OK, so today I was eating lunch with two guys that I regularly meet with to pray and study the Bible. We weren't very spiritual today, owing to the fact that we're between books of study and also enjoying the nice lull of life right after our semesters have finished. So, we were discussing the intricacies of time travel, especially logical problems with it and the interesting possibilities it could offer.
My friend brought up a very interesting question: what would you do if you could go back to the time prior to Hitler's rise to power and, knowing all that he would do in his life, had the chance to kill him before any of it could happen? Would you do it or leave things as they historically happened?
There are all sorts of things that a person might say here, but I think I'll leave it up to you from here. So, please share your opinion.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
We Need to Check Spending
As I was changing into my uniform for work today, someone had a radio station playing over the PA system in the locker room at work. As I was listening, there was an ad for some credit company, promoting their "product" with an offer for a zero-percent interest loan right at the beginning of someone's use of their service. This was framed as a quick way to get some Christmas money, and it was also called several times "free money." That bothers me to no end, and I think it should be illegal to call something free which clearly isn't. Anyone using this service definitely has to pay that money back.
Now, I see something similar every time I get a credit card bill. (We don't actually use our credit cards, except for emergencies, which we haven't yet had, and for expense items that will be repaid by work - even so they still send the dang bills.) I don't know about you, but every credit card bill I've ever received had a "check" attached, made out to me for several hundred dollars. I've been raised to distrust, even abhor, borrowing money, so this has never caught me. However, I wonder how many people cash that check, whether they know that they will have to pay it back or not.
I just think that credit card companies are just barely legal and should be required to be much more forthcoming in their information disclosures. I would hope that this would lead to lower levels of indebtedness. However, I realize that the real reason we Americans owe so much in consumer debt is that we simply want more "stuff" than we can afford. Our hearts are never content, always seeking more only to find that more doesn't satisfy either.
Some people might point out that lower levels of consumer debt would cause an economic slow-down because people aren't buying as much. This would lead to a loss of jobs. However, I think that would only be temporary. When people are no longer saddled by such debt, they will have much more income to spend on things because they won't be paying the interest. The key is having the patience to wait, which most just don't have.
Now, I see something similar every time I get a credit card bill. (We don't actually use our credit cards, except for emergencies, which we haven't yet had, and for expense items that will be repaid by work - even so they still send the dang bills.) I don't know about you, but every credit card bill I've ever received had a "check" attached, made out to me for several hundred dollars. I've been raised to distrust, even abhor, borrowing money, so this has never caught me. However, I wonder how many people cash that check, whether they know that they will have to pay it back or not.
I just think that credit card companies are just barely legal and should be required to be much more forthcoming in their information disclosures. I would hope that this would lead to lower levels of indebtedness. However, I realize that the real reason we Americans owe so much in consumer debt is that we simply want more "stuff" than we can afford. Our hearts are never content, always seeking more only to find that more doesn't satisfy either.
Some people might point out that lower levels of consumer debt would cause an economic slow-down because people aren't buying as much. This would lead to a loss of jobs. However, I think that would only be temporary. When people are no longer saddled by such debt, they will have much more income to spend on things because they won't be paying the interest. The key is having the patience to wait, which most just don't have.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Grey's Anatomy - Where It Goes Wrong
Well, my lovely wife and I have been watching a few shows via DVD for the past couple months. Actually, there have only been 2 shows that we've seen this way - Grey's Anatomy and The Office. ( As an aside, I think this is a far superior way to view TV - no commercials, you get to watch them on your own schedule, it frees you from the addiction to TV to an extent, and, if you have the will to do so, you can censor them yourself.) However, after watching the first 2 seasons on Grey's Anatomy, I've had some mixed feelings about the show, and I think I will be much more careful about watching it in the future, if I do at all.
First of all, the show, which is about a group of surgical interns learning how to cut people open and fix them up and all their other life experiences, lacks any understanding that actions have consequences. The interns are constantly breaking the rules and cutting corners, and this in a business where life and death occur daily. Now, I realize that this is just entertainment, but entertainment often teaches us far more than books or classrooms. One intern even stops a man's life-sustaining heart treatment in order to make him worse so he could move up the donor list, only to have him die of some freak complication a day after he gets the new heart. While that intern, I've heard, gets booted out initially in the current season, I've also heard that she gets to come back. In addition, this sort of 2+2 does NOT equal 4 logic extends to their personal lives, where they are all sexually promiscuous and drunks.
