The proposal to add an amendment to the United States Constitution is driven by a desire to protect marriage because it is the foundation of society and necessary for its continued existence. Note that I am careful NOT to say marriage is merely the foundation of our society, as if marriage were an American institution. The life of all human society depends on husbands and wives committed to life-long union.
A Constitutional amendment defining marriage appropriately might not be the worst thing to ever happen. However, it would be a violation of the Conservative principles, particularly that of limited government, that have served to make the United States of America history's strongest most prosperous nation and to enable the U.S.A. to export desire for liberty, as well as its reality, around the world.
Conservatives, like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and others, rightly understood that people can only possess liberty when the government is restricted as our Constitution was designed to do. So-called 'Liberals' disagree. Communists, Atheists, Homosexuals, and others, have repeatedly applied methods to use the government, both in legal and illegal ways, to force tyrannical, unconstitutional policies onto our people.
I'm not at all comfortable with government at any level requiring me to be licensed in order to marry the woman of my dreams. When a marriage covenant is enacted between a man, a woman, and God, an oath has been taken. Two people are married. What has government to do with it? Who is some bureaucrat to tell me, my wife, and my God whether or not we are really married and our vow is legitimate?
It does occur to me that, in its appropriate role to protect us from each other when necessary, some level of government may need to know who is married in order to prevent and/or punish bigamy, for example. But, can you see that allowing marriage to be defined by government gives it too much power over our personal lives?
Because of its profound significance, defense of marriage is not only good, but also necessary! But, like flying planes into buildings full of innocent Muslim civilians in order to defeat Islamic Fascists, to propose a Constitutional amendment defining marriage is to adopt and condone the tactics of the tyrannical homosexual agenda.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
They Are Us!
I'm now prepared to speak more rationally about the killing of George Tiller and its indications. I do not, by any means, recant! I merely intend to elaborate. George Tiller's acts were not merely murder. No, indeed. He mutilated helpless babies. If there is no sympathy for Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer or any serial child rapist, how then could there possibly be sympathy for such a horrible monster as George Tiller?
Regarding my thoughts and feelings about the killing of a human being who I find despicable because of his engagement in the butchery of infants, I am torn. How could I support the cold-blooded slaying of a man while he serves in his church on Sunday morning? I've imagined what it might be like to shoot a person. It makes me shiver. It seems so cold and hard-hearted and such a violent, brutal thing.
One must realize that so-called 'abortion' is a nearly identical act, different only in that it is more cold, more hard-hearted, more violent, and more brutal than gunning down a stranger in cold blood. Therefore, we must in fairness to the first question, also ask, how could I stand by with full awareness while such an act is committed? Wouldn't complacent inaction be just as worthy of guilt? But these are the only choices, are they not?
Some may argue that another choice is to lobby for the legal protection of those helpless babies so that the law would then prevent the atrocities committed by George Tiller and so many others like him. This is absolutely a worthwhile effort, but it just as certainly takes time. Any amount of time is more than unwanted babies can afford.
When the alternatives are either to kill a serial murderer in order to prevent him from continuing in the wholesale slaughter of defenseless babies or to stand by and do nothing as the body count of helpless, innocent victims daily grows, continuing to mushroom, ultimately approaching 60,000 babies, how could anyone with even a trace of human compassion be still?
While I'm not quite (perhaps I should say 'not yet') prepared to condone the 'extra-lawful' killing even of a murderer, I would say in defense of drastic action that the law is insufficient to protect us. That's right I said, "to protect US." Even in the U.S.A., where we profess to hold it self-evident that all people are created with equal value and equally endowed by God with certain rights that cannot be denied, our nation has sunk deeply into tyranny of the oppression of those whom our society determined were "not like us".
When our nation was founded, slavery was an accepted institution in most, if not all, of the world. But for the West at least, slavery was not merely economic tyranny, it was also racial tyranny, as demonstrated by the fact there were no White slaves. Our nation could only have condoned slavery and segregation by imagining that people of significantly different appearance and culture are "not like us" and, therefore, not equally endowed by God with rights that cannot be denied. I think it is now generally well understood that this proposition of our ancestors (and even our parents, in some cases) was false. I do believe that cultures can be of greater or lesser value and every person is different with there own strengths and weaknesses. Yet, each person has the same intrinsic value and undeniable rights.
It is a grave mistake for anyone, especially for we who acknowledge the undeniable right for everyone to live, to imagine that little babies are somehow "not like us" and therefore less deserving of respect for their most basic of rights. We must understand, however unlikely it may seem, that when the undeniable rights of any group of people can be universally and indiscriminately violated, then every other group is vulnerable to the same tyranny. But I don't mean to suggest that we should have only cynical motivation. I believe when we correctly and thoroughly comprehend that babies are, indeed, like us and have all the same irrefutable rights as we adults, we will be on fire for their defense, not merely because of the potential implications for our own rights, but also, I hope, because of our compassion for other human beings and our love for justice. They are us!
Some have said, "a fetus isn't fully human. You only think so because of your religion, and you can't impose your religious beliefs on everyone else". I would respond, "what religious beliefs?" First, let's not forget that our national identity is rooted in our acknowledgement of the fact that God has given the same undeniable rights to all human beings. This is a religious belief without which we would have no concept of individual liberty or any opposition to tyranny. If not for the Christian world view of our 'founding fathers', the U.S.A. would have been just another kingdom and would not have propagated hope for liberty and prosperity throughout the entire world. So let's be careful not to so easily object to religious beliefs. After all, should we reject the concepts of equal rights and free speech because the have their origin in religious conviction?
But does my conviction about the beginning of a human life have the Bible as its source? The Bible does very emphatically indicate that human life and its intrinsic value do begin before birth. But my conviction is driven more precisely by science.
For those concerned about the imposition of religious values on all of society by a fanatical few, some religions may demand that we reject science and the fact that life begins at conception, but you may rest assured that denial of these three scientific facts is NOT found in the Bible. But, as mentioned earlier, what the Bible does contain is the command to care about the rights of all people.
Considering these scientific facts, we must refuse to participate in the delusional discussion of 'abortion' as if that were the issue. Whether or not to abort a pregnancy is not the issue. I think we can agree that we have the same concern about 'abortion' that we have about embryonic stem-cell research. We cannot hope to address any issue appropriately if we cannot first correctly identify the issue. And no case can be made that justice is served by ending the life of an unborn child. Therefore, the real question must always be, "under what circumstances is it acceptable to murder a helpless, innocent child?"
"What gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body?" Nothing gives me the right, and I do not seek to obtain any right of the sort. I know you have heard this question. Such an accusatory question is known as a "Straw Man Argument". When experiencing difficulty arguing an opponent's points, one might attempt to deceptively misrepresent the opponent's points as something different and more easily defeated. It is a dishonest practice relying on trickery and driven by weakness. That is, when it is not merely being repeated by those who have no thoughts of their own.
But since the question is so common, I'd like to address it. First, should it be legal for a man to beat a woman to death with his bear hands? After all, he is doing as he chooses with his own body. What right do you have to support a law against such behavior when doing so would certainly be an attempt by you to tell that man what to do with his own body? Every law that exists is an attempt to control behavior. All behavior is acted out in some way or another with our bodies, whether one is robbing a bank, driving drunk, or anything else you can imagine. Because we all are endowed with the same rights, it is inevitable that our rights must be limited when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others. This is the only way to ensure equality of rights. So that man should be allowed to do with his own body what he will unless and until the exercise of his liberty hinders some else's free exercise of liberty.
This brings me right to the second part of my response to the question. What the woman does (or arranges to have done by someone else) to her own body is of no concern to me. The assertion that 'abortion' is the exercise of a woman's right to do what she likes with her own body is not only false, but also patently ridiculous. Does 'abortion' take the life from the woman's body? Is the woman's body painfully and horribly cut into pieces while she yet lives? Is the woman's brain sucked from her head by a needle jammed into the base of her skull? Considering the effects of 'abortion' on the baby's body, I find wailing and moaning about a woman's right to do what she likes with her own body profoundly offensive and entirely irrelevant.
