors serve at the whim of the congregation. He is there as long as they tolerate him, and if he falls out of favor, he falls out of a job. Still, there is a singular person generally referred to as "pastor" who is at the top.
My question in all of this is ... why? As I look through Scripture, I don't find this at all. Turning the pages of my Bible, I find that the original "church", Israel, had multiple spiritual leaders. An entire tribe of Israel served in that capacity. Moving from the "pre-Christ" to the "after Christ" Church, we find plenty of stuff about it in the New Testament. One thing that appears to be lacking is the concept of "pastor" as we use it today. Or maybe you haven't noticed.
Pull out a concordance or a Bible search engine and look up "pastor" sometime. Hey, even if you don't find much there, try out a topical index. Here's what you'll likely find. The word "pastor" occurs -- get this -- exactly never in the New Testament. Okay, okay, that seems unfair. In truth, the word "pastors" occurs ... once. One time. Now, if the primary focus in American churches is the pastor, why is the concept so absent from the New Testament? Keep looking. Maybe it's under "clergy", that select group who goes to seminary, learns how to lead, studies Greek and Hebrew, then gets certified by a special group to pastor your churches. No? What's up with that? Why is it that the single most obvious member of every church on the face of the American landscape is so absolutely scarce in the pages of Scripture? Could it be that we've missed something ... or, just as bad, added something?
The word, "pastor," comes from the concept of "pasture" and refers primarily to shepherd. Oh, now wait! Here we go. Let's find "shepherd". Ah, there it is:
So, here I am left wondering why it is that this is not what we see in churches today. Why is there a single pastor who preaches every week rather than a small group of mature Christian men? Why is the focus on one man rather than a group of leaders? Why do we have such an emphasis on a thing we can refer to as "clergy" where no such thing seems to exist in the New Testament? In other words, why is our standard church not found anywhere in the pages of the New Testament or the New Testament version of church not found anywhere on the streets of American Christianity? What am I missing?
The fundamental structure of most churches (building on the corner, not "Body of Christ" Church) is that it is led by a pastor, a single leader. There are variations on this theme. Some have "senior pastors" with subordinate pastors also on the list, but this still boils down to a single leader. I have known of one or two that had "co-pastors", two or more leaders, but it's still the same concept in that you have a pastor who leads the church. Some churches have elders that have some influence over pastors. Others have the pastor as part of the board -- generally leading it. Some don't have elders at all (ignoring, as I understand Scripture, the biblical model). Some have pastors who answer to a higher structure, organizations like the Southern Baptists or the Presbyterians or so many others. Still, to the congregation there is still a pastor at the head of the local church. Some pastors serve at the whim of the congregation. He is there as long as they tolerate him, and if he falls out of favor, he falls out of a job. Still, there is a singular person generally referred to as "pastor" who is at the top.
My question in all of this is ... why? As I look through Scripture, I don't find this at all. Turning the pages of my Bible, I find that the original "church", Israel, had multiple spiritual leaders. An entire tribe of Israel served in that capacity. Moving from the "pre-Christ" to the "after Christ" Church, we find plenty of stuff about it in the New Testament. One thing that appears to be lacking is the concept of "pastor" as we use it today. Or maybe you haven't noticed.
Pull out a concordance or a Bible search engine and look up "pastor" sometime. Hey, even if you don't find much there, try out a topical index. Here's what you'll likely find. The word "pastor" occurs -- get this -- exactly never in the New Testament. Okay, okay, that seems unfair. In truth, the word "pastors" occurs ... once. One time. Now, if the primary focus in American churches is the pastor, why is the concept so absent from the New Testament? Keep looking. Maybe it's under "clergy", that select group who goes to seminary, learns how to lead, studies Greek and Hebrew, then gets certified by a special group to pastor your churches. No? What's up with that? Why is it that the single most obvious member of every church on the face of the American landscape is so absolutely scarce in the pages of Scripture? Could it be that we've missed something ... or, just as bad, added something?
The word, "pastor," comes from the concept of "pasture" and refers primarily to shepherd. Oh, now wait! Here we go. Let's find "shepherd". Ah, there it is:
I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory (1 Peter 5:1-4).Hmmm. That doesn't quite work, does it? You see, it refers to "elders", not "pastors" or the like. It is a group of people, not a single person. Generally speaking, the term "elder" refers to a group of men that lead the church, never to a single individual. Sometimes it means "people who are older", and that may even be the case here (since it follows this with a reference to "young men" who should be subject to the "elders"). Still, it would be a bizarre church indeed that had one older man. No, it appears that Peter is here giving instructions that the more spiritually mature Christians exercise leadership over the local body. Indeed, the word he uses is "oversight" which is the same root word used in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 where Paul details the qualifications for a "bishop", an "overseer". Oh, my, it looks like we're back to that concept. In fact, when Paul addresses his epistle to the church at Philippi, he references "all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons" (Phil. 1:1). (Odd ... he doesn't reference a pastor.) It would appear from this and many other references that the local church is constructed of believers and directed by a group of men who are "overseers" or "elders" (who are "apt to teach" -- 1 Tim. 3:2) and deacons. Apparently the elders or overseers are the spiritual leaders while the deacons carry out the practical functions of ministry.
So, here I am left wondering why it is that this is not what we see in churches today. Why is there a single pastor who preaches every week rather than a small group of mature Christian men? Why is the focus on one man rather than a group of leaders? Why do we have such an emphasis on a thing we can refer to as "clergy" where no such thing seems to exist in the New Testament? In other words, why is our standard church not found anywhere in the pages of the New Testament or the New Testament version of church not found anywhere on the streets of American Christianity? What am I missing?
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Feelings versus Facts
I wrote this back in 1991 to help me sort through my feelings and compare them through God's facts. I realize that we often operate on a faulty basis of feelings (which can lie) versus the truth. So I did this as an exercise ... you know ... transforming the mind. I thought, perhaps, it might be of some benefit to you
Now, keep in mind, for this to be most effective for you, you will have to do the work yourself. You will have to fill in the "My Feelings" column with your own feelings and the "God's Facts" column with the truth about what you're feeling. Maybe, just maybe, you will find that it is helpful for you as it was for me.
| My Feelings | God’s Facts |
| 1. Nobody loves me. | I am loved. John 13:1; 14:21; 15:13; Rom. 5:8; 8:35-39; 1 John 4:10, 16; 3:1; Rev. 3:19 |
| 2. Why doesn’t anything good ever happen to me? | All things work together for good. Rom. 8:28 |
| 3. I’m good for nothing. | I am highly valued by the highest being in the universe – God. Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 7:23; 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18-19 I am viewed as pure by God, a new creation. Jer. 31:34; Psa 103:12; Eph. 4:24; Heb. 8:12 |
| 4. Why couldn’t I be … (better looking, more athletic, taller, shorter, skinnier, smarter, etc.)? | I was personally designed by God. This includes my physical characteristics, my parentage, and my circumstances. Job 10:10-11; Psa. 139:13-16; 119:73 |
| 5. He/she made me angry (any feeling that is admittedly wrong). | Each of us is responsible for our own responses. James 1:14 |
| 6. I don’t have any skills (abilities to contribute to my world). | To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 1 Cor. 12:7, 16, 22, 23 |
| 7. I’m a loser, a failure. | I am a conqueror. I have the power for all things I must do. Phil. 4:13 |
Now, keep in mind, for this to be most effective for you, you will have to do the work yourself. You will have to fill in the "My Feelings" column with your own feelings and the "God's Facts" column with the truth about what you're feeling. Maybe, just maybe, you will find that it is helpful for you as it was for me.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Evilution
No, I didn't misspell that title. Let me explain.
Yesterday I wrote on the third-party concept. This is a further explanation on the same idea.
Few people deny that the morality of America today compared to the morality of America in the 1950's is much more ... relaxed. What was considered "common decency" in the '50's is outrageously narrow-minded today, and what was considered morally outrageous back then is considered commonplace today. In some cases people might even argue that the evolution of American morality is a good thing, but no one can rationally argue that it didn't happen. How did we get here from there?
The change from then (and even before) to now was not a sudden change. It was an evolution. It was progressive. The morality of the '50's was not the same as the morality of the '60's, and the morality of the '70's was not the same as the morality of the '80's. It was a process. A level of virtue held in the 50's was released in the 60's. Things that were "evil" became "tolerable", then "normal" and even "good". Values like family, children, and personal integrity shifted into the background, replaced with self-love and personal advancement. Women in the '50's, for instance, thought that being a wife and mother was a noble goal; today it is outlandish, backward, and repressive. Men in the '50's dreamt of a career, a family, and a family home; today staying at the same job with the same woman and the same house seems boring. Back then divorce was the exception; today it is the norm. Child molestors, rapists, murderers ... all sorts of evil has found its fuller expression today, released from yesterday's moral virtues.
So what is my point? The shift occurred gradually, accepting as tolerable something that was intolerable yesterday. It continues today. This is one of the reasons that I would have a serious problem voting for a Giuliani. Many see him as "the lesser of two evils." His views don't line up with ours, but better him than Hillary. To me, he represents a bigger threat than Hillary.
Many conservatives feel like the Republican party left them. They feel like their values have been ignored and their party has moved on. Putting a Giuliani in office would be another step away. Four years later, how many Republicans would be standing against abortion? A Giuliani-like candidate would be a shift away from the standards we value ... pushing a step further from the standards we value. And the longer we stay away from the standards we value, the more acceptable the new standard seems.
Is it better than Hillary? Maybe. We all know that Hillary's platform verges on socialism. There is no hint that she would be upholding conservative values. And therein lies the problem. Conservatives would vote for a Giuliani to exclude a Hillary, but no conservative would mistake Hillary for a conservative. So, with Hillary as the contrast, many would begin to think of the new Republican position -- the Giuliani candidate -- as "conservative" ... and normal. And the country steps away, again, from real values.
I see the same thing in many corners of life. Take music, for instance. Many conservatives recognize heavy metal or death metal or the like as "bad". We know that rap and hip hop represent "evil". But what about "easy listening"? What about the popular love songs? Well, they're singing about "spending the night together" and other values that Christians consider sin. Yet, they slip in as non-offensive because they are not death metal or rap. And the music culture teaches Christians that "love is a warm feeling" and "sex is between lovers, regardless of marital status." And because it's not that evil music, we swallow it.
Because it's not Hillary, but "one of our own", too many conservatives will buy into a Giuliani as something better than a Hillary. They won't see themselves take that baby step away from conservative values. They will think that they are limiting evil, while they step, ever so slightly, closer to accepting it. I cannot afford to vote that way. I'm not looking for a "perfect candidate". I'm not even trying to judge Giuliani's views. Nor am I trying to force my views on the Republican party. I just cannot, in good conscience, call a vote against an issue as large as protecting human life a "lesser evil". I cannot endorse someone who refuses to publicly stand for life, a basic function of government. I would not be able to stand there on Judgment Day and say, "Yes, I voted in favor of someone who won't protect life, but it wasn't as evil as the other." Indeed, if the Republican Party has left conservatives, where will we go? Maybe it is time to start a third party? At some point, at the very least, we need make some effort to stop the moral bleed.
After thought: During the 90's, when the Clintons were in office, there was outcry by the right against the President's lack of character. His defenders assured us that when it came to being a president, "Character doesn't count." The right didn't buy it. So why is it now, when Giuliani's character is in question regarding multiple divorces, etc., do we hear the same thing coming from the Republicans? Could it be that Clinton's decline has lowered the standards? That is what concerns me with a Giuliani.