The lack of integrity is bad, but the thing that Grey's Anatomy does that is so horrible is that it, through good storytelling and cool characters, makes the viewer start to want the things that the characters want, most of which are immoral things. This was pointed out to me by my wife, who said that the show makes her wish certain things would happen to/for the characters that she would never wish for a real person.
The best way I can illustrate this is with the following contrasting example - Grey's Anatomy, in the TV world, causes me to wish that Meredith and Derek, who is married to someone else, would become a couple, but in real life, I would never wish a marriage to end so a man could start an illicit relationship with a girlfriend. In fact, I would strongly counsel those people to stay apart and for the marriage to seek help, and I would pray for them and witness to them. The show so muddles things that the idea that there really is a right way to live life is gone.
So, I realize that there are probably some people here who do watch this show. I'm not saying you have to stop to be a Christian, but I am warning you to think about how you feel and think while watching any show. If the feelings and thoughts that are evoked are contrary to the truth of God, as revealed in the Bible, then you might need to stop watching. Sometimes, I wonder where the line is between being a person who will watch these sorts of things on TV for entertainment and being a person who would do them himself.
First of all, the show, which is about a group of surgical interns learning how to cut people open and fix them up and all their other life experiences, lacks any understanding that actions have consequences. The interns are constantly breaking the rules and cutting corners, and this in a business where life and death occur daily. Now, I realize that this is just entertainment, but entertainment often teaches us far more than books or classrooms. One intern even stops a man's life-sustaining heart treatment in order to make him worse so he could move up the donor list, only to have him die of some freak complication a day after he gets the new heart. While that intern, I've heard, gets booted out initially in the current season, I've also heard that she gets to come back. In addition, this sort of 2+2 does NOT equal 4 logic extends to their personal lives, where they are all sexually promiscuous and drunks.
The lack of integrity is bad, but the thing that Grey's Anatomy does that is so horrible is that it, through good storytelling and cool characters, makes the viewer start to want the things that the characters want, most of which are immoral things. This was pointed out to me by my wife, who said that the show makes her wish certain things would happen to/for the characters that she would never wish for a real person.
The best way I can illustrate this is with the following contrasting example - Grey's Anatomy, in the TV world, causes me to wish that Meredith and Derek, who is married to someone else, would become a couple, but in real life, I would never wish a marriage to end so a man could start an illicit relationship with a girlfriend. In fact, I would strongly counsel those people to stay apart and for the marriage to seek help, and I would pray for them and witness to them. The show so muddles things that the idea that there really is a right way to live life is gone.
So, I realize that there are probably some people here who do watch this show. I'm not saying you have to stop to be a Christian, but I am warning you to think about how you feel and think while watching any show. If the feelings and thoughts that are evoked are contrary to the truth of God, as revealed in the Bible, then you might need to stop watching. Sometimes, I wonder where the line is between being a person who will watch these sorts of things on TV for entertainment and being a person who would do them himself.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Movie Review - United 93
Well, my lovely wife is away for a couple of days at one of her company's marketing meetings. So, I got the chance to borrow a movie from the video store that I wouldn't normally get to see. She has higher standards with regard to violence and movie rating than I do.
As I looked through the store, I saw a few items, but what caught my attention the most was United 93, a movie about the events of September 11, 2001, especially what happened aboard that one flight.
Several things are worthy of note. First, this movie brought back to me most of the emotions and thoughts I had sitting in my apartment that day, watching these events unfold from a very different vantage point. That is enough, I think, for me to say that this is a good movie. Any time a movie can bring a person back to a real world event, it is powerful.
Second, the movie makes clear just how confusing and unprecedented the attack was. I realize that the makers used large amounts of license, but the waves of confusion the air traffic controllers and military personnel were getting hit with as the different planes were taken over and smashed into their targets must have really happened on some level. Also, the disbelief and complete lack of a plan to do anything about this sort of attack seemed real.
Third, there was a powerful moment near the end that really puts the entire conflict between Islam and the West (here I'm using a higher definition for our culture, and I am including our common Christian heritage, even if that is no longer dominant - it could definitely be argued that I'm wrong to use it so) into perspective. There is a moment, right before the passengers are about to try to retake the plane, where they start saying together the Lord's Prayer. At the same time, the camera cuts away to the terrorists aboard, who are praying in Arabic to Allah, and to the several bloody, dead bodies they have already killed in taking the plane. I know that there are issues relating to those attacks that are extremely complicated, but this is simple. In that snapshot, you can see what is wrong with Islam and what is right with Christianity.