George Tiller and his ilk are hired assassins. This may sound like inflammatory rhetoric, but the definition is perfectly accurate. Justice can be sought for what has been done, but atrocities cannot be undone by the death of this butcher and justice cannot be achieved by a vigilante killing. However, there is certainty that he would have killed as many more helpless, innocent babies as his lifespan or life plan would accommodate. All of those potential victims have been rescued from slaughter, if not absolutely, then at least from the prolific hands of this particular vicious and demented individual.
Regarding my thoughts and feelings about the killing of a human being who I find despicable because of his engagement in the butchery of infants, I am torn. How could I support the cold-blooded slaying of a man while he serves in his church on Sunday morning? I've imagined what it might be like to shoot a person. It makes me shiver. It seems so cold and hard-hearted and such a violent, brutal thing.
One must realize that so-called 'abortion' is a nearly identical act, different only in that it is more cold, more hard-hearted, more violent, and more brutal than gunning down a stranger in cold blood. Therefore, we must in fairness to the first question, also ask, how could I stand by with full awareness while such an act is committed? Wouldn't complacent inaction be just as worthy of guilt? But these are the only choices, are they not?
Some may argue that another choice is to lobby for the legal protection of those helpless babies so that the law would then prevent the atrocities committed by George Tiller and so many others like him. This is absolutely a worthwhile effort, but it just as certainly takes time. Any amount of time is more than unwanted babies can afford.
When the alternatives are either to kill a serial murderer in order to prevent him from continuing in the wholesale slaughter of defenseless babies or to stand by and do nothing as the body count of helpless, innocent victims daily grows, continuing to mushroom, ultimately approaching 60,000 babies, how could anyone with even a trace of human compassion be still?
While I'm not quite (perhaps I should say 'not yet') prepared to condone the 'extra-lawful' killing even of a murderer, I would say in defense of drastic action that the law is insufficient to protect us. That's right I said, "to protect US." Even in the U.S.A., where we profess to hold it self-evident that all people are created with equal value and equally endowed by God with certain rights that cannot be denied, our nation has sunk deeply into tyranny of the oppression of those whom our society determined were "not like us".
When our nation was founded, slavery was an accepted institution in most, if not all, of the world. But for the West at least, slavery was not merely economic tyranny, it was also racial tyranny, as demonstrated by the fact there were no White slaves. Our nation could only have condoned slavery and segregation by imagining that people of significantly different appearance and culture are "not like us" and, therefore, not equally endowed by God with rights that cannot be denied. I think it is now generally well understood that this proposition of our ancestors (and even our parents, in some cases) was false. I do believe that cultures can be of greater or lesser value and every person is different with there own strengths and weaknesses. Yet, each person has the same intrinsic value and undeniable rights.
It is a grave mistake for anyone, especially for we who acknowledge the undeniable right for everyone to live, to imagine that little babies are somehow "not like us" and therefore less deserving of respect for their most basic of rights. We must understand, however unlikely it may seem, that when the undeniable rights of any group of people can be universally and indiscriminately violated, then every other group is vulnerable to the same tyranny. But I don't mean to suggest that we should have only cynical motivation. I believe when we correctly and thoroughly comprehend that babies are, indeed, like us and have all the same irrefutable rights as we adults, we will be on fire for their defense, not merely because of the potential implications for our own rights, but also, I hope, because of our compassion for other human beings and our love for justice. They are us!
Some have said, "a fetus isn't fully human. You only think so because of your religion, and you can't impose your religious beliefs on everyone else". I would respond, "what religious beliefs?" First, let's not forget that our national identity is rooted in our acknowledgement of the fact that God has given the same undeniable rights to all human beings. This is a religious belief without which we would have no concept of individual liberty or any opposition to tyranny. If not for the Christian world view of our 'founding fathers', the U.S.A. would have been just another kingdom and would not have propagated hope for liberty and prosperity throughout the entire world. So let's be careful not to so easily object to religious beliefs. After all, should we reject the concepts of equal rights and free speech because the have their origin in religious conviction?
But does my conviction about the beginning of a human life have the Bible as its source? The Bible does very emphatically indicate that human life and its intrinsic value do begin before birth. But my conviction is driven more precisely by science.
- An unborn child at any and all stages of development is genetically human. That is a scientific fact!
- An unborn child at any and all stages of development is genetically unique. He is not mere 'tissue', part of the mother's body. That is a scientific fact!
- The life of an unborn child begins at conception. That is a scientific fact that any honest biologist will tell you!
For those concerned about the imposition of religious values on all of society by a fanatical few, some religions may demand that we reject science and the fact that life begins at conception, but you may rest assured that denial of these three scientific facts is NOT found in the Bible. But, as mentioned earlier, what the Bible does contain is the command to care about the rights of all people.
Considering these scientific facts, we must refuse to participate in the delusional discussion of 'abortion' as if that were the issue. Whether or not to abort a pregnancy is not the issue. I think we can agree that we have the same concern about 'abortion' that we have about embryonic stem-cell research. We cannot hope to address any issue appropriately if we cannot first correctly identify the issue. And no case can be made that justice is served by ending the life of an unborn child. Therefore, the real question must always be, "under what circumstances is it acceptable to murder a helpless, innocent child?"
"What gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body?" Nothing gives me the right, and I do not seek to obtain any right of the sort. I know you have heard this question. Such an accusatory question is known as a "Straw Man Argument". When experiencing difficulty arguing an opponent's points, one might attempt to deceptively misrepresent the opponent's points as something different and more easily defeated. It is a dishonest practice relying on trickery and driven by weakness. That is, when it is not merely being repeated by those who have no thoughts of their own.
But since the question is so common, I'd like to address it. First, should it be legal for a man to beat a woman to death with his bear hands? After all, he is doing as he chooses with his own body. What right do you have to support a law against such behavior when doing so would certainly be an attempt by you to tell that man what to do with his own body? Every law that exists is an attempt to control behavior. All behavior is acted out in some way or another with our bodies, whether one is robbing a bank, driving drunk, or anything else you can imagine. Because we all are endowed with the same rights, it is inevitable that our rights must be limited when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others. This is the only way to ensure equality of rights. So that man should be allowed to do with his own body what he will unless and until the exercise of his liberty hinders some else's free exercise of liberty.
This brings me right to the second part of my response to the question. What the woman does (or arranges to have done by someone else) to her own body is of no concern to me. The assertion that 'abortion' is the exercise of a woman's right to do what she likes with her own body is not only false, but also patently ridiculous. Does 'abortion' take the life from the woman's body? Is the woman's body painfully and horribly cut into pieces while she yet lives? Is the woman's brain sucked from her head by a needle jammed into the base of her skull? Considering the effects of 'abortion' on the baby's body, I find wailing and moaning about a woman's right to do what she likes with her own body profoundly offensive and entirely irrelevant.
George Tiller and his ilk are hired assassins. This may sound like inflammatory rhetoric, but the definition is perfectly accurate. Justice can be sought for what has been done, but atrocities cannot be undone by the death of this butcher and justice cannot be achieved by a vigilante killing. However, there is certainty that he would have killed as many more helpless, innocent babies as his lifespan or life plan would accommodate. All of those potential victims have been rescued from slaughter, if not absolutely, then at least from the prolific hands of this particular vicious and demented individual.
"Do you love me?"
As ever, Oswald Chambers profoundly cuts right to the heart of the matter. His June 19th entry of My Utmost for His Highest addresses an aspect of church life (and my life) that has troubled me for some time. I call it intellectualism because, no matter how inadvertently, it encourages "understanding" Jesus rather than knowing him. Intellectualism encourages a legalistic, if sincere, pursuit of righteousness rather than a devoted pursuit of Jesus. It focuses on doctrine instead of focusing on love.
- "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
~1 Corinthians 13:2
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
What's Good for the Goose...