Yesterday I wrote on the third-party concept. This is a further explanation on the same idea.
Few people deny that the morality of America today compared to the morality of America in the 1950's is much more ... relaxed. What was considered "common decency" in the '50's is outrageously narrow-minded today, and what was considered morally outrageous back then is considered commonplace today. In some cases people might even argue that the evolution of American morality is a good thing, but no one can rationally argue that it didn't happen. How did we get here from there?
The change from then (and even before) to now was not a sudden change. It was an evolution. It was progressive. The morality of the '50's was not the same as the morality of the '60's, and the morality of the '70's was not the same as the morality of the '80's. It was a process. A level of virtue held in the 50's was released in the 60's. Things that were "evil" became "tolerable", then "normal" and even "good". Values like family, children, and personal integrity shifted into the background, replaced with self-love and personal advancement. Women in the '50's, for instance, thought that being a wife and mother was a noble goal; today it is outlandish, backward, and repressive. Men in the '50's dreamt of a career, a family, and a family home; today staying at the same job with the same woman and the same house seems boring. Back then divorce was the exception; today it is the norm. Child molestors, rapists, murderers ... all sorts of evil has found its fuller expression today, released from yesterday's moral virtues.
So what is my point? The shift occurred gradually, accepting as tolerable something that was intolerable yesterday. It continues today. This is one of the reasons that I would have a serious problem voting for a Giuliani. Many see him as "the lesser of two evils." His views don't line up with ours, but better him than Hillary. To me, he represents a bigger threat than Hillary.
Many conservatives feel like the Republican party left them. They feel like their values have been ignored and their party has moved on. Putting a Giuliani in office would be another step away. Four years later, how many Republicans would be standing against abortion? A Giuliani-like candidate would be a shift away from the standards we value ... pushing a step further from the standards we value. And the longer we stay away from the standards we value, the more acceptable the new standard seems.
Is it better than Hillary? Maybe. We all know that Hillary's platform verges on socialism. There is no hint that she would be upholding conservative values. And therein lies the problem. Conservatives would vote for a Giuliani to exclude a Hillary, but no conservative would mistake Hillary for a conservative. So, with Hillary as the contrast, many would begin to think of the new Republican position -- the Giuliani candidate -- as "conservative" ... and normal. And the country steps away, again, from real values.
I see the same thing in many corners of life. Take music, for instance. Many conservatives recognize heavy metal or death metal or the like as "bad". We know that rap and hip hop represent "evil". But what about "easy listening"? What about the popular love songs? Well, they're singing about "spending the night together" and other values that Christians consider sin. Yet, they slip in as non-offensive because they are not death metal or rap. And the music culture teaches Christians that "love is a warm feeling" and "sex is between lovers, regardless of marital status." And because it's not that evil music, we swallow it.
Because it's not Hillary, but "one of our own", too many conservatives will buy into a Giuliani as something better than a Hillary. They won't see themselves take that baby step away from conservative values. They will think that they are limiting evil, while they step, ever so slightly, closer to accepting it. I cannot afford to vote that way. I'm not looking for a "perfect candidate". I'm not even trying to judge Giuliani's views. Nor am I trying to force my views on the Republican party. I just cannot, in good conscience, call a vote against an issue as large as protecting human life a "lesser evil". I cannot endorse someone who refuses to publicly stand for life, a basic function of government. I would not be able to stand there on Judgment Day and say, "Yes, I voted in favor of someone who won't protect life, but it wasn't as evil as the other." Indeed, if the Republican Party has left conservatives, where will we go? Maybe it is time to start a third party? At some point, at the very least, we need make some effort to stop the moral bleed.
After thought: During the 90's, when the Clintons were in office, there was outcry by the right against the President's lack of character. His defenders assured us that when it came to being a president, "Character doesn't count." The right didn't buy it. So why is it now, when Giuliani's character is in question regarding multiple divorces, etc., do we hear the same thing coming from the Republicans? Could it be that Clinton's decline has lowered the standards? That is what concerns me with a Giuliani.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Supporting a Third Party
Some Christian conservatives have laid down the gauntlet on the upcoming presidential election. If the choice comes down to pro-choice Clinton versus pro-choice Giuliani, they're going to bail out. Some are concerned that they'll just sit this one out. The more common suggestion is that they will support a third-party candidate.
The accusation -- from both conservatives and liberals -- is that these folks are "single-issue voters." I would have to confess that likely in many of these cases this is true. The issue of abortion is a deal breaker. And I am one that would have a hard time (read "nearly impossible") voting for a pro-choice candidate despite the alternatives. I am not, however, a single-issue voter. Let me explain.
Meet Tim. Tim is a fictitious wannabe candidate for the presidency. Tim is an excellent candidate. He supports everything you support. He is opposed to everything you oppose. What a guy! Oh, one little thing ... Tim is a drunk. Tim is, in fact, always drunk. He may do outrageous things when he is drunk, as drunks are prone to do. He may just pass out. But, hey! Let's not dwell on that! Tim is an excellent candidate!
Is he? If you chose not to vote for Tim because he was always drunk, would you be a "single-issue voter"? I don't think so. You see, Tim's drinking would have large ramifications. He couldn't be relied on to run a country. He doesn't have the self-control required. He would be signing or vetoing bills under the influence, and who knows what he'd do in that situation? He could easily be passed out when he is needed in a crisis. He would be an unacceptable representative of our country to the world. That kind of a problem provides many reasons not to vote for Tim.
The same is true in my mind with the topic of abortion. The primary role of government is to protect its people. If a person who is trying to occupy the highest office of the land refuses to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn, then on what basis would I think that he/she would do the job in other applications? If murdering babies is acceptable, what other acceptable atrocities would he/she allow? If the person that I am considering for office doesn't care about protecting, why would I think that he would care about other humans? And the questions just keep coming.
Maybe I am a single-issue voter. I want to elect someone to the presidency who will do the job. Someone who doesn't care about doing the job at the outset is not someone that I think I should vote for. Perhaps it's a single issue, but it's not as small as "the abortion issue". It's a matter of doing the job that government is supposed to do.
The accusation -- from both conservatives and liberals -- is that these folks are "single-issue voters." I would have to confess that likely in many of these cases this is true. The issue of abortion is a deal breaker. And I am one that would have a hard time (read "nearly impossible") voting for a pro-choice candidate despite the alternatives. I am not, however, a single-issue voter. Let me explain.
Meet Tim. Tim is a fictitious wannabe candidate for the presidency. Tim is an excellent candidate. He supports everything you support. He is opposed to everything you oppose. What a guy! Oh, one little thing ... Tim is a drunk. Tim is, in fact, always drunk. He may do outrageous things when he is drunk, as drunks are prone to do. He may just pass out. But, hey! Let's not dwell on that! Tim is an excellent candidate!
Is he? If you chose not to vote for Tim because he was always drunk, would you be a "single-issue voter"? I don't think so. You see, Tim's drinking would have large ramifications. He couldn't be relied on to run a country. He doesn't have the self-control required. He would be signing or vetoing bills under the influence, and who knows what he'd do in that situation? He could easily be passed out when he is needed in a crisis. He would be an unacceptable representative of our country to the world. That kind of a problem provides many reasons not to vote for Tim.
The same is true in my mind with the topic of abortion. The primary role of government is to protect its people. If a person who is trying to occupy the highest office of the land refuses to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn, then on what basis would I think that he/she would do the job in other applications? If murdering babies is acceptable, what other acceptable atrocities would he/she allow? If the person that I am considering for office doesn't care about protecting, why would I think that he would care about other humans? And the questions just keep coming.
Maybe I am a single-issue voter. I want to elect someone to the presidency who will do the job. Someone who doesn't care about doing the job at the outset is not someone that I think I should vote for. Perhaps it's a single issue, but it's not as small as "the abortion issue". It's a matter of doing the job that government is supposed to do.
Monday, October 15, 2007
End of the World
It's the end of the world as we know it. WorldNetDaily informs us that "'Mom and Dad' as well as 'husband and wife' have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose." This is really, really bad.
So I took a look. I read SB 777. How odd! I don't find a single phrase in there that bans the use of the terms "mom and dad" or "husband and wife". I don't find a single suggestion that allows boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms. Not a single word. So now I have to dig deeper. What is it in this bill that is so offensive to WorldNetDaily that they feel they need to lie about it? What is it that is so nefarious that it can ban things without mentioning them and support things without a word?
The bill is an anti-discrimination bill. Here is the introduction to the bill:
So, what is it that has people's knickers in a twist? The state law already prohibits discrimination in school on the basis of "sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability." SB 777 doesn't change that. I cannot imagine a Christian suggesting it should. "By all means we need to discriminate on the basis of physical disability (or race or ...)." No, I don't see that. So what is SB 777 changing? "This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code." This bill changes the existing law by adding "sexual orientation" to the existing list. It is simply banning the schools from "instruction, activities, and instructional materials" that discriminate on a basis that is contrary to the existing penal code.
It is true that the bill, in its definitions, extends protection to "gender" which "includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." In other words, it protects transgender and cross-dressing folks. Would the Christian suggest, "No! They must be discriminated against! They must be banned, beaten, singled out and thrashed!!"? Sadly, I suppose there are those who classify themselves as Christians who would say, "Yes!", but it's not Christian. The Bible recognizes a split between Christianity and government. It also recognizes that, while we are indeed to recognize and avoid sin in the world, it is not our job to judge the world. We are to judge within the Church, but we are to expect the world to be sinful. (See, for instance, 1 Cor. 5: 9-13.) It's not our job to force the world to act according to biblical standards.
Still, nothing in the bill approaches the outlandish accusations like those from WorldNetDaily. Nothing removes "Mom and Dad", "husband and wife", or anything like it. These are equally protected. Teachers may not teach against certain practices, it's true, but I'd much rather that our public school teachers avoided topics like that entirely rather than give their skewed moral perspectives, so I'm in favor of not teaching about it. Nothing in the bill mandates letting boys use girls' restrooms or the like. That's a stretch, a reach, a leap of logic not included in the bill. (Let a school try it and see how long it lasts.)
We live in trying times. Our world is in serious moral decline. There is no doubt. We've surrendered our influence on the nation's morality by abdicating our role as the light of the world, living Christ in front of them. This is all true. But, please, let's not overreacted and create a scene where none is required. Recognize that certain groups will (from both sides) will likely skew the information you get and be ready for it (on both sides). Recognize that it is not our job to make the world more "Christian" because we can't. Pray for those in authority (because we are commanded to do so). Live a life that reflects Christ (because we are commanded to do so). Vote your conscience (because it makes sense). But let's avoid making ourselves look any more foolish than we have to. The Gospel is foolishness enough, isn't it?
So I took a look. I read SB 777. How odd! I don't find a single phrase in there that bans the use of the terms "mom and dad" or "husband and wife". I don't find a single suggestion that allows boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms. Not a single word. So now I have to dig deeper. What is it in this bill that is so offensive to WorldNetDaily that they feel they need to lie about it? What is it that is so nefarious that it can ban things without mentioning them and support things without a word?