I definitely recommend that you see this movie. There are no big stars in it, and you will probably find yourself feeling quite sad at the memories, but the courage those people displayed deserves to be remembered and respected.
As I looked through the store, I saw a few items, but what caught my attention the most was United 93, a movie about the events of September 11, 2001, especially what happened aboard that one flight.
Several things are worthy of note. First, this movie brought back to me most of the emotions and thoughts I had sitting in my apartment that day, watching these events unfold from a very different vantage point. That is enough, I think, for me to say that this is a good movie. Any time a movie can bring a person back to a real world event, it is powerful.
Second, the movie makes clear just how confusing and unprecedented the attack was. I realize that the makers used large amounts of license, but the waves of confusion the air traffic controllers and military personnel were getting hit with as the different planes were taken over and smashed into their targets must have really happened on some level. Also, the disbelief and complete lack of a plan to do anything about this sort of attack seemed real.
Third, there was a powerful moment near the end that really puts the entire conflict between Islam and the West (here I'm using a higher definition for our culture, and I am including our common Christian heritage, even if that is no longer dominant - it could definitely be argued that I'm wrong to use it so) into perspective. There is a moment, right before the passengers are about to try to retake the plane, where they start saying together the Lord's Prayer. At the same time, the camera cuts away to the terrorists aboard, who are praying in Arabic to Allah, and to the several bloody, dead bodies they have already killed in taking the plane. I know that there are issues relating to those attacks that are extremely complicated, but this is simple. In that snapshot, you can see what is wrong with Islam and what is right with Christianity.
I definitely recommend that you see this movie. There are no big stars in it, and you will probably find yourself feeling quite sad at the memories, but the courage those people displayed deserves to be remembered and respected.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election '06 - Thoughts...
Well, by now most everyone knows that the Democratic party has gained a strong majority in the US House of Representatives and may yet gain a single-vote majority in the US Senate, depending on how the Virginia Senate race turns out. Now, I've been thinking about just what this might mean for us regular folks, and I have some ideas. Also, the election points out some things.
First, let me say how amazing this is, and healthy in a way, for our nation. That is not to say that I'm glad that power in our legislature has shifted the way it has, just that I'm glad to be in a nation where such a shift does not mean we are about to start a war. This sort of thing can lead to violence in many places all over the world, and has. I think it is important to remember that, with our system, nothing is really permanent and there is always next time.
Second, I am interested in voter turn-out statistics, particularly regarding conservative Christians. From what I've read/heard, the nation-wide turnout was about 40%, which is actually slightly higher than the last mid-term election cycle in 2002. However, this election was radically different in the way many races were balanced. There has been a push among some supposedly conservative Christian groups to step away from the political process because neither side has met our expectations. I realize that the Iraq war, or rather weariness of it, probably drove most people to seek change, but I wonder how many Christians chose to simply stay home rather than vote for conservatives that have let them down, seemingly. I'm not sure where to answer these questions, but I bet there will be studies published on the internet pretty soon.
I now expect a couple of things to happen. I expect that the Democratic majority will initiate impeachment of President Bush. This can happen with a simple majority of the House of Reps., which they now have. The charges will have something to do with the way he led the nation into Iraq, none of the craziness about him being behind the 9/11 attacks. He will certainly not be convicted in the Senate, but the Democrats will feel vindicated over the Clinton impeachment and will feel like they really stuck it to Bush, whom they hate with utter abandon.
I also expect that absolutely NOTHING will get done in Washington, DC, for the next 2 years. The president still has to sign bills into law, and the Democrats don't have the votes to overturn vetoes - especially since I expect the remaining Republicans to really circle the wagons. This means that the country is safe from attempts to pull out of Iraq immediately or to immediately overturn the tax cuts, and a whole host of other ideas liberals have been formulating over the past 12 years.
The truly interesting thing coming out of this election is the run-up to the next one, which will have a much greater potential impact. We should be looking for both parties to really get serious about finding that perfect presidential nominee. Those 2 individuals will have the greatest impact on which party will be able to further its agenda.
As a Christian, I feel the need to affirm that this world is not our home. We do not look to the government to provide all that we need - we look to Jesus. Also, I see that our representatives in government must be held accountable for their actions, regardless of party, and held to a high standard. The Republicans who have had moral problems have certainly hurt their cause among conservatives and must look to set their own affairs in order (no pun intended). In addition, Christians need to take stock of the issues that are confronting our society today and need to be reminded that we cannot afford, on any level, to sit back and allow the world around us to decline morally without lifting our voices in warning. We dare not become those lazy watchers on the wall who have the blood of innocents on their hands.