Praise the Lord! George Tiller, the baby killer is dead! Hallelujah! The vicious butcher is dead. The mass murder/serial killer, George Tiller, established a reputation for performing late term 'abortions' and for brutally murdering the babies of 10-14 year old rape victims without reporting the crime, which allowed the rapists to continue their assaults unimpeded. I've read that he was responsible for the deaths of over 60,000 infants.
In spite of these facts, some Christians have argued that he should not have been murdered as he was. Such a solution may be less than ideal, but it is undeniably a solution. Concerns about the potential negative impact of Tiller's murder on the public debate of the daily slaughter of thousands of babies is nothing short of craven cowardice. This is no time for mourning, but for jubilation! Any claim that the murder of a mass murderer is somehow unjust is the epitome of hypocrisy. Tiller finally had done to him what he had for so long done to so many others. Our government is supposed to protect us from horrors like George Tiller. Infanticide has not ended, but Tiller's reign of terror is at an end. Thank God!
In spite of these facts, some Christians have argued that he should not have been murdered as he was. Such a solution may be less than ideal, but it is undeniably a solution. Concerns about the potential negative impact of Tiller's murder on the public debate of the daily slaughter of thousands of babies is nothing short of craven cowardice. This is no time for mourning, but for jubilation! Any claim that the murder of a mass murderer is somehow unjust is the epitome of hypocrisy. Tiller finally had done to him what he had for so long done to so many others. Our government is supposed to protect us from horrors like George Tiller. Infanticide has not ended, but Tiller's reign of terror is at an end. Thank God!
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Review: The Goode Family
Wednesday, May 27, "The Goode Family" debuted. The animated sitcom is powered by Mike Judge (along with two others whose names are new to me), creator of "Beavis & Butthead" and "King of the Hill". The Goode's are environmentalists who struggle to meet the PC demands of being responsible residents of the planet. For example, they actually ask themselves, "What would Al Gore do?"
Judge's previous work, this subject, and the previews gave me hope for a laugh. However, the first episode was a tremendous disappointment. While I did not expect the show to go so far as to embrace all of my values, I was looking forward to seeing some good-natured fun being poked at "greenies". The debut did have some fun by honestly pointing out the irrationality of some Liberal ideas, but also encouraged sympathy for environmentalists' sincerity. In stark contrast to such gentle treatment, the culmination of the episode's plot was a grotesque and flagrantly dishonest mockery of Christians and abstinence in the form of accusations of overt incestuous tendencies. I felt ambushed.
The Goode matriarch has said about Christian abstinence proponents, "They're not like us", making reference to their cross pendants and flag pins. After seeing Christian fathers and daughters participating in a mock wedding to celebrate abstinence (I know, it's weird and thoroughly divorced from reality), the Goode's daughter, who is struggling against the PC notion that everyone must have sex, says, "Mom was right, they're not like us". If those who assert themselves as higher than animals by exercising their uniquely human quality of self-control were the sexual perverts (and up were down and east were west) as The Goode Family would have viewers believe, then who would disagree?
But, "They", are only grossly misrepresented here. I'm careful not to judge a series by only its first episode, but so far, we have a giant, poisonous Politically Correct pill, lubricated with humor for easy swallowing.
It is interesting that a show about a 'green' family would attack God; there is no obvious opposition here. But perhaps, we see in this attack an acknowledgement, however inadvertent it may be, of the more subtle reality that environmentalism is indeed a religion. This introduction may also reveal that the show will not critique PC behavior as advertised, but rather support it just like nearly everything else from La La Land.
Judge's previous work, this subject, and the previews gave me hope for a laugh. However, the first episode was a tremendous disappointment. While I did not expect the show to go so far as to embrace all of my values, I was looking forward to seeing some good-natured fun being poked at "greenies". The debut did have some fun by honestly pointing out the irrationality of some Liberal ideas, but also encouraged sympathy for environmentalists' sincerity. In stark contrast to such gentle treatment, the culmination of the episode's plot was a grotesque and flagrantly dishonest mockery of Christians and abstinence in the form of accusations of overt incestuous tendencies. I felt ambushed.
The Goode matriarch has said about Christian abstinence proponents, "They're not like us", making reference to their cross pendants and flag pins. After seeing Christian fathers and daughters participating in a mock wedding to celebrate abstinence (I know, it's weird and thoroughly divorced from reality), the Goode's daughter, who is struggling against the PC notion that everyone must have sex, says, "Mom was right, they're not like us". If those who assert themselves as higher than animals by exercising their uniquely human quality of self-control were the sexual perverts (and up were down and east were west) as The Goode Family would have viewers believe, then who would disagree?
But, "They", are only grossly misrepresented here. I'm careful not to judge a series by only its first episode, but so far, we have a giant, poisonous Politically Correct pill, lubricated with humor for easy swallowing.
It is interesting that a show about a 'green' family would attack God; there is no obvious opposition here. But perhaps, we see in this attack an acknowledgement, however inadvertent it may be, of the more subtle reality that environmentalism is indeed a religion. This introduction may also reveal that the show will not critique PC behavior as advertised, but rather support it just like nearly everything else from La La Land.
The Thrill of Victory
I had a 'big thrill' this morning. You don't have to know me well to know I am not much for cleaning house. I make no secret of it. But I do wash myself daily and have, for years now, been concerned about my dirty bathtub. I've tried many different cleansers, but have been unable to make any real progress against the gray stains in my tub. I would scrub and scrub and scrub, then step back and look, thinking, "Hmm. That might be a little lighter gray than before."
Recently, I've been more committed to finding a solution. I collected all the cleansers and lined them up on the bathroom counter, determined that I will vigorously apply each in turn until I find one that can do, at least, some damage to the dirt. It looks like a superhero fight from a comic book: Bam!, Pow!, Kaboom!.
I have developed the 'intermittent habit' of spraying one of the cleansers on the tub right after I get out of the shower. Returning to the shower this morning, I first ran some water and tried to scrub the tub with a rough sponge. To my slack-jawed amazement, the dirt began to move! Most of it came up! Only the 'ring' where the dirt was thickest remains for later attention. I don't know why it worked this time, but not before. The bottom of the tub is a big clean spot. While showering I frequently rubbed my big toe on the bottom of the tub just to hear the clean squeak!
That's right. This is a big thrill for me. I'm often amazed at the things that little children find amusing or amazing. But I'm no different in the simplicity of the sources of my amazement. I laugh as I say this, but it's so true: it's healthy to have goals, and there's no shame in rejoicing in success, no matter how insignificant it may be to others.
So, as easy as you have found it to be to clean your own tub, I'm sure you have not neglected the task for so long as I have. I now have hope. That's right. Even from this relatively trivial thing, I have hope and inspiration for completing, not only this one thing, but also other tasks that have seemed daunting to me. Am I pathetic? Certainly. We all are, though some of us are mercifully reminded more frequently than others. Surely, everyone has some kind of challenges at almost all times. If life is easy, as we would all like very much for it to be, then we are doing it wrong! What can be learned, gained, or created from an easy life? We should enjoy even struggles because through them, we are challenged to grow and to learn. And victory is so very sweet. Over what will you have victory?
Recently, I've been more committed to finding a solution. I collected all the cleansers and lined them up on the bathroom counter, determined that I will vigorously apply each in turn until I find one that can do, at least, some damage to the dirt. It looks like a superhero fight from a comic book: Bam!, Pow!, Kaboom!.
I have developed the 'intermittent habit' of spraying one of the cleansers on the tub right after I get out of the shower. Returning to the shower this morning, I first ran some water and tried to scrub the tub with a rough sponge. To my slack-jawed amazement, the dirt began to move! Most of it came up! Only the 'ring' where the dirt was thickest remains for later attention. I don't know why it worked this time, but not before. The bottom of the tub is a big clean spot. While showering I frequently rubbed my big toe on the bottom of the tub just to hear the clean squeak!
That's right. This is a big thrill for me. I'm often amazed at the things that little children find amusing or amazing. But I'm no different in the simplicity of the sources of my amazement. I laugh as I say this, but it's so true: it's healthy to have goals, and there's no shame in rejoicing in success, no matter how insignificant it may be to others.