The bill is an anti-discrimination bill. Here is the introduction to the bill:
Existing law states that it is the policy of the state to afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on those bases.One important note. At the end of the introduction, the bill lists a variety of characteristics such as how it will pass (majority vote), if there is financial impact, and what is mandated in terms of local programs. According to the introduction, "State-mandated local program: no." In other words, this is not a mandate; it is a prohibition.
Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of a school district from adopting for use in the public schools any instructional materials that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose.
So, what is it that has people's knickers in a twist? The state law already prohibits discrimination in school on the basis of "sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability." SB 777 doesn't change that. I cannot imagine a Christian suggesting it should. "By all means we need to discriminate on the basis of physical disability (or race or ...)." No, I don't see that. So what is SB 777 changing? "This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code." This bill changes the existing law by adding "sexual orientation" to the existing list. It is simply banning the schools from "instruction, activities, and instructional materials" that discriminate on a basis that is contrary to the existing penal code.
It is true that the bill, in its definitions, extends protection to "gender" which "includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." In other words, it protects transgender and cross-dressing folks. Would the Christian suggest, "No! They must be discriminated against! They must be banned, beaten, singled out and thrashed!!"? Sadly, I suppose there are those who classify themselves as Christians who would say, "Yes!", but it's not Christian. The Bible recognizes a split between Christianity and government. It also recognizes that, while we are indeed to recognize and avoid sin in the world, it is not our job to judge the world. We are to judge within the Church, but we are to expect the world to be sinful. (See, for instance, 1 Cor. 5: 9-13.) It's not our job to force the world to act according to biblical standards.
Still, nothing in the bill approaches the outlandish accusations like those from WorldNetDaily. Nothing removes "Mom and Dad", "husband and wife", or anything like it. These are equally protected. Teachers may not teach against certain practices, it's true, but I'd much rather that our public school teachers avoided topics like that entirely rather than give their skewed moral perspectives, so I'm in favor of not teaching about it. Nothing in the bill mandates letting boys use girls' restrooms or the like. That's a stretch, a reach, a leap of logic not included in the bill. (Let a school try it and see how long it lasts.)
We live in trying times. Our world is in serious moral decline. There is no doubt. We've surrendered our influence on the nation's morality by abdicating our role as the light of the world, living Christ in front of them. This is all true. But, please, let's not overreacted and create a scene where none is required. Recognize that certain groups will (from both sides) will likely skew the information you get and be ready for it (on both sides). Recognize that it is not our job to make the world more "Christian" because we can't. Pray for those in authority (because we are commanded to do so). Live a life that reflects Christ (because we are commanded to do so). Vote your conscience (because it makes sense). But let's avoid making ourselves look any more foolish than we have to. The Gospel is foolishness enough, isn't it?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Missed Messages
We are commanded "Preach the gospel." Now, in our effort to "reach the world for Christ," a subtle but serious modification to the command, we have attempted to make people feel better. One well-known preacher has even suggested that it is wrong to say that people are sinners -- they just suffer from poor self-esteem. Less radical, others have simply decided to exclude the concept from their preaching. Make it "friendly." Make it "up beat." Make it "positive." Here is a extremely limited smattering of verses on a biblical topic:
Without the bad news, good news is meaningless. Only with the bad news firmly in view can you begin to pick out the good news of statements like this:
Suddenly, the "positive, uplifting" message sans sin isn't so positive or uplifting. Let's "preach the word" rather than "reach the world for Christ."
On Sundays I try to post something that brings praise to God. I can think of nothing that causes me to love Him and glorify Him more than realizing the depths of my sin, the wrath that I've earned, and the vast expanse of the mercy and grace that He has shown me instead. That is the Gospel ... "to the praise of His glorious grace" (Eph. 1:6).
O LORD, rebuke me not in your anger, nor discipline me in your wrath! (Psa. 38:1).Can you pick out a trend?
Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it (Isa. 13:9).
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:36).
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18).
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed (Rom. 2:5).
For those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury (Rom. 2:8).
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord" (Rom. 12:19).
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Eph. 5:6).
9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." 13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.", 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:9-18).
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
Without the bad news, good news is meaningless. Only with the bad news firmly in view can you begin to pick out the good news of statements like this:
What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory -- even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom. 9:22-24)Remove God's intent to demonstrate His wrath, and you remove "the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy."
Suddenly, the "positive, uplifting" message sans sin isn't so positive or uplifting. Let's "preach the word" rather than "reach the world for Christ."
On Sundays I try to post something that brings praise to God. I can think of nothing that causes me to love Him and glorify Him more than realizing the depths of my sin, the wrath that I've earned, and the vast expanse of the mercy and grace that He has shown me instead. That is the Gospel ... "to the praise of His glorious grace" (Eph. 1:6).
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Reach the World for Christ
It is said that anger is due to the perception that my rights have been blocked and frustration is due to the perception that my goals have been blocked. Generally speaking, frustration is caused when I set a goal for myself that is not valid. Now, this concept is pretty sneaky because our goals can appear to be really good. Take, for instance, the wife who sets a goal to make her husband happy. Now, what could be better than that? I mean, that's right ... isn't it? Unfortunately, it's a misguided goal. No person can make another person feel anything. You can set up situations that make it more likely. You can even be successful at these attempts much of the time. However, no person can make another person feel anything, so if her goal is to make her husband happy and his work has upset him, she has failed at her goal and will be frustrated. The frustration is due to a faulty goal.
We often make faulty goals out of lofty ideas. One that I see all the time in Christian circles is this one: Reach the world for Christ. "Faulty goal? What do you mean?? Isn't that a command?!" Well, many people think of it as the command we've been given, but it is slightly different and, as such, prone to error. Consider the actual command:
It is this misguided goal that causes frustration and produces error. Despite the fact that it sounds right, it tends to head us in wrong directions. "Preach the gospel" allows us to modify the presentation to present it to the given audience, but it doesn't allow us to modify the gospel because the gospel is the anchor point. Missionaries do this when they go to places that the gospel hasn't been preached, learn a new language, and preach the gospel in that new language. This takes into account the audience without modifying the gospel. This is the command. But "reach the world" takes into account effectiveness. If we are "preaching the gospel" and no one seems to be listening, maybe it's time to modify the message. People don't like to hear about sin; don't preach about sin. People don't like to hear about exclusivity; don't touch on exclusivity. People don't like to hear about conflict; don't preach on conflict. Never mind that the gospel is all about the problem of sin, the fact that Jesus is the only way, and that only in a relationship with Christ can we find resolution to our conflict with God. So, to "reach the world", we modify the gospel. The world will likely respond more warmly ... but to what? We've denied them the gospel in favor of "reaching" them.
We are commanded to preach the gospel. Paul told Timothy, "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (2 Tim. 4:2). In season and out of season. With reproof, rebuke, and exhortation. We are commanded to preach. Jesus commanded His disciples (which, by extension, would include us), "Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20).
The goal of reaching the world for Christ sounds right. It sounds the same as "preach the gospel" without the jargon. It sounds like what we're commanded to do. It is, however, a goal premised on a false ground that will almost certainly produce frustration and has already produced "another gospel". We are not commanded to "reach" anyone. We are commanded to preach the gospel. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to reach people. We need to make our message clear. We need to remove unnecessary obstructions in our message. But we dare not change our message. Paul calls that "anathema" -- a curse.
We often make faulty goals out of lofty ideas. One that I see all the time in Christian circles is this one: Reach the world for Christ. "Faulty goal? What do you mean?? Isn't that a command?!" Well, many people think of it as the command we've been given, but it is slightly different and, as such, prone to error. Consider the actual command:
Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation (Mark 16:15).In the two statements, "Preach the gospel" and "Reach the world for Christ", there is a subtle but significant difference. The difference is what I will call the anchor point. In the actual command, the anchor point is "the gospel". There is nothing in that command that takes into account "the world". The goal is straightforward and unequivocal: "Preach the gospel." There is nothing about the environment in which it occurs. There is nothing about the form of the message or the culture in which it is preached. There is nothing about effectiveness. The anchor point of this command is the gospel. The anchor point of the synonym (which isn't actually synonymous) is "the world". There is a suggestion of "the gospel", but it is only implicit, not explicit. The goal of the second phrase is to be effective, not to preach the gospel. The goal, in fact, is to take on the duty that only God can take -- changing hearts.
It is this misguided goal that causes frustration and produces error. Despite the fact that it sounds right, it tends to head us in wrong directions. "Preach the gospel" allows us to modify the presentation to present it to the given audience, but it doesn't allow us to modify the gospel because the gospel is the anchor point. Missionaries do this when they go to places that the gospel hasn't been preached, learn a new language, and preach the gospel in that new language. This takes into account the audience without modifying the gospel. This is the command. But "reach the world" takes into account effectiveness. If we are "preaching the gospel" and no one seems to be listening, maybe it's time to modify the message. People don't like to hear about sin; don't preach about sin. People don't like to hear about exclusivity; don't touch on exclusivity. People don't like to hear about conflict; don't preach on conflict. Never mind that the gospel is all about the problem of sin, the fact that Jesus is the only way, and that only in a relationship with Christ can we find resolution to our conflict with God. So, to "reach the world", we modify the gospel. The world will likely respond more warmly ... but to what? We've denied them the gospel in favor of "reaching" them.
We are commanded to preach the gospel. Paul told Timothy, "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (2 Tim. 4:2). In season and out of season. With reproof, rebuke, and exhortation. We are commanded to preach. Jesus commanded His disciples (which, by extension, would include us), "Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20).
The goal of reaching the world for Christ sounds right. It sounds the same as "preach the gospel" without the jargon. It sounds like what we're commanded to do. It is, however, a goal premised on a false ground that will almost certainly produce frustration and has already produced "another gospel". We are not commanded to "reach" anyone. We are commanded to preach the gospel. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to reach people. We need to make our message clear. We need to remove unnecessary obstructions in our message. But we dare not change our message. Paul calls that "anathema" -- a curse.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Outrageous Good Will
Outspoken conservative Ann Coulter has done it again. She has upset America by her statements. Color me surprised. This time she told a Jewish Donny Deutsch that she thought everyone should become Christians ... even Jews. "That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews," she told the host.
Now, I am not a proponent of Ann Coulter. And generally I won't take on individuals in my comments. What I want to do for just a moment, then, is to examine the idea that has so inflamed the world. Should everyone become Christians? Or, perhaps more accurately, should Christians think everyone should become Christians?
Frankly I'm baffled at the response. There isn't a person alive who does not believe that what they believe is right. Even the loon on the street corner who is quite sure that little green men are falling from the sky to take over the world is convinced that he is right. No one should be surprised that a person who believes something believes it is right. If you didn't believe it was correct, you wouldn't believe it.
So, what is "Christian"? And why would anyone suggest that everyone should be one? "Christian" is a simple, basic premise. The idea is that we are sinners who have earned Hell and only through accepting Christ's sacrifice on our behalf can we have a relationship with God and avoid eternal damnation. Simple. Straightforward. So Ann Coulter has made this startling suggestion: Everyone should accept Christ and avoid eternal damnation.
Why is this so upsetting? If Deutsch had asked, "Do you think everyone should have enough to eat?" and she had answered, "Yes, I think everyone -- even Jews -- should have enough to eat," no one would have batted an eye. Now she has suggested that she would like everyone to avoid Hell, and that's outrageous.
It has been said that we are living in a "post-Christian" America. The suggestion is that everyone (essentially) has heard the Gospel. It's not new stuff. I have to wonder. If people are outraged because Christians think that everyone should have eternal life, a living relationship with God, and forgiveness for their sins, people apparently haven't heard or understood the Gospel.