First, let me say how amazing this is, and healthy in a way, for our nation. That is not to say that I'm glad that power in our legislature has shifted the way it has, just that I'm glad to be in a nation where such a shift does not mean we are about to start a war. This sort of thing can lead to violence in many places all over the world, and has. I think it is important to remember that, with our system, nothing is really permanent and there is always next time.
Second, I am interested in voter turn-out statistics, particularly regarding conservative Christians. From what I've read/heard, the nation-wide turnout was about 40%, which is actually slightly higher than the last mid-term election cycle in 2002. However, this election was radically different in the way many races were balanced. There has been a push among some supposedly conservative Christian groups to step away from the political process because neither side has met our expectations. I realize that the Iraq war, or rather weariness of it, probably drove most people to seek change, but I wonder how many Christians chose to simply stay home rather than vote for conservatives that have let them down, seemingly. I'm not sure where to answer these questions, but I bet there will be studies published on the internet pretty soon.
I now expect a couple of things to happen. I expect that the Democratic majority will initiate impeachment of President Bush. This can happen with a simple majority of the House of Reps., which they now have. The charges will have something to do with the way he led the nation into Iraq, none of the craziness about him being behind the 9/11 attacks. He will certainly not be convicted in the Senate, but the Democrats will feel vindicated over the Clinton impeachment and will feel like they really stuck it to Bush, whom they hate with utter abandon.
I also expect that absolutely NOTHING will get done in Washington, DC, for the next 2 years. The president still has to sign bills into law, and the Democrats don't have the votes to overturn vetoes - especially since I expect the remaining Republicans to really circle the wagons. This means that the country is safe from attempts to pull out of Iraq immediately or to immediately overturn the tax cuts, and a whole host of other ideas liberals have been formulating over the past 12 years.
The truly interesting thing coming out of this election is the run-up to the next one, which will have a much greater potential impact. We should be looking for both parties to really get serious about finding that perfect presidential nominee. Those 2 individuals will have the greatest impact on which party will be able to further its agenda.
As a Christian, I feel the need to affirm that this world is not our home. We do not look to the government to provide all that we need - we look to Jesus. Also, I see that our representatives in government must be held accountable for their actions, regardless of party, and held to a high standard. The Republicans who have had moral problems have certainly hurt their cause among conservatives and must look to set their own affairs in order (no pun intended). In addition, Christians need to take stock of the issues that are confronting our society today and need to be reminded that we cannot afford, on any level, to sit back and allow the world around us to decline morally without lifting our voices in warning. We dare not become those lazy watchers on the wall who have the blood of innocents on their hands.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Be Aware of the Power of the Media...
Today, I read about a video aired by CNN recently in Breakpoint, an excellent Christian worldview daily email that I highly recommend. The video was made by insurgents in Iraq and shows a sniper shooting and killing an American soldier. In the video, the insurgents can be overheard talking about being careful to not harm any innocent people. CNN, after coming under fire for airing the video, has defended itself as simply showing the whole truth about what is happening in Iraq.
Now, I don't want to simply rehash the points made by Chuck Colson on Breakpoint, but they do bear a brief overview. First, it is clear from the large numbers of civilians who have been killed in the fighting in Iraq that the insurgents are not interested in protecting innocents. In fact, the death of these people, especially women and children, is known by the insurgents to be the most effective way of influencing us in America. So, their talk about protecting the innocents is meant only for us, to make Americans think that the insurgents are the heros and our soldiers the villians. Second, it is clear that the insurgents wanted CNN to air this video to help their position. It is timed close to our elections and obviously tilted to show the insurgents in a good light. Thus, I really think it should be considered a crime to have aired it, call it aiding the enemy, and I certainly hope that the US military follows through on its threat to ban CNN reporters from military units and operations. Third, Colson made the point that CNN's claim that it is simply showing the whole truth cannot possibly be true. This last point is what I would like to expand upon further.
I guess I need to start out by saying that it is impossible to communicate anything more complex than a simple fact (such as "my shoes are red") without shading the information with presuppositions and desired outcomes. This is mostly true just because of the enormous amount of information that is involved in any significant event. The information simply must be narrowed down into something that can be related easily. For example, think of a car crash. If all the information about that crash was related to a person, it would include full interviews of each person involved, each police officer that responded, each witness, a police report detailing the event and who was responsible, insurance reports about what it might cost to fix the damage, and on and on. If this were put on the evening news, it would take literally days of video to relay, and it would never be complete as it would be impossible to get inside the people's heads and know what they were thinking/feeling at that moment. So, we should always remember that the events related to us are incomplete.