So, as easy as you have found it to be to clean your own tub, I'm sure you have not neglected the task for so long as I have. I now have hope. That's right. Even from this relatively trivial thing, I have hope and inspiration for completing, not only this one thing, but also other tasks that have seemed daunting to me. Am I pathetic? Certainly. We all are, though some of us are mercifully reminded more frequently than others. Surely, everyone has some kind of challenges at almost all times. If life is easy, as we would all like very much for it to be, then we are doing it wrong! What can be learned, gained, or created from an easy life? We should enjoy even struggles because through them, we are challenged to grow and to learn. And victory is so very sweet. Over what will you have victory?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
It Goes Without Saying...
I enjoy puzzles and games. Obviously, such diversions are a commonplace part of our culture. I just solved a puzzle. Its solution is a quote from Erma Bombeck, a humorist whom many younger folks will not know. It's not important to know who she is. Her quote is this:
Now, I suppose that's kind of funny in an understated way. It seems harmless enough. But, I started thinking about what it means. First, the intention I believe is to imply that parents can have too many children. Second, and of more interest to me, is the implication that parents should control how many children they have. Mrs. Bombeck jokes that the first must go without saying (although she does say it). But, it must be obvious to her that the second also goes without saying. However, neither the idea that parents must exert control over the size of their families in order to avoid having too many children nor the idea that there is such thing as 'too many children' should go without saying. These are topics well worthy of discussion.
Whatever you may think about the size of families and the use of birth control is beside the point that I am making here. This quote exemplifies the ability of popular culture to influence its participants to a particular point of view with such gentle subtlety as to go completely unnoticed by an unsuspecting audience. Everyone, no matter what their beliefs, must be vigilant against such subtle persuasion. In order to avoid being misled, we must never allow anything to "go without saying".
Can you see this principle active in your own interaction with popular culture? Please share your examples. What have you been taught (rightly or wrongly) by our culture?
- It goes without saying that you should never have more children than you have car windows.
Now, I suppose that's kind of funny in an understated way. It seems harmless enough. But, I started thinking about what it means. First, the intention I believe is to imply that parents can have too many children. Second, and of more interest to me, is the implication that parents should control how many children they have. Mrs. Bombeck jokes that the first must go without saying (although she does say it). But, it must be obvious to her that the second also goes without saying. However, neither the idea that parents must exert control over the size of their families in order to avoid having too many children nor the idea that there is such thing as 'too many children' should go without saying. These are topics well worthy of discussion.
Whatever you may think about the size of families and the use of birth control is beside the point that I am making here. This quote exemplifies the ability of popular culture to influence its participants to a particular point of view with such gentle subtlety as to go completely unnoticed by an unsuspecting audience. Everyone, no matter what their beliefs, must be vigilant against such subtle persuasion. In order to avoid being misled, we must never allow anything to "go without saying".
Can you see this principle active in your own interaction with popular culture? Please share your examples. What have you been taught (rightly or wrongly) by our culture?
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Got Surf?
I have a dream...
..to surf in Hawaii. I know that sounds frivilous. But, here's the fact: I get choked up watching movies or videos about surfing.
I'm so moved, perhaps, by the idea of being in the center of such beauty and power, both attributable to God himself. It makes me think of being right in the palm of his hand.
..to surf in Hawaii. I know that sounds frivilous. But, here's the fact: I get choked up watching movies or videos about surfing.
I'm so moved, perhaps, by the idea of being in the center of such beauty and power, both attributable to God himself. It makes me think of being right in the palm of his hand.
- His splendor was like the sunrise;
rays flashed from his hand,
where his power was hidden.
He stood, and shook the earth;
he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient mountains crumbled
and the age-old hills collapsed.
His ways are eternal.
You trampled the sea with your horses,
churning the great waters. ~Habakkuk 3:4,6,15
Monday, May 04, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Pandora's Music Box
I discovered a website called Pandora. They call it "A new kind of radio - stations that play only music you like". You name an artist or song you like, and then you can listen to a "station" consisting of songs determined to be similar. This determination is produced by a database called the Music Genome Project wherein each song is assigned various and sundry characteristics. No genre is excluded and no songs are too old. Having built several stations, I have to say it is very impressive. I'm able to listen to songs I know I like as well as discover some real gems. You can create multiple stations, customize your stations, research music, share what you find, and use other features I have not yet apprehended. I'ts an absolute blast and I highly recommend it.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Hints, Allegations, and Things Left Unsaid
I'm sure every believer in America has heard Christians being accused of being hypocrites. Several years ago, I wondered if it might be true and dealt with this question honestly. It was easy then, because as a recent convert, I did not feel that the accusation applied to me. I was new at this and felt no responsibility for the reputation that may have been earned. In my conclusion, I was in agreement with my fellow believers: some professing Christians, who may or may not be the genuine article, are overly judgemental and angry. The rest of us also sometimes appear to be hypocritical because, in our imperfection, we can fail to live up to our ideals.
Now, as an adult more confident in my faith, I have very little concern for false accusations. But I find an interesting irony. I do not believe that Christians are generally hypocritical. We do not judge people for things of which we are guilty. In fact, good discipleship leads us away from judging people at all. In that sense we are not hypocritical. That is, not usually and certainly not intentionally. However, I do believe we Christians are most definitely hypocrites. But I use the term in an entirely different way from that used by those who hurl angry accusations at us because they groan under the pressure of their own sin.
I have become quite good at controlling my behavior, especially when not alone. While the reputation for being hypocrites as earlier described is largely false, Christians have earned a reputation for being uptight sticks-in-the-mud because, somewhere in the dark recesses of our hearts, we do know that we must protect ourselves from opportunities to be who we really are. Our impulses must be suppressed. This also improves as we grow in Christ, but it is also very easy to disguise. We spend so much thought, energy, and prayer in correcting our behavior, I fear we neglect our hearts. Again, I find in myself another way in which I may inadvertently try to achieve righteousness. Perhaps, not to earn heaven, but in order to please God and, unfortunately, probably also to please man. However, keeping quiet about feelings of anger, selfishness, pride, etc. does not result in less sin. Rather, it results in habits of hypocrisy and, perhaps, even pride. We become actors.
We really are hypocrites, not as a result of judging others for that of which we also are guilty, but because we hide the truth in our hearts behind a facade of righteous behavior. We wear masks which, by the way, God sees through. I would rejoice with my brothers and sisters if we could all be honest with each other, even to the point of expressing the selfishness, anger, and impatience we sometimes feel, just so that we could share in those struggles, overcome them together, and build each other up in love.
I'm not quite suggesting that we should say and do the things we truly desire to say and do. I do suggest that we truly desire to say and do the things we should say and do. I do not know the path to this end, but I do know that somewhere along the way, we must pass through a place where we are exposed in bright light and our weaknesses are revealed. We are all familiar with the concept of confession, but let us confess the truth for a change and leave none of our own stones unturned. Let us face the truth of our own sinfulness, which is found not in our sins, but in our very selves. Let us embrace not only our weakness, but also that of our brothers and sisters—not to revel in it, but to fully accept it.
Then, let us turn to Jesus who IS our righteousness. His righteousness for us did not stop at the cross. It is not limited to his intercession for us. He is also righteousness in us. We must not fear our feelings and hide them behind righteous acts. Rather, we must confess them and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Now, as an adult more confident in my faith, I have very little concern for false accusations. But I find an interesting irony. I do not believe that Christians are generally hypocritical. We do not judge people for things of which we are guilty. In fact, good discipleship leads us away from judging people at all. In that sense we are not hypocritical. That is, not usually and certainly not intentionally. However, I do believe we Christians are most definitely hypocrites. But I use the term in an entirely different way from that used by those who hurl angry accusations at us because they groan under the pressure of their own sin.