Perhaps that's the case. I suspect that, to some extent, the Gospel has been misrepresented in many cases. There are pastors of churches teaching that Christianity is being nice to people and accepting everyone. That's nice ... but it's not Christianity -- and it's not the Gospel. I also suspect that the more obvious problem is that people have heard the Gospel and rejected it. They deny the premise that we're all sinners and deny the claim that we need to come to Christ in faith. I understand that. But it doesn't explain the outrage when an Ann Coulter expresses a wish for the good will of all humans. If the Dali Lama came to me and told me, "I want all people to have peace; they can achieve that through Buddhism," I would say, "Hello, Dali, and thank you for your well wishes. I think your solution is faulty, but I appreciate the sentiment." I would disagree with his answer, but I wouldn't be outraged at his intentions.
So, I'm baffled at the response. Christians believe that those who reject Christ are bound for Hell. No person with any concern for their fellow human beings would say, "You're headed for disaster, but, hey, go right ahead." Any concerned person would do something to encourage others to avoid disaster. Still, if we suggest that we'd be happy if everyone avoided the ultimate disaster of eternal damnation, people are angry. Are we not expressing it correctly? Or is there something more at work here?
Now, I am not a proponent of Ann Coulter. And generally I won't take on individuals in my comments. What I want to do for just a moment, then, is to examine the idea that has so inflamed the world. Should everyone become Christians? Or, perhaps more accurately, should Christians think everyone should become Christians?
Frankly I'm baffled at the response. There isn't a person alive who does not believe that what they believe is right. Even the loon on the street corner who is quite sure that little green men are falling from the sky to take over the world is convinced that he is right. No one should be surprised that a person who believes something believes it is right. If you didn't believe it was correct, you wouldn't believe it.
So, what is "Christian"? And why would anyone suggest that everyone should be one? "Christian" is a simple, basic premise. The idea is that we are sinners who have earned Hell and only through accepting Christ's sacrifice on our behalf can we have a relationship with God and avoid eternal damnation. Simple. Straightforward. So Ann Coulter has made this startling suggestion: Everyone should accept Christ and avoid eternal damnation.
Why is this so upsetting? If Deutsch had asked, "Do you think everyone should have enough to eat?" and she had answered, "Yes, I think everyone -- even Jews -- should have enough to eat," no one would have batted an eye. Now she has suggested that she would like everyone to avoid Hell, and that's outrageous.
It has been said that we are living in a "post-Christian" America. The suggestion is that everyone (essentially) has heard the Gospel. It's not new stuff. I have to wonder. If people are outraged because Christians think that everyone should have eternal life, a living relationship with God, and forgiveness for their sins, people apparently haven't heard or understood the Gospel.
Perhaps that's the case. I suspect that, to some extent, the Gospel has been misrepresented in many cases. There are pastors of churches teaching that Christianity is being nice to people and accepting everyone. That's nice ... but it's not Christianity -- and it's not the Gospel. I also suspect that the more obvious problem is that people have heard the Gospel and rejected it. They deny the premise that we're all sinners and deny the claim that we need to come to Christ in faith. I understand that. But it doesn't explain the outrage when an Ann Coulter expresses a wish for the good will of all humans. If the Dali Lama came to me and told me, "I want all people to have peace; they can achieve that through Buddhism," I would say, "Hello, Dali, and thank you for your well wishes. I think your solution is faulty, but I appreciate the sentiment." I would disagree with his answer, but I wouldn't be outraged at his intentions.
So, I'm baffled at the response. Christians believe that those who reject Christ are bound for Hell. No person with any concern for their fellow human beings would say, "You're headed for disaster, but, hey, go right ahead." Any concerned person would do something to encourage others to avoid disaster. Still, if we suggest that we'd be happy if everyone avoided the ultimate disaster of eternal damnation, people are angry. Are we not expressing it correctly? Or is there something more at work here?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Shift_mores
Doug Wilson has written a particularly good piece on postmodernism and conservative response entitled Three Winter Quilts. I enjoyed it for the writing alone, but the message was a good one as well. In the piece, Doug talks about the post 50's/pre-80's change in Evangelical mores that allowed them to take on the liberal satirist with their own sharp satire. Prior to that change, conservative Christianity wouldn't allow them to be sharp with anyone at all. But by the time the 80's had rolled around, conservatives -- both Christian and secular -- had picked up the weapons of sarcasm, satire, and sharpened wit and were holding their own against the acerbic assaults of liberalism. Wilson concludes that the response of the conservative satirist is much more potent because he loves what he defends and has truth on his side.
I enjoyed the piece, but it got me to thinking. What about that decline in mores?
When I was a kid, Mom and Dad took us to the movies on occasion and we were allowed to play cards (no, not gamble, but "Go fish" was okay). However, if Grandma came over, the cards had to be out of sight. You see, everyone knew that Christians don't play cards, go to movies, or dance. Everyone, that is, except my parents, I guess. You see the shift in generational mores here. Was it good? Well, of course, I would think it was. I don't find "Thou shalt not play cards" in my Bible. And while Jesus never did visit a drive-in theater in His day, I can't really imagine that He would find it objectionable ... to a point. In other words, I suspect that the shift in the two generational mores here was a supportable shift from unnecessary rules to a more biblical perspective.
This concept still continues, however, and the question has to remain: Is it good? My parents taught me that rock and roll was evil. My mom has finally acquiesced to "No, I just don't like it at all" while my dad still suspects it is evil, but I don't think that the rythm of a particular song defines its moral character. That's a shift in moral perspective. Is it good? I like to think so.
Other areas are also in flux. Every Christian used to know that smoking was a sin. It not only was evil; it made you smell like you came from Hell itself. What further proof did you need???!! Well, that's in question now. And clearly Christians should never touch alcohol, but modern conservative Christians aren't convinced. There are words used in Doug Wilson's piece that would never have passed my lips as a young Christian that are now passé in today's conversations. (Actually, Doug has trouble with the word as well, referring to it as "the other part of the compound word".)
It begs the question. How much of this shift is a cultural shift that simply aligns current Christianity with biblical Christianity, and how much is a dip into worldly standards? Aligning with biblical Christianity is a good thing; aligning with the world is bad. Which is it?
We've introduced rock and roll into church services as "worship music". Is that a good thing? I don't mean "good thing" in the sense that "people like it". Of course they like it. But is rock and roll music ... worshipful? Is God pleased? Some pastors have loosened their lips, so to speak, allowing mild expletives into their sermons. Does this help get the gospel across, or is it a violation of Ephesians 4:29 and the like? (Note to the more conservative reader: the biblical reference to "cursing" or "swearing" is not the same as our use of the term. Be careful about trying to apply that concept to this one.) What was considered acceptable to the liberals has now become acceptable to the conservatives, and the realm of unacceptable continues to dip lower and lower. Some of that is an adjustment from conventional Christianity to biblical Christianity, but I'm certain that a good portion of it is a realignment from Christianity to worldliness.
I am in favor of aligning our mores with the biblical perspective. At times that can be extremely difficult. It violates the cultural norms. It can be difficult to figure out exactly what is meant by "unwholesome words" in Eph. 4:29. Does 1 Cor. 6:19 forbid smoking or is that taking it out of context? Exactly what is "worship music"? We need to consider all these and align our thinking with the truth of Scripture, even if that means tossing out treasured, long-held positions. On the other hand, we must not -- we dare not -- allow a decay from biblical morality to cultural morality without even thinking about it. The problem, of course, is that such a decay is natural and almost imperceptible. It is deadly, but it is often hard to recognize.
I enjoyed Doug's analysis of the new conservative ability defend truth with edgy humor. It just raises a flag in my head to be careful about allowing shifts in what we allow that don't align with what God allows, since He, not our culture, is the one whose opinion matters.
I enjoyed the piece, but it got me to thinking. What about that decline in mores?
When I was a kid, Mom and Dad took us to the movies on occasion and we were allowed to play cards (no, not gamble, but "Go fish" was okay). However, if Grandma came over, the cards had to be out of sight. You see, everyone knew that Christians don't play cards, go to movies, or dance. Everyone, that is, except my parents, I guess. You see the shift in generational mores here. Was it good? Well, of course, I would think it was. I don't find "Thou shalt not play cards" in my Bible. And while Jesus never did visit a drive-in theater in His day, I can't really imagine that He would find it objectionable ... to a point. In other words, I suspect that the shift in the two generational mores here was a supportable shift from unnecessary rules to a more biblical perspective.
This concept still continues, however, and the question has to remain: Is it good? My parents taught me that rock and roll was evil. My mom has finally acquiesced to "No, I just don't like it at all" while my dad still suspects it is evil, but I don't think that the rythm of a particular song defines its moral character. That's a shift in moral perspective. Is it good? I like to think so.
Other areas are also in flux. Every Christian used to know that smoking was a sin. It not only was evil; it made you smell like you came from Hell itself. What further proof did you need???!! Well, that's in question now. And clearly Christians should never touch alcohol, but modern conservative Christians aren't convinced. There are words used in Doug Wilson's piece that would never have passed my lips as a young Christian that are now passé in today's conversations. (Actually, Doug has trouble with the word as well, referring to it as "the other part of the compound word".)
It begs the question. How much of this shift is a cultural shift that simply aligns current Christianity with biblical Christianity, and how much is a dip into worldly standards? Aligning with biblical Christianity is a good thing; aligning with the world is bad. Which is it?
We've introduced rock and roll into church services as "worship music". Is that a good thing? I don't mean "good thing" in the sense that "people like it". Of course they like it. But is rock and roll music ... worshipful? Is God pleased? Some pastors have loosened their lips, so to speak, allowing mild expletives into their sermons. Does this help get the gospel across, or is it a violation of Ephesians 4:29 and the like? (Note to the more conservative reader: the biblical reference to "cursing" or "swearing" is not the same as our use of the term. Be careful about trying to apply that concept to this one.) What was considered acceptable to the liberals has now become acceptable to the conservatives, and the realm of unacceptable continues to dip lower and lower. Some of that is an adjustment from conventional Christianity to biblical Christianity, but I'm certain that a good portion of it is a realignment from Christianity to worldliness.
I am in favor of aligning our mores with the biblical perspective. At times that can be extremely difficult. It violates the cultural norms. It can be difficult to figure out exactly what is meant by "unwholesome words" in Eph. 4:29. Does 1 Cor. 6:19 forbid smoking or is that taking it out of context? Exactly what is "worship music"? We need to consider all these and align our thinking with the truth of Scripture, even if that means tossing out treasured, long-held positions. On the other hand, we must not -- we dare not -- allow a decay from biblical morality to cultural morality without even thinking about it. The problem, of course, is that such a decay is natural and almost imperceptible. It is deadly, but it is often hard to recognize.
I enjoyed Doug's analysis of the new conservative ability defend truth with edgy humor. It just raises a flag in my head to be careful about allowing shifts in what we allow that don't align with what God allows, since He, not our culture, is the one whose opinion matters.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Wacky Wednesday
One of our local Christian radio stations has a segment on Wednesdays called "Wacky Wednesdays." The host will argue for an idea with which he actually disagrees. The point is to help Christians learn to argue for the truth. It is sometimes an interesting exercise, so I thought I'd try one here. I will argue for something here that I do not believe. Your job, dear reader, is to analyze my arguments, figure out what's wrong, and uphold the truth.