Added to this, we must consider the motives of the executives in control of the news programs. First, they are motived by money. They receive money through their advertising, and they can charge more for commercial spots when they have more people watching the show. So, they are motivated to air the most emotive and exciting events that they can to draw attention. Unfortunately, because of the condition of fallen man, we seem to be most attracted to events that are gruesome and evil. Second, many of these executives are among what has been called the cultural elite of America, which is a loosely defined group of people using their power to mold American thought how they see fit - following a liberal agenda. They often use TV as a tool, and an effective one, to push their ideas. Usually this is not overt, but hidden in the messages of popular shows.
Speaking of that, it is important to point out the impact media has on our thoughts by introducing ideas in a prepackaged way. This is especially true of TV, since it does so through images. At least print media allows people to play with the ideas in their heads through their imaginations. TV takes that away by presenting the idea in an image that is already set for people. It literally does our thinking for us. We shouldn't be surprised by that, since TV dictates to such a great degree our clothing and hair styles and even our social mores. It also plays on the old idea that seeing is believing. However, anyone who delves a little deeper knows that, with TV, seeing is not necessarily believing.
In conclusion, I am suggesting that, even here where the freedom of the press is written into our Constitution, the press needs to be held accountable. Certainly, freedom has never meant lack of responsibility/accountability. We Christians should be careful to not buy the media's point of view without examining it. To allow such a powerful influence past our defenses is a giant mistake.
Now, I don't want to simply rehash the points made by Chuck Colson on Breakpoint, but they do bear a brief overview. First, it is clear from the large numbers of civilians who have been killed in the fighting in Iraq that the insurgents are not interested in protecting innocents. In fact, the death of these people, especially women and children, is known by the insurgents to be the most effective way of influencing us in America. So, their talk about protecting the innocents is meant only for us, to make Americans think that the insurgents are the heros and our soldiers the villians. Second, it is clear that the insurgents wanted CNN to air this video to help their position. It is timed close to our elections and obviously tilted to show the insurgents in a good light. Thus, I really think it should be considered a crime to have aired it, call it aiding the enemy, and I certainly hope that the US military follows through on its threat to ban CNN reporters from military units and operations. Third, Colson made the point that CNN's claim that it is simply showing the whole truth cannot possibly be true. This last point is what I would like to expand upon further.
I guess I need to start out by saying that it is impossible to communicate anything more complex than a simple fact (such as "my shoes are red") without shading the information with presuppositions and desired outcomes. This is mostly true just because of the enormous amount of information that is involved in any significant event. The information simply must be narrowed down into something that can be related easily. For example, think of a car crash. If all the information about that crash was related to a person, it would include full interviews of each person involved, each police officer that responded, each witness, a police report detailing the event and who was responsible, insurance reports about what it might cost to fix the damage, and on and on. If this were put on the evening news, it would take literally days of video to relay, and it would never be complete as it would be impossible to get inside the people's heads and know what they were thinking/feeling at that moment. So, we should always remember that the events related to us are incomplete.
Added to this, we must consider the motives of the executives in control of the news programs. First, they are motived by money. They receive money through their advertising, and they can charge more for commercial spots when they have more people watching the show. So, they are motivated to air the most emotive and exciting events that they can to draw attention. Unfortunately, because of the condition of fallen man, we seem to be most attracted to events that are gruesome and evil. Second, many of these executives are among what has been called the cultural elite of America, which is a loosely defined group of people using their power to mold American thought how they see fit - following a liberal agenda. They often use TV as a tool, and an effective one, to push their ideas. Usually this is not overt, but hidden in the messages of popular shows.
Speaking of that, it is important to point out the impact media has on our thoughts by introducing ideas in a prepackaged way. This is especially true of TV, since it does so through images. At least print media allows people to play with the ideas in their heads through their imaginations. TV takes that away by presenting the idea in an image that is already set for people. It literally does our thinking for us. We shouldn't be surprised by that, since TV dictates to such a great degree our clothing and hair styles and even our social mores. It also plays on the old idea that seeing is believing. However, anyone who delves a little deeper knows that, with TV, seeing is not necessarily believing.