I have become quite good at controlling my behavior, especially when not alone. While the reputation for being hypocrites as earlier described is largely false, Christians have earned a reputation for being uptight sticks-in-the-mud because, somewhere in the dark recesses of our hearts, we do know that we must protect ourselves from opportunities to be who we really are. Our impulses must be suppressed. This also improves as we grow in Christ, but it is also very easy to disguise. We spend so much thought, energy, and prayer in correcting our behavior, I fear we neglect our hearts. Again, I find in myself another way in which I may inadvertently try to achieve righteousness. Perhaps, not to earn heaven, but in order to please God and, unfortunately, probably also to please man. However, keeping quiet about feelings of anger, selfishness, pride, etc. does not result in less sin. Rather, it results in habits of hypocrisy and, perhaps, even pride. We become actors.
We really are hypocrites, not as a result of judging others for that of which we also are guilty, but because we hide the truth in our hearts behind a facade of righteous behavior. We wear masks which, by the way, God sees through. I would rejoice with my brothers and sisters if we could all be honest with each other, even to the point of expressing the selfishness, anger, and impatience we sometimes feel, just so that we could share in those struggles, overcome them together, and build each other up in love.
I'm not quite suggesting that we should say and do the things we truly desire to say and do. I do suggest that we truly desire to say and do the things we should say and do. I do not know the path to this end, but I do know that somewhere along the way, we must pass through a place where we are exposed in bright light and our weaknesses are revealed. We are all familiar with the concept of confession, but let us confess the truth for a change and leave none of our own stones unturned. Let us face the truth of our own sinfulness, which is found not in our sins, but in our very selves. Let us embrace not only our weakness, but also that of our brothers and sisters—not to revel in it, but to fully accept it.
Then, let us turn to Jesus who IS our righteousness. His righteousness for us did not stop at the cross. It is not limited to his intercession for us. He is also righteousness in us. We must not fear our feelings and hide them behind righteous acts. Rather, we must confess them and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. ~Matthew 5:20-21a
But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. ~2 Corinthians 12:9-10
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! ~Romans 7:24
Hat tip: Collective Soul
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Beauty from Ashes
This may just make you hang your head. I hope it makes you lift your hands to "him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us."
The Choice: A One Act Play
The Choice: A One Act Play
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Evan Sayet Hits Another Home Run
In his second speech at the Heritage Foundation on March 3, 2009, Evan Sayet insightfully explains why "Liberals" must support that which is wrong and evil over that which is right and good. Evan brilliantly details, with examples, why the Liberal claim to neutrality is actually evil and demonstrates their insidious hypocrisy.
However, Mr. Sayet never explains the motivation for the support of "diversity" , "multiculturalism", or relativism. Understanding such behavior would certainly be worthwhile. I propose that many relativists (who think of themselves as noble multiculturalists) simply believe what they have been taught and have a desire to be fair to everyone. I think of them as "Relativists by Default" because they know of no other perspective.
This, by the way, is the primary reason Liberals are very illiberal regarding the issue of school vouchers. At private schools, children will learn other perspectives that stand up to debate. And, as discussed in the video, the impossibility of a multiculturalist worldview to stand against reasoned thought is the motivation behind the Liberal move to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would essentially silence talk radio. Liberal talk radio shows fail because Liberal positions cannot withstand debate.
However, as I ponder Evan's observations and conclusions, I see that some Liberals are compelled to "level the playing field" regarding all issues of apparent disparity. I refer to these as Committed Relativists, and I believe these folks have something to hide. Perhaps one has embraced an obviously sinful lifestyle and strives to justify it by denying that anything is sinful. Perhaps another simply hates God. If anything can be said to be objectively good or evil, then there must be a higher authority to make such determinations. There must be a God. To deny the Truth of His existence, one must deny that anything is good, and by extention that anything is evil.
Evan's conclusions seem eerily conspiratorial. By habit, I am reluctant to accept such things. But we know Satan is at work behind many of the evils in the world. So, it should come as no surprise at all that human beings serve him, knowingly or not, in a similar manner.
Here's a nice article Evan wrote called "Bruce Springsteen: One-Hundred Percent Republican"
Evan's blog is called Sayet Right. Beware. Many of the comments are brutal.
Evan's first speech at the Heritage Foundation was on March 5, 2007. It's also brilliant. See it here.
However, Mr. Sayet never explains the motivation for the support of "diversity" , "multiculturalism", or relativism. Understanding such behavior would certainly be worthwhile. I propose that many relativists (who think of themselves as noble multiculturalists) simply believe what they have been taught and have a desire to be fair to everyone. I think of them as "Relativists by Default" because they know of no other perspective.
This, by the way, is the primary reason Liberals are very illiberal regarding the issue of school vouchers. At private schools, children will learn other perspectives that stand up to debate. And, as discussed in the video, the impossibility of a multiculturalist worldview to stand against reasoned thought is the motivation behind the Liberal move to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would essentially silence talk radio. Liberal talk radio shows fail because Liberal positions cannot withstand debate.
However, as I ponder Evan's observations and conclusions, I see that some Liberals are compelled to "level the playing field" regarding all issues of apparent disparity. I refer to these as Committed Relativists, and I believe these folks have something to hide. Perhaps one has embraced an obviously sinful lifestyle and strives to justify it by denying that anything is sinful. Perhaps another simply hates God. If anything can be said to be objectively good or evil, then there must be a higher authority to make such determinations. There must be a God. To deny the Truth of His existence, one must deny that anything is good, and by extention that anything is evil.
Evan's conclusions seem eerily conspiratorial. By habit, I am reluctant to accept such things. But we know Satan is at work behind many of the evils in the world. So, it should come as no surprise at all that human beings serve him, knowingly or not, in a similar manner.
Here's a nice article Evan wrote called "Bruce Springsteen: One-Hundred Percent Republican"
Evan's blog is called Sayet Right. Beware. Many of the comments are brutal.
Evan's first speech at the Heritage Foundation was on March 5, 2007. It's also brilliant. See it here.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Depravity & Legalism
I think it's fair to say our depravity leads us to legalism in at least two ways. First (the one I normally think of), I want to know the rules so that I can dispense with knowing Jesus. You know, if I can just know what hoops to jump through, I can skip the relationship that is so much more emotionally and intellectually demanding than a mere list of "dos" and "don'ts".
But the second way that I see depravity leading to legalism is more insidious, I think, because it is more subtle and possibly more dangerous. Because we know that we are all depraved, we don't trust each other. You cannot know for certain whether I really feel remorse for sin. You cannot know if I have truly put my faith in Christ. So, in the first part, you might feel it necessary to make a determination about my standing before God by assessing my outward behavior. While I would not say such assessment has no purpose at all, I have seen Christians sincerely desiring righteousness in others and 'purity' in the church (that is, the absence of unbelievers) conscientiously judge another by what can be observed, as if his salvation depended on his own righteousness. I know you've seen it too.
In the second part, my ability to lie and my depraved inclination to it are the valid reasons for your mistrust. Aware that you cannot know my heart, I may believe that I am 'free' to lie with impunity. I may claim salvation that I do not have. Having salvation or not, I may claim remorse I do not feel. Thus, in addition to these sins, I may be complicit in the conspiracy of legalism in order to avoid its judgment.
And, perhaps, therein lies the most grievous irony. You and I can relate to these temptations to legalism because, I suppose, they are shared by us all. But the darkest part of the sin of legalism is its misdirection. While we must most certainly and sincerely fear God's judgment, legalism turns us away from the fear of God from whose wrath we can only be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Legalism tempts us to fear instead the trifling and fickle judgment of man from which we attempt to escape by pretending to have no need for Jesus.
But the second way that I see depravity leading to legalism is more insidious, I think, because it is more subtle and possibly more dangerous. Because we know that we are all depraved, we don't trust each other. You cannot know for certain whether I really feel remorse for sin. You cannot know if I have truly put my faith in Christ. So, in the first part, you might feel it necessary to make a determination about my standing before God by assessing my outward behavior. While I would not say such assessment has no purpose at all, I have seen Christians sincerely desiring righteousness in others and 'purity' in the church (that is, the absence of unbelievers) conscientiously judge another by what can be observed, as if his salvation depended on his own righteousness. I know you've seen it too.