First, a basic position to consider: When Jesus died on the cross, He said, "It is finished." He didn't say, "It is begun." He didn't say, "It is potentially finished." He said it was finished. Whatever Jesus accomplished by His death on the cross He actually accomplished. It wasn't a beginning or a potential accomplishment. It was a finished accomplishment. So the question becomes, "What did Jesus actually accomplish on the cross?"
The best place to answer this type of question, of course, is from Scripture. So here are some answers from the Bible:
How far does "It is finished" extend? First, start with God's apparent intentions:
Now, as I said, this is not what I believe. That means that I thoroughly believe that there are answers to this. I'm simply offering you the opportunity to think it through. Note, by the way, a technique I employed. I have inundated you with verses. The hope is that if I give you an overload of biblical support, you will be forced to surrender. Don't do it. Think it through.
One other note before I leave you to your pondering. In arguing against using these passages for Universalism, you will be arguing in favor of Limited Atonement. Enjoy!
First, a basic position to consider: When Jesus died on the cross, He said, "It is finished." He didn't say, "It is begun." He didn't say, "It is potentially finished." He said it was finished. Whatever Jesus accomplished by His death on the cross He actually accomplished. It wasn't a beginning or a potential accomplishment. It was a finished accomplishment. So the question becomes, "What did Jesus actually accomplish on the cross?"
The best place to answer this type of question, of course, is from Scripture. So here are some answers from the Bible:
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God (Heb 10:10, 12).It would appear that the purpose of the cross was "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all," the offer of "a single sacrifice for sins." Note that the language of Hebrews here confirms Jesus's words on the cross: "Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins." The purpose of the cross, then, was atonement, the offering of a substitutionary sacrifice on the behalf of others to satisfy God's justice.
How far does "It is finished" extend? First, start with God's apparent intentions:
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4).Next consider the number of times the Bible uses the word "world" when discussing this topic.
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him" (John 3:16-17).Finally, consider how many times the authors of Scripture use the word "all" in this context:
If anyone hears My words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world (John 12:47).
"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me (John 17:20-21).
If their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead (Rom. 11:15)?
All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19).
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14).
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (Rom. 5:18).So, here's the argument. Considering 1) that whatever Christ did on the cross was finished at the cross, 2) that it is God's will to save all, and 2) that the Bible repeatedly uses the words "world" and "all" to describe breadth of the effect of Christ's sacrifice, I think it is abundantly clear that everyone is already forgiven of all sin. There is no "unsaved", no "non-Christian", no pending salvation. If it is God's will that everyone gets saved and Christ came to save all and already accomplished ("finished") it on the cross, there is no further need for anything on our part. Salvation is universal!
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time (1 Tim. 2:5-6).
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10).
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people (Titus 2:11).
He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for His own sins and then for those of the people, since He did this once for all when He offered up Himself (Heb. 7:27).
He entered once for all into the holy places ... He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:12, 26).
Now, as I said, this is not what I believe. That means that I thoroughly believe that there are answers to this. I'm simply offering you the opportunity to think it through. Note, by the way, a technique I employed. I have inundated you with verses. The hope is that if I give you an overload of biblical support, you will be forced to surrender. Don't do it. Think it through.
One other note before I leave you to your pondering. In arguing against using these passages for Universalism, you will be arguing in favor of Limited Atonement. Enjoy!
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Nazi - Navy - Get it?
Oh, sure, the Navy wants you to believe it's just an unfortunate accident. They want you to believe it was entirely innocent. It's pure coincidence that the building is unmistakably in the shape of a swastika.
There is no getting around it. And if it's just an accident, then why, on the same base, is the SS noted in building form, eh?
Indeed, you can also find a replica of the classic iron cross on the very same base.
So ... who is kidding whom?
(Please, dear Father, deliver us from conspiracy geeks with computers!)
There is no getting around it. And if it's just an accident, then why, on the same base, is the SS noted in building form, eh?
Indeed, you can also find a replica of the classic iron cross on the very same base.
So ... who is kidding whom?
(Please, dear Father, deliver us from conspiracy geeks with computers!)
Monday, October 08, 2007
Fixing America
If you read this post too quickly, you might have thought I was being insensitive. "What's the matter with this guy? Doesn't he care that people are losing their homes? Doesn't he care that people are in financial crisis? Doesn't he care?" If that was what you came away with, I apologize. That was not my intent.
I feel badly for the folks that are experiencing these difficulties. Whether or not it was their own foolishness that got them into difficulty, hard times are hard times. My point was not that short-sighted. My point was expanded upon in the the next post. In an effort to effectually get this across, I'm going to comment further today.
We're currently at the beginning of more than a year of serious political wrangling about who will be our next president. The message of every candidate will be "I can fix the problems we face" to some degree or another. They may not agree on what the problems are and they certainly won't agree on how to fix them, but each one has what he or she thinks is an answer to many of the problems we face. In this scramble for the top, accusations are thrown over the wall in both directions. "The problem is a Republican in the White House." "Oh, no, the problem is a Democratic Congress." "Don't be ridiculous. If President Bush wasn't there, we'd be fine." "Oh, yeah? So why is the economy improving after we replaced Clinton?" And your arguments and responses will vary based on your biases.
My point, however, is that it's all nonsense. The problem is not political. And since the problem is not political, the fix is not political. Allow me to illustrate. Recently two guards were killed and a third was wounded in an armored car heist in Philadelphia. The response of the mayor was to complain bitterly about the lack of gun control. With tens of thousands of people shot to death each year, how is it that this issue is not part of the current issues in presidential politics? I think that the murder and robbery was horrifying. But I question the mayor's idea that if we could just remove guns from the hands of everyone, there would be no more murder or robbery.
We are getting a similar ad campaign here in Arizona. The campaign goes something like this. Kids who ditch school are more likely to become criminals. Therefore, support anti-truancy efforts. The idea is if you can keep kids in class, there won't be any more criminals. Again, I am in favor of kids going to school and against truancy ... but is that the answer to crime?
The problem in Philadelphia is not the existence of guns. The problem in Arizona is not truancy. The problem in the country is not Republican or Democratic control. The problem is much more serious than any of this suggests. The problem is in the character of the individuals who make up America. Yes, I know, it's a broad statement; take it as such. Still, it isn't too broad. Based on Jer. 17:9, the problem is the human heart -- deceitful and desperately wicked.
Unfortunately, this topic is off limits in public discussion. We've decided that people are basically good. Now, ignoring the elephant in the corner, what else might be the problem? Oh, no, don't you dare go back to that "sin" problem. That's a matter of religion, and that has no place in public discourse. It is, however, the problem.
Why is it, do you suppose, that back before gun control when nearly every American owned a gun, there was so little crime? Could it be their basic Christian morality that was superimposed? Why is it that when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the nation rose up as a unit and prosecuted that war to its end despite the massive cost in lives, money, and personal freedoms? Could it be that the character of America was different then?
American democracy (actually a Republic) is built on one key point -- Christian morality. If the people enjoying the freedoms that we enjoy are moral people, it works fine. If they are neighborly and community-minded, it works fine. If they are concerned about others, it works fine. If they don't intend to steal, murder, or rape, it works fine. When the national mores shift, however, to a "me generation", the belief that I am the important one and what I want is what is most important, it breaks down. An "other-centered" society will care for people in need; a self-centered society will expect someone else to do it. An other-centered society obeys laws; a self-centered society operates on the idea that "I will obey laws that assist me and ignore those that don't." And so it goes.
The problem in America isn't an American problem. It's a human problem. It's a heart problem. The fix for the problem in America -- the problem in people -- isn't better laws, more government, less laws, less government, a Republican Congress, a Democratic president, or any such thing. The answer to this problem is Christ, and Christ is being specifically and systematically excluded from the public square. We are saying, in essence, "Here's the medicine that will cure your cancer ... but we won't allow anyone to have it. It's a private issue."
We can debate politics 'til the cows come home. We can argue over global warming and the war in Iraq all we want. We can discuss who is at fault for that shooting or this law or the failure of the same, but it won't fix the problem. We ought to support good candidates. We ought to be concerned about people who are in financial crisis. But more money or more government or better laws are not the answer. Thinking that they are will simply divert us from the real issue at hand -- the deceitful and wicked heart of the human being that can only be remedied by a relationship with Christ.
I feel badly for the folks that are experiencing these difficulties. Whether or not it was their own foolishness that got them into difficulty, hard times are hard times. My point was not that short-sighted. My point was expanded upon in the the next post. In an effort to effectually get this across, I'm going to comment further today.
We're currently at the beginning of more than a year of serious political wrangling about who will be our next president. The message of every candidate will be "I can fix the problems we face" to some degree or another. They may not agree on what the problems are and they certainly won't agree on how to fix them, but each one has what he or she thinks is an answer to many of the problems we face. In this scramble for the top, accusations are thrown over the wall in both directions. "The problem is a Republican in the White House." "Oh, no, the problem is a Democratic Congress." "Don't be ridiculous. If President Bush wasn't there, we'd be fine." "Oh, yeah? So why is the economy improving after we replaced Clinton?" And your arguments and responses will vary based on your biases.
My point, however, is that it's all nonsense. The problem is not political. And since the problem is not political, the fix is not political. Allow me to illustrate. Recently two guards were killed and a third was wounded in an armored car heist in Philadelphia. The response of the mayor was to complain bitterly about the lack of gun control. With tens of thousands of people shot to death each year, how is it that this issue is not part of the current issues in presidential politics? I think that the murder and robbery was horrifying. But I question the mayor's idea that if we could just remove guns from the hands of everyone, there would be no more murder or robbery.
We are getting a similar ad campaign here in Arizona. The campaign goes something like this. Kids who ditch school are more likely to become criminals. Therefore, support anti-truancy efforts. The idea is if you can keep kids in class, there won't be any more criminals. Again, I am in favor of kids going to school and against truancy ... but is that the answer to crime?
The problem in Philadelphia is not the existence of guns. The problem in Arizona is not truancy. The problem in the country is not Republican or Democratic control. The problem is much more serious than any of this suggests. The problem is in the character of the individuals who make up America. Yes, I know, it's a broad statement; take it as such. Still, it isn't too broad. Based on Jer. 17:9, the problem is the human heart -- deceitful and desperately wicked.
Unfortunately, this topic is off limits in public discussion. We've decided that people are basically good. Now, ignoring the elephant in the corner, what else might be the problem? Oh, no, don't you dare go back to that "sin" problem. That's a matter of religion, and that has no place in public discourse. It is, however, the problem.
Why is it, do you suppose, that back before gun control when nearly every American owned a gun, there was so little crime? Could it be their basic Christian morality that was superimposed? Why is it that when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the nation rose up as a unit and prosecuted that war to its end despite the massive cost in lives, money, and personal freedoms? Could it be that the character of America was different then?
American democracy (actually a Republic) is built on one key point -- Christian morality. If the people enjoying the freedoms that we enjoy are moral people, it works fine. If they are neighborly and community-minded, it works fine. If they are concerned about others, it works fine. If they don't intend to steal, murder, or rape, it works fine. When the national mores shift, however, to a "me generation", the belief that I am the important one and what I want is what is most important, it breaks down. An "other-centered" society will care for people in need; a self-centered society will expect someone else to do it. An other-centered society obeys laws; a self-centered society operates on the idea that "I will obey laws that assist me and ignore those that don't." And so it goes.