In the second part, my ability to lie and my depraved inclination to it are the valid reasons for your mistrust. Aware that you cannot know my heart, I may believe that I am 'free' to lie with impunity. I may claim salvation that I do not have. Having salvation or not, I may claim remorse I do not feel. Thus, in addition to these sins, I may be complicit in the conspiracy of legalism in order to avoid its judgment.
And, perhaps, therein lies the most grievous irony. You and I can relate to these temptations to legalism because, I suppose, they are shared by us all. But the darkest part of the sin of legalism is its misdirection. While we must most certainly and sincerely fear God's judgment, legalism turns us away from the fear of God from whose wrath we can only be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Legalism tempts us to fear instead the trifling and fickle judgment of man from which we attempt to escape by pretending to have no need for Jesus.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. ~Matthew 10:28
Monday, February 16, 2009
Technology Renders Abortionist Fantasies Obsolete (revisited)
The Stem Cell Wars are Over
I'm reminded, once again, of one of my favorite quotes:
A little science estranges man from God. A lot of science brings him back. ~Francis Bacon
I'm reminded, once again, of one of my favorite quotes:
A little science estranges man from God. A lot of science brings him back. ~Francis Bacon
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Excuses, Excuses
I've developed a distaste for unsavory things in my past. I indulged in drugs, alcohol, and self-pity. But, I eventually tired of those things. Other temptations remain relevant in my life, but I am only occasionally even tempted by mind-altering chemicals and self-pity. I think this is because I now actually see them as unsavory. This is a blessing from God, for which I am truly grateful.
I suddenly realize that, at such times of temptation, I could still give myself permission for those poisonous behaviors. Perhaps, I could find some pleasure or relief in them. But these are weak temptations at best. They seem so far behind me and so unfulfilling. Yet, for other temptations like lust, anger, or pride I do give myself permission. I had not thought about it quite this way before. But, surely, that is precisely what I do.
"She has on a bikini; she's not nude!"
"At the moment, I have no alternative! What else can I do?"
"He has no right to treat me that way! My response was just!"
"I don't usually do this."
You see, I make exceptions. I have excuses or I accept the ones Satan offers. It's all right because of my unique circumstances. I deserve special consideration. Oh Lord how dangerous this is! Where is the limit to my self-indulgence? It is only where I decide to put it! That is in no way reliable or trust-worthy! My gauge is internal and, therefore, subject to the influence of my sinful nature with which I remain afflicted throughout this life. Worse still, I sometimes don't give myself time to consider, but rush headlong, knowing that I might resist a temptation well considered. Obviously, this must not be allowed to continue.
I see a distinction between my perception of sins I permit and others I no longer permit. I have been successfully resisting temptations to sins that I perceive as destructive while struggling to resist others that I perceive as merely prohibited. In truth, they are all destructive. This is knowledge I already have, but I must focus on and remember the destructive power of sins I too often permit, in order that I may have understanding that is greater than mere knowledge.
I must remember also that acts of sin are not merely "slips" or "momentary lapses", but nothing less than giving myself permission to sin. It seems like such a silly thing to think I have given myself permission to disobey God Almighty. Yet, there I am.
But, I am not required to give such permission. Though alertness must be important, I am now, by the power and grace of God through Jesus Christ, free to withhold that permission, free to reject the demands of my sinful nature, free to reject excuses, and free "to stand [my] ground, and after [I] have done everything, to stand."
I suddenly realize that, at such times of temptation, I could still give myself permission for those poisonous behaviors. Perhaps, I could find some pleasure or relief in them. But these are weak temptations at best. They seem so far behind me and so unfulfilling. Yet, for other temptations like lust, anger, or pride I do give myself permission. I had not thought about it quite this way before. But, surely, that is precisely what I do.
"She has on a bikini; she's not nude!"
"At the moment, I have no alternative! What else can I do?"
"He has no right to treat me that way! My response was just!"
"I don't usually do this."
You see, I make exceptions. I have excuses or I accept the ones Satan offers. It's all right because of my unique circumstances. I deserve special consideration. Oh Lord how dangerous this is! Where is the limit to my self-indulgence? It is only where I decide to put it! That is in no way reliable or trust-worthy! My gauge is internal and, therefore, subject to the influence of my sinful nature with which I remain afflicted throughout this life. Worse still, I sometimes don't give myself time to consider, but rush headlong, knowing that I might resist a temptation well considered. Obviously, this must not be allowed to continue.
I see a distinction between my perception of sins I permit and others I no longer permit. I have been successfully resisting temptations to sins that I perceive as destructive while struggling to resist others that I perceive as merely prohibited. In truth, they are all destructive. This is knowledge I already have, but I must focus on and remember the destructive power of sins I too often permit, in order that I may have understanding that is greater than mere knowledge.
I must remember also that acts of sin are not merely "slips" or "momentary lapses", but nothing less than giving myself permission to sin. It seems like such a silly thing to think I have given myself permission to disobey God Almighty. Yet, there I am.
But, I am not required to give such permission. Though alertness must be important, I am now, by the power and grace of God through Jesus Christ, free to withhold that permission, free to reject the demands of my sinful nature, free to reject excuses, and free "to stand [my] ground, and after [I] have done everything, to stand."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
I am a Pharisee in Need of a Savior
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." ~Luke 18:9-14
I used to think we might appropriately think of ourselves or others as Pharisees if we or they added many rules to scripture, then judged those who do not follow these new rules. But, as often happens, I see things differently now. I see more.
I’ve heard the passage above taught several times. As I mentioned previously, I left those times of instruction thanking God for this teaching and thanking God that I was not like that Pharisee. But I misunderstood what is being taught in scripture. Part of my problem lies in my understanding of this phrase “humbles himself”. This makes me think of someone who is not in humble circumstances, but does not boast or take credit for his lofty circumstances.
But, in truth, the Pharisee is as much a sinner as the tax collector. This is not because he committed vile acts, but because no amount of his righteous behavior can diminish his need for Jesus. Therefore, his circumstances are humble. For all his righteous acts, he is like the tax collector. In order to “humble himself”, he must confess the truth of his need for God.
In addition, I thought the Pharisee derived his sense of his own righteousness from having obeyed various and sundry rules and regulations that had been added to the Law, rather than only from the righteous behavior required by scripture. I see now that, according to righteousness as I have always understood it (i.e., outward obedience), the Pharisee was a righteous man. He strives for the things for which I’ve always been taught to strive. But he and I both do it for the wrong reasons. We must be obedient to God’s commands in order to please him, to honor him, to fellowship with him. But to obey in order to be counted righteous before God can only result in failure!
But this is what I have been taught! This is the teaching I received, inadvertently, of course, but nonetheless. From the body of Christ: my Sunday school teachers, my pastors, my friends, the preachers and teachers on the radio and television I have learned that my salvation must be questioned if my lifestyle is not beyond reproach. By necessary implication, if my lifestyle is beyond reproach, then I am on my way to heaven. Our churches preach and teach righteousness, and this is critically important. But, we have let suffer (though we would never abandon!) the preaching and teaching of Jesus Christ, our one and only savior!
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." ~Matthew 5:20-21a
According to the same misguided thinking of mine, I thought this passage in Matthew taught that we must not only live righteously in our outward behavior, but in our hearts and thoughts as well. This is not entirely untrue. But, I think the point here goes beyond striving for pure hearts. I believe the Lord’s purpose here is to teach, not only that outward obedience is insufficient for righteousness, but also that righteousness is out of reach for us to achieve on our own. Jesus was not saying merely that in order to qualify for heaven, we must avoid unrighteous thoughts as well as actions. Rather, he was saying that the righteousness of these Pharisees will not qualify them for heaven as they so clearly believe. Instead, sufficient righteousness for the kingdom of heaven is unattainable!
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'" ~Matthew 15:16-20
I derive peace and satisfaction from my righteous behavior, perhaps even pride. For my unrighteousness, I lacerate my own spirit. As for others, who can be admired? Who is perfect in righteousness? Who can be saved? All the righteous behavior in the world cannot save us. We need a savior! Yes, I am very dull, but it’s getting clearer.
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! ~Romans 7:24a
Monday, October 20, 2008
I Need a Savior
I was born in sin. I have always been a sinner. I have thought for so long that I am a sinner because I sinned. Everyone does it; therefore, we are all sinners. However, I believe now that I had it backwards. I am not a sinner because I sinned. Rather, I sin because I am a sinner. I have a body of ‘flesh’, a ‘sin nature’. Sin is not merely what I do. It’s what I am, unavoidable, undeniable. I am a sinner.
I have been involved in theological discussions wherein I made a distinction between sin committed intentionally with forethought and malice on the one hand and sin committed out of impulse, habit, or even ignorance on the other hand. I judged sin committed in true ignorance to be of lesser severity. This distinction may not be entirely without merit, but it is a dangerous one because both disqualify us from survival in the presence of God. The truth is, the sin I do in ignorance or that I might immediately take back is thoroughly sufficient for condemnation.
Even the slightest impurity is a deal-breaker. Anything less than 100% death to self is sin. Anything less than all the sacrifice and devotion I can give to God in every moment is sin. It can even be reasonably argued that everything we do is sin (or, at the very least, has sin in it) because we cannot do anything with perfectly selfless intent. Even the slightest self-interest at any time, under any circumstances is sin. I can be pretty good, relatively speaking. I often am pretty good. I may as well toot my own horn at this point because the ability to be that good — good enough — is impossible for me. I need someone to be perfectly righteous for me because I can’t do it. I need a savior.
This has critical implication for those who believe you can lose your salvation, though this thought is meaningful for me as well. I imagine an Arminian might ask himself daily, “Have I lived righteously today, so that I do not lose my salvation?” But, if we are sinners as I now understand it, then this question is irrelevant because the answer can never be “yes”. A better question would be, “Have I lived today in such a way that I no longer need Jesus, so that I do not lose my salvation?” This question addresses the unattainable requirement for perfection. If it were true that I could lose my salvation, then I would have lost it the very moment I received it. If salvation can be lost, then there can be no keeping it. But, praise God! I don’t need to keep my salvation. Jesus obtained salvation for me and keeps it for me. He has secured a rescue for all of us, and our rescue is secure.
There are implications also for my attitude of gratitude. I’m reminded again of Luke 7:36-50 because, once again, I see salvation as a greater gift than I have previously understood it to be. Not only have I broken the whole Law, but I am always breaking it! I am always behaving in conflict with the pure, righteous character of God, which is represented by the Law. Praise God because Jesus has fulfilled the Law on our behalf! I am a sinner. But, God has chosen to save me in spite of this truth. Not only so, but he desires to be in fellowship with me — even me! — to teach, guide, and encourage me in spite of the foul, ugly truth of my identity as one who, from birth, is in rebellion and war against God. Even though I already believe in election, this understanding helps liberate me from the idea that I must strive for enough righteousness in order for Jesus to remain in me. After all, I never could and I never will. Yet, he remains. I am a sinner. As such, I am precisely the kind of person Jesus saves. And he does. He doesn’t merely make up the difference between me and God, as if I am able to approach righteousness, but can’t quite make it all the way. Jesus doesn’t merely complete the work of righteousness that I am unable to complete. Rather, he does all the work of righteousness because I can do none of it! From my home at the greatest depths of degradation and desperation, Jesus has saved even me and brought me to the greatest heights of glory and joy! May the name of the Lord be praised forever.
Implications abound! As for my pride, haven’t I been legalistic in my attitude toward myself and toward others? Have I not been confident in my own righteousness, not realizing that, even though I do not murder, steal, or commit adultery, but do (sometimes) fast and tithe, yet I have no righteousness of my own? Though I’ve heard this passage taught several times, I think I now begin to understand. I used to think this Pharisee was mean and selfish to be so insensitive. I thanked God that I was not like him. But, he's not mean. He's just me.
I have been involved in theological discussions wherein I made a distinction between sin committed intentionally with forethought and malice on the one hand and sin committed out of impulse, habit, or even ignorance on the other hand. I judged sin committed in true ignorance to be of lesser severity. This distinction may not be entirely without merit, but it is a dangerous one because both disqualify us from survival in the presence of God. The truth is, the sin I do in ignorance or that I might immediately take back is thoroughly sufficient for condemnation.
Even the slightest impurity is a deal-breaker. Anything less than 100% death to self is sin. Anything less than all the sacrifice and devotion I can give to God in every moment is sin. It can even be reasonably argued that everything we do is sin (or, at the very least, has sin in it) because we cannot do anything with perfectly selfless intent. Even the slightest self-interest at any time, under any circumstances is sin. I can be pretty good, relatively speaking. I often am pretty good. I may as well toot my own horn at this point because the ability to be that good — good enough — is impossible for me. I need someone to be perfectly righteous for me because I can’t do it. I need a savior.
This has critical implication for those who believe you can lose your salvation, though this thought is meaningful for me as well. I imagine an Arminian might ask himself daily, “Have I lived righteously today, so that I do not lose my salvation?” But, if we are sinners as I now understand it, then this question is irrelevant because the answer can never be “yes”. A better question would be, “Have I lived today in such a way that I no longer need Jesus, so that I do not lose my salvation?” This question addresses the unattainable requirement for perfection. If it were true that I could lose my salvation, then I would have lost it the very moment I received it. If salvation can be lost, then there can be no keeping it. But, praise God! I don’t need to keep my salvation. Jesus obtained salvation for me and keeps it for me. He has secured a rescue for all of us, and our rescue is secure.
There are implications also for my attitude of gratitude. I’m reminded again of Luke 7:36-50 because, once again, I see salvation as a greater gift than I have previously understood it to be. Not only have I broken the whole Law, but I am always breaking it! I am always behaving in conflict with the pure, righteous character of God, which is represented by the Law. Praise God because Jesus has fulfilled the Law on our behalf! I am a sinner. But, God has chosen to save me in spite of this truth. Not only so, but he desires to be in fellowship with me — even me! — to teach, guide, and encourage me in spite of the foul, ugly truth of my identity as one who, from birth, is in rebellion and war against God. Even though I already believe in election, this understanding helps liberate me from the idea that I must strive for enough righteousness in order for Jesus to remain in me. After all, I never could and I never will. Yet, he remains. I am a sinner. As such, I am precisely the kind of person Jesus saves. And he does. He doesn’t merely make up the difference between me and God, as if I am able to approach righteousness, but can’t quite make it all the way. Jesus doesn’t merely complete the work of righteousness that I am unable to complete. Rather, he does all the work of righteousness because I can do none of it! From my home at the greatest depths of degradation and desperation, Jesus has saved even me and brought me to the greatest heights of glory and joy! May the name of the Lord be praised forever.
Implications abound! As for my pride, haven’t I been legalistic in my attitude toward myself and toward others? Have I not been confident in my own righteousness, not realizing that, even though I do not murder, steal, or commit adultery, but do (sometimes) fast and tithe, yet I have no righteousness of my own? Though I’ve heard this passage taught several times, I think I now begin to understand. I used to think this Pharisee was mean and selfish to be so insensitive. I thanked God that I was not like him. But, he's not mean. He's just me.
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." ~Luke 18:9-14
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Potential President Picked Perfect Partner: Palin
Sarah Palin is an outstanding vice-presidential nominee for John McCain for a long list of reasons, which I intend to delineate. I was planning to vote for McCain anyway, as much as for any other reason as because of the atheist, communist, homosexual agenda and ineptitude of Barack Obama. But I'm also deeply impressed with the brilliance of McCain's selection.
It's especially humorous that some Democrats are being critical and even whining, saying Palin was not properly vetted by the McCain campaign. Their response to, dare I say, the perfect pick is to pretend it was somehow a mistake. In truth, McCain showed the world how it's really done! Democrats (and Republicans, too!) ought to be beating down McCain's door trying to learn from the master.