The problem in America isn't an American problem. It's a human problem. It's a heart problem. The fix for the problem in America -- the problem in people -- isn't better laws, more government, less laws, less government, a Republican Congress, a Democratic president, or any such thing. The answer to this problem is Christ, and Christ is being specifically and systematically excluded from the public square. We are saying, in essence, "Here's the medicine that will cure your cancer ... but we won't allow anyone to have it. It's a private issue."
We can debate politics 'til the cows come home. We can argue over global warming and the war in Iraq all we want. We can discuss who is at fault for that shooting or this law or the failure of the same, but it won't fix the problem. We ought to support good candidates. We ought to be concerned about people who are in financial crisis. But more money or more government or better laws are not the answer. Thinking that they are will simply divert us from the real issue at hand -- the deceitful and wicked heart of the human being that can only be remedied by a relationship with Christ.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Just a change
Yes, this is "Birds of the Air".
I just changed the name because it more closely fits the theme.
I just changed the name because it more closely fits the theme.
To Him be glory forever.
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor? Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen (Rom. 11:33-36).Wow! What a doxology!
I love that first part. "How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!" It gives me license to say, "I don't know." When challenged in areas that I just can't seem to comprehend, I don't find it unnerving; I find it affirming. No human being (read "finite") has the capacity to fully grasp God (read "infinite"). If we did ... He wouldn't be God. Often we get trapped into trying to answer things for which we don't have the answer. Don't do it. His ways are "inscrutable".
But it is the last verse to which I really need to pay more attention. "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever." Now, that falls almost entirely outside of our normal perspective. Human beings are naturally self-centered. "I" is one of the first words we learn. "Mine" is one of the first concepts we learn. It is constantly reinforced by society. "You deserve ..." "Your rights ..." "You're entitled ..." Then we come up against this amazing statement from Paul. "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things." First, what is included? "All things." That would exclude very little, to say the least. Second, where do these come from? God. What path do they take? God. Where do they end up? God. We naturally like to think, "It's all about me" when, in fact it really is all about Him. All. From, through, and to.
If we could just get that to sink into our brains. If we could just incorporate that in our everyday thinking. If only we could include it when evaluating our worth, our abilities, our goals, our dreams. If only we could consider it when thinking about the wrongs and injustices we've suffered. If only we could think that way when we relate to others. It's not about me. It's all about Him. Everything is from, through, and to Him. Everything is for His glory forever.
Amen!
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Heart Condition
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jer. 17:9).Tell me about it. You just have to look at the news and see how desperately wicked people's hearts are. Parents abusing their children. Rapes, robberies, murders. Identity theft. People being unkind to people. Justice is not served. It generally doesn't seem to even be on the menu. My, oh, my, how wicked their hearts are!
Of course, I've already missed all the important points. But, what would you expect? My heart is "deceitful above all things." Strange, isn't it? We miss that first step and jump right on the finger pointing at others. The problem begins with me. My heart is deceitful. My heart will fool me time after time. I keep thinking I'm right. I keep thinking I've got it together. I keep thinking I'm justified in what I do and think. I keep finding I'm wrong, fooled again by my deceitful heart.
So deceitful is it that I cannot even comprehend how wicked it is. "Who can know it?" While so many voices around me assure me that people are basically good, God says quite the opposite. If you believe that people are basically good, you simply prove that your heart is deceitful ... and you've been fooled again. If I believe that you are fooled for believing that and I am not ... well, there I go again.
One of the common beliefs of orthodox Christianity is the belief in Original Sin. It holds that mankind is sinful by nature. We sin because we are sinners at heart. It started with Adam and we have all inherited it, so to speak. We are, by nature, wicked. Now, some have argued the point, but I don't see any reason why. We can see it in children. We can see it in adults. We can see it in "good people." Everyone has problems with sin. It's just a basic premise of Christianity. "All have sinned" Paul assured us (Rom. 3:23).
The message of Christianity is "the Gospel", the "good news." We have good news to offer. The offer of that good news, forgiveness of sins and a relationship with God, is only as good as the problem is bad. The more we comprehend that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked," the more we can begin to see how bad the problem is. The more we comprehend that this heart problem isn't "their" problem, but my very own, the bigger this good news becomes. The sooner you and I realize that we are classified, at the heart, as "desperately wicked," the sooner we can appreciate all the more the height of God's grace.
Do you ever wonder sometimes if you don't seem to love God enough? Perhaps your answer is here. "He who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). We who have a relationship with Christ have all been forgiven much. The clearer we see it, the greater our love.
Friday, October 05, 2007
A Nation in Crisis
Alert! Alert! America is in the midst of a housing crisis! Run for the hills! We're going under!!
I don't know. Sometimes I think I'm beneath the average intelligence. I don't understand some of the things that appear purely obvious to the average person. Take this housing crisis as an example. I don't get it.
According to one article, housing prices are "in freefall." "Two and a half years of price increase – wiped out." Apparently it is a product of the credit crisis. You see, foolish lenders offered foolish borrowers foolish rates. The foolish borrowers are failing to keep up with the foolish rates and the foolish lenders are suffering the consequences. Meanwhile, the foolish borrowers are losing their houses to foreclosure. So with all this foolishness, credit has become tighter and "predatory lending" has come under scrutiny. In other words, lenders are trying harder to only lend large sums of money to people who can pay for it. That's a "credit crisis". Of course, this crisis has ripple effects. I don't mean to oversimplify. But that's the gist of it. So, with less people qualifying for loans and more people losing their homes, there is a decrease in home purchases.
What I don't understand is why there is a housing crisis. Here's what I'm thinking. Why do people sell their house? Well, there are several possible reasons. Some people have to move for employment reasons. Their company has moved or they've accepted a job elsewhere. That makes sense. Some people have to move because their family situation has changed and they've outgrown their home. That makes sense. (According to statistics, however, Americans are having fewer and fewer children, so that one is likely to happen at a lower rate.) Some people have a change in financial conditions. Perhaps it has improved and they want to move up. Perhaps it has declined and they can no longer afford what they have. Either way, selling is the way to make the change.
Those are the most common reasons for selling a house. I'm sure there are more. There is, however, one that is extremely common that I missed. It is perhaps the most common in my area and, as such, perhaps elsewhere, too. That reason is "investment purchases." I live in a relatively nice neighborhood. The houses in my area are all less than 3 years old. It's a quiet neighborhood, relatively crime free, with decent schools nearby and a decent environment around it. My wife and I sold our condo in California and used the profit to buy into this nice place in Arizona so she could quit work and we won't have to move again. We like it here; we're staying. So why is it that easily a quarter of the houses in my neighborhood are for sale? Perhaps one or two have moved job locations. It is possible but not likely that one or two have outgrown their houses. There are likely one or two foreclosures. However, the most common reason for selling a house in my neighborhood is ... profit. These people bought these houses as investments, and they're just trying to get their money out of them before the prices drop below what they paid for them. Many of them have never been lived in. Some had their owners move in due to purchase restrictions and then move out a couple of months later. I know of one guy who bought two in the neighborhood, lived in both of them (one at a time), sold them both, and moved to another neighborhood. (Whether or not he's still selling and buying I don't know.) Whatever the other reasons, easily more than half of the homes for sale in my neighborhood are investors trying to turn a profit. These homes for sale show up on the lists of houses not selling and add to the "housing crisis". In other words, because investors (read "gamblers") made a bad investment and are in danger of losing their profits (read "winnings"), we're adding to the terror called "crisis".
There is no doubt that there is a credit crisis and a housing crisis. People are losing their homes. People are finding it harder to get loans. But I wonder if the fix is a financial one. Is it possible that the problem is not financial, but a problem of culture and character? What drives a person, for instance, to lend money foolishly? Isn't it a drive to make money? And what drives a person to borrow money foolishly? Isn't that a product of the generation today that doesn't understand "delayed gratification"? Isn't that, in fact, the underlying problem behind the credit crisis at all? And what about the housing crisis? Are there less people in the country who need houses? No. Are they leaving their houses in droves to head for apartments or other rental living? No. It seems instead that we've created a more mobile society. No longer do we have careers; we have jobs. It is considered unthinkable by most today that one would have a career at one company for their entire life -- unthinkable by the working people and unthinkable by the companies that hire them. No longer do we have a family home. You know the kind. It's where you live your entire life. Your kids grow up there. When they move out, they still come back there to visit. When the parents get old and go to retirement or pass on, it is difficult for anyone to think of selling the place because it's ... home. In other words, we've created an unstable society that thrives on the here and now and succumbs to whatever it wants when it wants it. Is there any wonder that this society would have credit and housing problems?
No ... too easy. It can't be like that. See? I just don't get it. All this stuff seems to be beyond my comprehension. So my wife and I will just stay in our home until we can't get around anymore. I'll hope to work at the same place until they make me retire. We'll just live out our poor, backward lives without comprehension of how much better it would be if we could change houses and jobs and everything else every two years or so ...
My, my, it's shame to be so contented ...
I don't know. Sometimes I think I'm beneath the average intelligence. I don't understand some of the things that appear purely obvious to the average person. Take this housing crisis as an example. I don't get it.
According to one article, housing prices are "in freefall." "Two and a half years of price increase – wiped out." Apparently it is a product of the credit crisis. You see, foolish lenders offered foolish borrowers foolish rates. The foolish borrowers are failing to keep up with the foolish rates and the foolish lenders are suffering the consequences. Meanwhile, the foolish borrowers are losing their houses to foreclosure. So with all this foolishness, credit has become tighter and "predatory lending" has come under scrutiny. In other words, lenders are trying harder to only lend large sums of money to people who can pay for it. That's a "credit crisis". Of course, this crisis has ripple effects. I don't mean to oversimplify. But that's the gist of it. So, with less people qualifying for loans and more people losing their homes, there is a decrease in home purchases.
What I don't understand is why there is a housing crisis. Here's what I'm thinking. Why do people sell their house? Well, there are several possible reasons. Some people have to move for employment reasons. Their company has moved or they've accepted a job elsewhere. That makes sense. Some people have to move because their family situation has changed and they've outgrown their home. That makes sense. (According to statistics, however, Americans are having fewer and fewer children, so that one is likely to happen at a lower rate.) Some people have a change in financial conditions. Perhaps it has improved and they want to move up. Perhaps it has declined and they can no longer afford what they have. Either way, selling is the way to make the change.
Those are the most common reasons for selling a house. I'm sure there are more. There is, however, one that is extremely common that I missed. It is perhaps the most common in my area and, as such, perhaps elsewhere, too. That reason is "investment purchases." I live in a relatively nice neighborhood. The houses in my area are all less than 3 years old. It's a quiet neighborhood, relatively crime free, with decent schools nearby and a decent environment around it. My wife and I sold our condo in California and used the profit to buy into this nice place in Arizona so she could quit work and we won't have to move again. We like it here; we're staying. So why is it that easily a quarter of the houses in my neighborhood are for sale? Perhaps one or two have moved job locations. It is possible but not likely that one or two have outgrown their houses. There are likely one or two foreclosures. However, the most common reason for selling a house in my neighborhood is ... profit. These people bought these houses as investments, and they're just trying to get their money out of them before the prices drop below what they paid for them. Many of them have never been lived in. Some had their owners move in due to purchase restrictions and then move out a couple of months later. I know of one guy who bought two in the neighborhood, lived in both of them (one at a time), sold them both, and moved to another neighborhood. (Whether or not he's still selling and buying I don't know.) Whatever the other reasons, easily more than half of the homes for sale in my neighborhood are investors trying to turn a profit. These homes for sale show up on the lists of houses not selling and add to the "housing crisis". In other words, because investors (read "gamblers") made a bad investment and are in danger of losing their profits (read "winnings"), we're adding to the terror called "crisis".