The most important benefit of choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate is because of her staunch conservative positions on issues. She is not only a supporter of the people's right to bear arms and the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects that right, but she is also a life-time member of the NRA and an avid hunter -- a moose hunter, no less.
Governor Palin not only says of herself, "I'm as pro-life as a candidate can be", but she is also so committed that she, with full knowledge of his condition and willing to tackle the inherent physical and emotional challenges, brought to full term and gave birth to a son with Down Syndrome.
She has worked, even against her own party, to limit government spending and taxation.
These are the best examples of her conservative principles and the things about her I like best. But, that's the point. McCain has been less than exciting for authentic conservatives like me because he has abandoned some conservative principles. While he is a strong advocate for national defence and protection of human life, he has been week on illegal immigration, free speech, and has even bought into the Global Warming Hoax. For the first time, conservatives are invigorated about McCain's candidacy. This change is entirely because of his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Other, more strategic, considerations add to the appeal of Alaska's governor as vice presidential nominee. For the aforementioned reasons, she appeals to conservatives. She is also an attractive candidate for some liberals, particularly women whose primary concern is that a woman be elected to high office. Some former supporters of the socialist, Hillary Clinton, will be drawn to the McCain ticket simply because his running mate is a woman. This will certainly be a minority, but every vote helps. The attraction of her gender is exponentially greater because of her long list of accomplishments, all the way from high-school to her recent successful endeavors as governor, combined with her commitment to motherhood, and her apparent enjoyment of her lifestyle. She has achieved the dream and demonstrated the potential for those women who want to "have it all".
For Independents and independent-minded party members, Palin is appealing as well. Having fought against the corruption of high-ranking officials in her own party and having taxed big oil companies enabling a $1200 'gift' to every citizen of her state, she is immune to any accusation of being partisan or beholden to constituents, but rather demonstrates a commitment to principles. Her advocacy for government transparency and accoutability are also particularly appealing to independents. I like it, too!
It has been pointed out that, as a mother from a small town, Sarah Palin is more in touch with real people and real life. An example is her sons enlistment in the Army. He is on his way to Iraq. She cannot easiliy be accused of being out of touch with regular folks.
Sarah has also brought to the ticket a tremendous asset in her talent for public speaking. She has blown the socks off, not only interested convention delegates and stump speech crowds, but also, and more impressively, the commentators and analysts who objectively critique her performance.
The last thing Sarah brings to the table is perhaps the most fun for me. While Sarah is indeed inexperienced by standards we've come accustomed to for a vice presidential candidates, her numerous accomplishments in her few years of service are a profound embarrassment to the name on the top of the opposing ticket. In other words, our vice president can whoop your president!
It's especially humorous that some Democrats are being critical and even whining, saying Palin was not properly vetted by the McCain campaign. Their response to, dare I say, the perfect pick is to pretend it was somehow a mistake. In truth, McCain showed the world how it's really done! Democrats (and Republicans, too!) ought to be beating down McCain's door trying to learn from the master.
The most important benefit of choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate is because of her staunch conservative positions on issues. She is not only a supporter of the people's right to bear arms and the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects that right, but she is also a life-time member of the NRA and an avid hunter -- a moose hunter, no less.
Governor Palin not only says of herself, "I'm as pro-life as a candidate can be", but she is also so committed that she, with full knowledge of his condition and willing to tackle the inherent physical and emotional challenges, brought to full term and gave birth to a son with Down Syndrome.
She has worked, even against her own party, to limit government spending and taxation.
These are the best examples of her conservative principles and the things about her I like best. But, that's the point. McCain has been less than exciting for authentic conservatives like me because he has abandoned some conservative principles. While he is a strong advocate for national defence and protection of human life, he has been week on illegal immigration, free speech, and has even bought into the Global Warming Hoax. For the first time, conservatives are invigorated about McCain's candidacy. This change is entirely because of his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Other, more strategic, considerations add to the appeal of Alaska's governor as vice presidential nominee. For the aforementioned reasons, she appeals to conservatives. She is also an attractive candidate for some liberals, particularly women whose primary concern is that a woman be elected to high office. Some former supporters of the socialist, Hillary Clinton, will be drawn to the McCain ticket simply because his running mate is a woman. This will certainly be a minority, but every vote helps. The attraction of her gender is exponentially greater because of her long list of accomplishments, all the way from high-school to her recent successful endeavors as governor, combined with her commitment to motherhood, and her apparent enjoyment of her lifestyle. She has achieved the dream and demonstrated the potential for those women who want to "have it all".
For Independents and independent-minded party members, Palin is appealing as well. Having fought against the corruption of high-ranking officials in her own party and having taxed big oil companies enabling a $1200 'gift' to every citizen of her state, she is immune to any accusation of being partisan or beholden to constituents, but rather demonstrates a commitment to principles. Her advocacy for government transparency and accoutability are also particularly appealing to independents. I like it, too!
It has been pointed out that, as a mother from a small town, Sarah Palin is more in touch with real people and real life. An example is her sons enlistment in the Army. He is on his way to Iraq. She cannot easiliy be accused of being out of touch with regular folks.
Sarah has also brought to the ticket a tremendous asset in her talent for public speaking. She has blown the socks off, not only interested convention delegates and stump speech crowds, but also, and more impressively, the commentators and analysts who objectively critique her performance.
The last thing Sarah brings to the table is perhaps the most fun for me. While Sarah is indeed inexperienced by standards we've come accustomed to for a vice presidential candidates, her numerous accomplishments in her few years of service are a profound embarrassment to the name on the top of the opposing ticket. In other words, our vice president can whoop your president!
Kings in the Earth and the King of Kings
I had determined not to allow the focus of this forum to be politics (or sports or video games, for that matter), but rather to focus on things that are truly significant in our pursuit of an authentic life in obedience to and love for Jesus Christ. So much so, that I have refrained to a large extent from discussing politics at all. However, this ideal does not allow me to ignore the reality that life is not compartmentalized as would be much more convenient.
Four thousand human beings are slaughtered in this country every day. This horrendous atrocity is permitted by law, accepted by so many, and even encouraged by some.
Our children are being intentionally and methodically sexualized, secularized, and segregated from their parents for the purpose of raising up worshippers for the state. This insidious social engineering is also legal, accepted, and encouraged.
Such evil must be viewed properly, lest we fall into the same trap. The government is neither our God, nor the provider of solutions. I hope you will help keep me from getting too distracted. But, undeniably, politics matters.
We, as citizens of a nation wherein we, the citizens, are the government, have a moral obligation -- not to the nation or to our fellow citizens, but to God -- to express our convictions of obedience and honor to God through our manner of rulership. For that is what we are. Our constitution makes it plain. While it is rarely, if ever, the practical reality, it is a legal fact that we, the people, are co-rulers of our nation.
Let us strive to honor our Heavenly Father by conscientiously fulfilling the role of co-ruler, thrust upon us though it may be, and by pleasing Him with the diligently informed decisions we make.
Four thousand human beings are slaughtered in this country every day. This horrendous atrocity is permitted by law, accepted by so many, and even encouraged by some.
Our children are being intentionally and methodically sexualized, secularized, and segregated from their parents for the purpose of raising up worshippers for the state. This insidious social engineering is also legal, accepted, and encouraged.
Such evil must be viewed properly, lest we fall into the same trap. The government is neither our God, nor the provider of solutions. I hope you will help keep me from getting too distracted. But, undeniably, politics matters.
We, as citizens of a nation wherein we, the citizens, are the government, have a moral obligation -- not to the nation or to our fellow citizens, but to God -- to express our convictions of obedience and honor to God through our manner of rulership. For that is what we are. Our constitution makes it plain. While it is rarely, if ever, the practical reality, it is a legal fact that we, the people, are co-rulers of our nation.
Let us strive to honor our Heavenly Father by conscientiously fulfilling the role of co-ruler, thrust upon us though it may be, and by pleasing Him with the diligently informed decisions we make.
- He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. ~Micah 6:8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)