There is no doubt that there is a credit crisis and a housing crisis. People are losing their homes. People are finding it harder to get loans. But I wonder if the fix is a financial one. Is it possible that the problem is not financial, but a problem of culture and character? What drives a person, for instance, to lend money foolishly? Isn't it a drive to make money? And what drives a person to borrow money foolishly? Isn't that a product of the generation today that doesn't understand "delayed gratification"? Isn't that, in fact, the underlying problem behind the credit crisis at all? And what about the housing crisis? Are there less people in the country who need houses? No. Are they leaving their houses in droves to head for apartments or other rental living? No. It seems instead that we've created a more mobile society. No longer do we have careers; we have jobs. It is considered unthinkable by most today that one would have a career at one company for their entire life -- unthinkable by the working people and unthinkable by the companies that hire them. No longer do we have a family home. You know the kind. It's where you live your entire life. Your kids grow up there. When they move out, they still come back there to visit. When the parents get old and go to retirement or pass on, it is difficult for anyone to think of selling the place because it's ... home. In other words, we've created an unstable society that thrives on the here and now and succumbs to whatever it wants when it wants it. Is there any wonder that this society would have credit and housing problems?
No ... too easy. It can't be like that. See? I just don't get it. All this stuff seems to be beyond my comprehension. So my wife and I will just stay in our home until we can't get around anymore. I'll hope to work at the same place until they make me retire. We'll just live out our poor, backward lives without comprehension of how much better it would be if we could change houses and jobs and everything else every two years or so ...
My, my, it's shame to be so contented ...
Thursday, October 04, 2007
What Would You Say?
Just for fun ...
"I told you you were mom's favorite."
"Weeeee! Can we go higher?!!!"
"What do you wanna do?"
"I don't know ... what do you wanna do?"
"You can't see me; I am a master of camouflage."
"I told you you were mom's favorite."
"Weeeee! Can we go higher?!!!"
"What do you wanna do?"
"I don't know ... what do you wanna do?"
"You can't see me; I am a master of camouflage."
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
A Call for Change
There is a constant call on the Church to change. Of course, that has always been the case, hasn't it? Beginning with Paul's epistles where he corrects error in the fledgling Church of his day, there has always been a call on the Church to change. There was a call on the Church to change to Arianism which they rejected and a call to change to Pelagianism which they (repeatedly) rejected. The Church has a history of rejecting calls for change.
Sometimes there were calls for change that were carried out. These occurred when the Church appeared to have headed, as a body, in the wrong direction. These were, for lack of a better term, course corrections. Faulty influences had sent them places they shouldn't have gone. They returned to the original course. That was the intent of most of the New Testament. The Church was already drifting off course. Let's get back to the original. That was the idea, for instance, of the Reformation. It wasn't a call to a new course. It was a call to return to the original course. This, in fact, has been the intent of multiple denominations and splinter groups. They see the course as misguided and attempt to retain what they believe to be the true course.
Today the call is a little different. Oh, there is much of the same going on all the time that has always gone on. But one of the loudest calls for change in the Church today isn't a call to return to the original course. Instead, it is a call to change courses to more closely match the society in which we find ourselves. In the 90's we were told that if the Church didn't reinvent herself, she would be gone in the 21st century. The belief was, is, and continues to be that the Church has become largely irrelevant. Amidst all the clamor for biblical inerrancy, a Truth that will set you free, doctrinal purity, Church history, creeds and confessions, and the like, it seems that there is a growing position that we've missed the boat entirely. We're not off course; we're going nowhere fast and will soon be sunk in a sea of irrelevance. If the Church is going to continue, we need to change all that.
To a large extent, I've already listed the changes that are being called for. Jettison this obviously ridiculous belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and, as such, without error. You can't hold it. It is demonstrably false. Throw it out. Oh, don't toss out your Bible. Just don't clutch it so tightly that you let it do your thinking for you. Exactly how loosely you should hold it varies from call to call, but there is a vast trend that says that inerrancy is untenable and anyone who holds to it is ... well, foolish. The same is true for anyone who claims exclusive truth. Our world is shrinking. There is an ocean of truth claims out there. Show a little Christian humility and don't hang on that "we know the truth and if you don't agree you're damned" position. It just won't win friends and influence people, it's too arrogant, and it's not very nice. In fact, having jettisoned a "God-breathed" source of truth and admitting to human propensity to error, is there any reason to think that your doctrine is pure while others are not? Are you not aware that doctrine divides? Can't we all just get along? Why don't you keep that "pure doctrine" in your less than absolutely inerrant Bible -- not too close, okay? And don't get me started on Church history. I mean, there are the Crusades and the Dark Ages and wars and rumors of wars that are "Church history". There is the 100-years war that was just between the Church and the Church. What's up with that? Why would you even bring up "Church history" when it is demonstrably idiotic? As for creeds and confessions, we've already eliminated inerrancy, truth, doctrinal purity, and tradition -- so which "creed" or "confession" are you going to foolishly stand on? I mean, you already admit they aren't "the Word of God", so why even bother? Go with us on this one. "No creed but Christ!"
And carefully, slowly, inch by inch, sprinkled carefully with all the best of intentions (I mean, seriously, what Christian wouldn't embrace "humility" as a good thing?), we eliminate Christianity as a viable truth. Because of its own truth claims, it is either true or it is false. It cannot be "one of many truths." There are too many absolute claims that simply, logically eliminate that possibility.
There are things in the Church that can change. There are things in the Church that must not change. The things that must not change are the undergirdings, the foundations. How those foundations are built upon may vary. How a culture chooses to embellish certain areas of that building within the confines of the firm, unchangeable, foundational undergirdings of truth are open to discussion. What songs to sing, what form church buildings take, where churches meet, there are lots of areas of variation available. But when we begin to shift the Church to be more friendly with the world -- a nice-sounding, "missional" goal -- we begin to shift the Church to be an enemy of God.
Sometimes there were calls for change that were carried out. These occurred when the Church appeared to have headed, as a body, in the wrong direction. These were, for lack of a better term, course corrections. Faulty influences had sent them places they shouldn't have gone. They returned to the original course. That was the intent of most of the New Testament. The Church was already drifting off course. Let's get back to the original. That was the idea, for instance, of the Reformation. It wasn't a call to a new course. It was a call to return to the original course. This, in fact, has been the intent of multiple denominations and splinter groups. They see the course as misguided and attempt to retain what they believe to be the true course.
Today the call is a little different. Oh, there is much of the same going on all the time that has always gone on. But one of the loudest calls for change in the Church today isn't a call to return to the original course. Instead, it is a call to change courses to more closely match the society in which we find ourselves. In the 90's we were told that if the Church didn't reinvent herself, she would be gone in the 21st century. The belief was, is, and continues to be that the Church has become largely irrelevant. Amidst all the clamor for biblical inerrancy, a Truth that will set you free, doctrinal purity, Church history, creeds and confessions, and the like, it seems that there is a growing position that we've missed the boat entirely. We're not off course; we're going nowhere fast and will soon be sunk in a sea of irrelevance. If the Church is going to continue, we need to change all that.
To a large extent, I've already listed the changes that are being called for. Jettison this obviously ridiculous belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and, as such, without error. You can't hold it. It is demonstrably false. Throw it out. Oh, don't toss out your Bible. Just don't clutch it so tightly that you let it do your thinking for you. Exactly how loosely you should hold it varies from call to call, but there is a vast trend that says that inerrancy is untenable and anyone who holds to it is ... well, foolish. The same is true for anyone who claims exclusive truth. Our world is shrinking. There is an ocean of truth claims out there. Show a little Christian humility and don't hang on that "we know the truth and if you don't agree you're damned" position. It just won't win friends and influence people, it's too arrogant, and it's not very nice. In fact, having jettisoned a "God-breathed" source of truth and admitting to human propensity to error, is there any reason to think that your doctrine is pure while others are not? Are you not aware that doctrine divides? Can't we all just get along? Why don't you keep that "pure doctrine" in your less than absolutely inerrant Bible -- not too close, okay? And don't get me started on Church history. I mean, there are the Crusades and the Dark Ages and wars and rumors of wars that are "Church history". There is the 100-years war that was just between the Church and the Church. What's up with that? Why would you even bring up "Church history" when it is demonstrably idiotic? As for creeds and confessions, we've already eliminated inerrancy, truth, doctrinal purity, and tradition -- so which "creed" or "confession" are you going to foolishly stand on? I mean, you already admit they aren't "the Word of God", so why even bother? Go with us on this one. "No creed but Christ!"
And carefully, slowly, inch by inch, sprinkled carefully with all the best of intentions (I mean, seriously, what Christian wouldn't embrace "humility" as a good thing?), we eliminate Christianity as a viable truth. Because of its own truth claims, it is either true or it is false. It cannot be "one of many truths." There are too many absolute claims that simply, logically eliminate that possibility.
There are things in the Church that can change. There are things in the Church that must not change. The things that must not change are the undergirdings, the foundations. How those foundations are built upon may vary. How a culture chooses to embellish certain areas of that building within the confines of the firm, unchangeable, foundational undergirdings of truth are open to discussion. What songs to sing, what form church buildings take, where churches meet, there are lots of areas of variation available. But when we begin to shift the Church to be more friendly with the world -- a nice-sounding, "missional" goal -- we begin to shift the Church to be an enemy of God.
You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).We can and should discuss the fundamentals, the basics, the hard-and-fast, rock-bottom positions to hold. There are foundational positions that must not be abandoned, and we should figure out what those are before it's too late. But let's not make it the goal of the Church to be what God has said we must not be.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Presidents and Parents
Last Wednesday in New Hampshire, John Edwards was asked whether he'd be comfortable having a story about two princes marrying read to his second grader. His answer was stunning.
"I want them to be exposed to all the information ... even in second grade ..."
Setting aside the sheer impossibility of such a goal, I want to know about the practicality of trying to reach it. Shall we expose them to meth and heroin so they can make their own decisions? Shall we offer them porn so they can determine if they think it's right or wrong on their own? Where do we draw the line? Is there such a thing as "age appropriate"?
"I don’t want to impose my view."
Lots of people have stood up and shouted a resounding, "Huh!!!???" I'd have to join them. What do you suppose the teacher who read the story to the 2nd graders was doing? What do you suppose the friends of children are doing every day? What do you suppose the media and the religious right and the liberal left and just about everyone does ... daily? On the other hand, if it is not the job of a parent to provide moral guidance for little minds that don't yet have the skills to gather their own direction, what is the job of the parent? Seriously, practically speaking, can you imagine a parent who actually practiced what John Edwards recommended? "No, I will never tell my children what is wrong or right. They're on their own to determine whatever they think. I won't do it." Never happened. Never will. And, in truth, if they did practice that, it would, in itself, be an imposition of a viewpoint that says, "Whatever you decide is right." No small viewpoint.
"... nobody made me God ..."
Of course, nobody made God God. And, of course, no one would even begin to think that John Edwards or any other human being is God without some psychosis at work. Clearly the statement wasn't to be taken at face value. What, then, is the intent? There are several aspects implicit in this statement. First, God alone has the right to say absolutely what is right and wrong. Second, we humans cannot know what God thinks is right or wrong. Third, given the first two statements, it would be wrong of us to believe or suggest that we had the right to think that something is right or wrong. You know these are the intentions of this statement. You will hear the same thing when you suggest something is moral or immoral. "Oh? Who made you God?" The idea is "No one can know what is right or wrong and you're arrogant for suggesting you do." My side question, then: Do we want someone to be our president who doesn't believe anyone can know what is right or wrong?
In a part of his statement that is not included above, Edwards suggested that his two young children will likely come to the same conclusion that his older daughter has come to -- that her father is an idiot. Oh, that's not what he said. The question was in regards to the fact that he is opposed to gay marriage. His daughter has decided that gay marriage is right and cannot figure out why he would oppose it. And, of course, his two young children, he believes, will come to the same conclusion. How is that different than what I said? If I was completely confident that all of my children would certainly come to an opposing view of my particular stance on a topic -- and he seems to be quite proud of them for doing so -- isn't that an admission that my children are likely smarter than me and my position is likely wrong?
"I don’t get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right."
I've addressed this already in terms of a parent's inherent job. More on that. Children need food for their bodies to grow. If a parent has the ability but fails to supply them with the food they need, we call it "child abuse" and arrest the parent. In a similar way, growing children need moral guidance to grow character. If they are not provided this guidance, especially by intent, how is it not "child abuse"?
The other oddity in the statement, however, is the apparent contradiction with which I don't know what to do. John Edwards was in favor of a bill that would ban smoking nation wide. He is in favor of a universal health care plan. He has a plan to eliminate poverty within a generation. He plans to remove all the troops from Iraq within one year. He intends to lead "the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries—including developing nations—to reduce their pollution." In other words, John Edwards has lots of plans to impose his values on his nation and others ... just not his own family. So ... who made him God?
John Edwards is not my issue here. Please be very clear on that. My issue is the ideas suggested here and agreed upon by a whole segment of society including, it seems, all of the Democratic candidates. It's not a political or party issue. It is a problem of ideas. Do parents have the right, nay, the obligation to teach their kids right and wrong? If not, who does? Is it really a valid goal to expose young children to everything? Valid or not, is it even the right thing to do? Can we know right and wrong, or are we going to simply toss out any hope and surrender to absolute, pure relativism? If so, on what basis can that side say that I'm wrong for having moral absolutes? Isn't a denial of moral absolutes a denial of relativism? And are these the ideas and values -- values that seem to contradict themselves -- the values that we want running our country? Despise George Bush all you want, but do we really want someone who runs on the opposite end -- someone who aspires to no values? To me, that is frightening.
I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in (chuckling), what did you say, second grade? Well, second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade, to be exposed to all those possibilities. Because I don’t want to impose my view – nobody made me God – I don’t get to decide on behalf of my family and my children. … I don’t get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.I couldn't find the entire quote, or I'd put it here. It was, however, in so many ways, appalling -- more so in that the other candidates appeared to agree with him.
"I want them to be exposed to all the information ... even in second grade ..."
Setting aside the sheer impossibility of such a goal, I want to know about the practicality of trying to reach it. Shall we expose them to meth and heroin so they can make their own decisions? Shall we offer them porn so they can determine if they think it's right or wrong on their own? Where do we draw the line? Is there such a thing as "age appropriate"?
"I don’t want to impose my view."
Lots of people have stood up and shouted a resounding, "Huh!!!???" I'd have to join them. What do you suppose the teacher who read the story to the 2nd graders was doing? What do you suppose the friends of children are doing every day? What do you suppose the media and the religious right and the liberal left and just about everyone does ... daily? On the other hand, if it is not the job of a parent to provide moral guidance for little minds that don't yet have the skills to gather their own direction, what is the job of the parent? Seriously, practically speaking, can you imagine a parent who actually practiced what John Edwards recommended? "No, I will never tell my children what is wrong or right. They're on their own to determine whatever they think. I won't do it." Never happened. Never will. And, in truth, if they did practice that, it would, in itself, be an imposition of a viewpoint that says, "Whatever you decide is right." No small viewpoint.
"... nobody made me God ..."
Of course, nobody made God God. And, of course, no one would even begin to think that John Edwards or any other human being is God without some psychosis at work. Clearly the statement wasn't to be taken at face value. What, then, is the intent? There are several aspects implicit in this statement. First, God alone has the right to say absolutely what is right and wrong. Second, we humans cannot know what God thinks is right or wrong. Third, given the first two statements, it would be wrong of us to believe or suggest that we had the right to think that something is right or wrong. You know these are the intentions of this statement. You will hear the same thing when you suggest something is moral or immoral. "Oh? Who made you God?" The idea is "No one can know what is right or wrong and you're arrogant for suggesting you do." My side question, then: Do we want someone to be our president who doesn't believe anyone can know what is right or wrong?
In a part of his statement that is not included above, Edwards suggested that his two young children will likely come to the same conclusion that his older daughter has come to -- that her father is an idiot. Oh, that's not what he said. The question was in regards to the fact that he is opposed to gay marriage. His daughter has decided that gay marriage is right and cannot figure out why he would oppose it. And, of course, his two young children, he believes, will come to the same conclusion. How is that different than what I said? If I was completely confident that all of my children would certainly come to an opposing view of my particular stance on a topic -- and he seems to be quite proud of them for doing so -- isn't that an admission that my children are likely smarter than me and my position is likely wrong?
"I don’t get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right."
I've addressed this already in terms of a parent's inherent job. More on that. Children need food for their bodies to grow. If a parent has the ability but fails to supply them with the food they need, we call it "child abuse" and arrest the parent. In a similar way, growing children need moral guidance to grow character. If they are not provided this guidance, especially by intent, how is it not "child abuse"?
The other oddity in the statement, however, is the apparent contradiction with which I don't know what to do. John Edwards was in favor of a bill that would ban smoking nation wide. He is in favor of a universal health care plan. He has a plan to eliminate poverty within a generation. He plans to remove all the troops from Iraq within one year. He intends to lead "the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries—including developing nations—to reduce their pollution." In other words, John Edwards has lots of plans to impose his values on his nation and others ... just not his own family. So ... who made him God?
John Edwards is not my issue here. Please be very clear on that. My issue is the ideas suggested here and agreed upon by a whole segment of society including, it seems, all of the Democratic candidates. It's not a political or party issue. It is a problem of ideas. Do parents have the right, nay, the obligation to teach their kids right and wrong? If not, who does? Is it really a valid goal to expose young children to everything? Valid or not, is it even the right thing to do? Can we know right and wrong, or are we going to simply toss out any hope and surrender to absolute, pure relativism? If so, on what basis can that side say that I'm wrong for having moral absolutes? Isn't a denial of moral absolutes a denial of relativism? And are these the ideas and values -- values that seem to contradict themselves -- the values that we want running our country? Despise George Bush all you want, but do we really want someone who runs on the opposite end -- someone who aspires to no values? To me, that is frightening.
Monday, October 01, 2007
SCHIP
It has been said, "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There has been the suggestion for some time that liberals operate off their feelings while conservatives operate from reason. This, of course, isn't entirely supportable, and I've heard too many conservatives arguing from their feelings rather than reason to actually buy into the idea. On the other hand, it seems too easy to find reasons to believe it at times.
Take the SCHIP argument. Providing care for uninsured children feels right. You might even argue that it is right. Children should be taken care of. It feels right and it is right. When House Democrats brought children, a nun, and a rabbi to press conferences, it wasn't to promote the most cogent argument. When they had a 12-year-old boy read the Democratic radio address on Saturday, it wasn't because of his superior reasoning skills. It was intended to tug unabashedly at everyone's heart strings. And I feel it. It feels right.
Then they tell me that Congress wants to pay for this "right thing to do" with a 61-cent-per-pack cigarette tax. All of the sudden my brain kicks in ... and I don't know what to do with it. Supplying health insurance for uninsured children feels right, but the question of how to pay for it didn't come into the question.
So, we're going to do this thing that feels right by violating my reason. How does that work? I mean, let's keep our brains engaged and examine this idea. We're in favor of taking care of children. We're going to pay for it by taxing cigarettes. Where does that take us? We have one of two possible directions (in terms of absolutes). First, the added tax could decrease the number of smokers. This would mean a decrease in the funding for children's health care. This would mean that be producing an effect most of us would agree would be a good thing -- decreased smoking -- we would be eliminating the intended effect -- taking care of the kids. Okay, let's go the other way, then. Don't allow an increase in cost decrease the number of buyers. Indeed, if we are truly in favor of children's health care, we ought to start a fund-raising campaign. Reintroduce cigarette ads into all the markets. Remove those pesky fines we've placed on cigarette makers and encourage more smoking. Nullify all those anti-smoking laws that we've put into place and encourage smokers to buy, buy, buy. We ought to teach our teens the necessity of caring for children and get them to do their part by smoking. Hey, you don't actually have to smoke; just buy the cigarettes. Whatever we do, we need to up the purchase of cigarettes ... for the children.
You see? I'm stuck here. I feel that the right thing to do is take care of the children, but then the method you offer me is just plain illogical. What am I supposed to do with that? Why do we set these things into forms that just cannot hold water. Why not make it feel right and reasonable?
I don't know. I don't get it.
Take the SCHIP argument. Providing care for uninsured children feels right. You might even argue that it is right. Children should be taken care of. It feels right and it is right. When House Democrats brought children, a nun, and a rabbi to press conferences, it wasn't to promote the most cogent argument. When they had a 12-year-old boy read the Democratic radio address on Saturday, it wasn't because of his superior reasoning skills. It was intended to tug unabashedly at everyone's heart strings. And I feel it. It feels right.
Then they tell me that Congress wants to pay for this "right thing to do" with a 61-cent-per-pack cigarette tax. All of the sudden my brain kicks in ... and I don't know what to do with it. Supplying health insurance for uninsured children feels right, but the question of how to pay for it didn't come into the question.
So, we're going to do this thing that feels right by violating my reason. How does that work? I mean, let's keep our brains engaged and examine this idea. We're in favor of taking care of children. We're going to pay for it by taxing cigarettes. Where does that take us? We have one of two possible directions (in terms of absolutes). First, the added tax could decrease the number of smokers. This would mean a decrease in the funding for children's health care. This would mean that be producing an effect most of us would agree would be a good thing -- decreased smoking -- we would be eliminating the intended effect -- taking care of the kids. Okay, let's go the other way, then. Don't allow an increase in cost decrease the number of buyers. Indeed, if we are truly in favor of children's health care, we ought to start a fund-raising campaign. Reintroduce cigarette ads into all the markets. Remove those pesky fines we've placed on cigarette makers and encourage more smoking. Nullify all those anti-smoking laws that we've put into place and encourage smokers to buy, buy, buy. We ought to teach our teens the necessity of caring for children and get them to do their part by smoking. Hey, you don't actually have to smoke; just buy the cigarettes. Whatever we do, we need to up the purchase of cigarettes ... for the children.
You see? I'm stuck here. I feel that the right thing to do is take care of the children, but then the method you offer me is just plain illogical. What am I supposed to do with that? Why do we set these things into forms that just cannot hold water. Why not make it feel right and reasonable?
I don't know. I don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)