In conclusion, I am suggesting that, even here where the freedom of the press is written into our Constitution, the press needs to be held accountable. Certainly, freedom has never meant lack of responsibility/accountability. We Christians should be careful to not buy the media's point of view without examining it. To allow such a powerful influence past our defenses is a giant mistake.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
One Counter-Cultural CEO...We Need More...
Today, I was reading on Fox News on-line and saw an interesting interview in the economic news section. The CEO of JetBlue airline, David Neeleman, was speaking on one of the shows( I can't keep the different personalities separate in my mind since I only read the articles on-line and don't actually watch them) about how he donates his entire salary to his company's crisis management fund, which apparently helps out victims and families of victims of accidents related to the airline, and refuses to take stock options as part of his payment. In fact, his salary is only $200,000 per year, which sounds like a lot but isn't considering his position and that he is being successful.
Now, Mr. Neeleman is quite wealthy and probably doesn't miss the money he donates, but the example is stunningly different than the majority of businesspeople. It seems that the news has been full of businesspeople being indicted for crimes committed through their power and position as heads of companies, and the majority seem to be fleacing their own workers.
As I read the New Testament accounts of Jesus teaching on money and wealth, I am somewhat uncomfortable with those who would horde wealth and even more so with those who would gladly step on others for more. It seems that we need more CEOs who are willing to be satisfied with what they have and to view their positions of power and wealth as platforms for working good for others.
Now, Mr. Neeleman is quite wealthy and probably doesn't miss the money he donates, but the example is stunningly different than the majority of businesspeople. It seems that the news has been full of businesspeople being indicted for crimes committed through their power and position as heads of companies, and the majority seem to be fleacing their own workers.
As I read the New Testament accounts of Jesus teaching on money and wealth, I am somewhat uncomfortable with those who would horde wealth and even more so with those who would gladly step on others for more. It seems that we need more CEOs who are willing to be satisfied with what they have and to view their positions of power and wealth as platforms for working good for others.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Bankruptcy...
This morning I was driving across our part of town to our church to do a voice-over for a video (a new skill of mine), and I had to have seen twenty or more high school and middle school aged students walking the streets. They weren't just near the schools, and they weren't just in the poorer neighborhoods. They were everywhere.
Now, as a once and future educator, I am appalled by this sort of truancy. As I drove, I was thinking bad thoughts about these kids and finally came to an important question. I asked myself, "Don't they know that they are handicapping themselves for their future by skipping school?"
However, this question immediately caused me to wonder about some even more important things. Just what is it that they will be missing out on if they continue on this trajectory? I realized that our secular society holds up materialism as the prize for those who work hard and succeed. That is exactly what we all tell our students in schools - work hard, study, behave so you can be successful and grow up to have a nice job, nice house, and things. The problem is that this sort of future is empty - profoundly. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Whole generations of people are even now coming to maturity who know that materialism fails to meet our most important needs.
Now, I definitely do not mean to excuse these truant kids as some sort of heroic rebels set against the corrupt system we have. But I am pointing out that what we are offering our students as the goal toward which they are working is not worth working for. We must offer something far more rewarding, and I think that such reward can only be found in Christ.
Of course, that last statement I made is a little hard to put flesh on sometimes, but Jesus gives us the meaning and value that we long for. Also, He provides us with a reason to be excellent at all things - His glory's sake. In addition, He has given us all (Christians that is) the ultimate mission to accomplish, which provides us with a community of support and an ultimately higher aim for our lives. Lastly, Christ gives us an eternal reward, while materialism is only valuable so long as you can enjoy it, which will certainly not last past your death and probably won't last that long.
We need to get out and offer this goal to those who are waking up to the failure of the American dream.
Now, as a once and future educator, I am appalled by this sort of truancy. As I drove, I was thinking bad thoughts about these kids and finally came to an important question. I asked myself, "Don't they know that they are handicapping themselves for their future by skipping school?"
However, this question immediately caused me to wonder about some even more important things. Just what is it that they will be missing out on if they continue on this trajectory? I realized that our secular society holds up materialism as the prize for those who work hard and succeed. That is exactly what we all tell our students in schools - work hard, study, behave so you can be successful and grow up to have a nice job, nice house, and things. The problem is that this sort of future is empty - profoundly. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Whole generations of people are even now coming to maturity who know that materialism fails to meet our most important needs.
Now, I definitely do not mean to excuse these truant kids as some sort of heroic rebels set against the corrupt system we have. But I am pointing out that what we are offering our students as the goal toward which they are working is not worth working for. We must offer something far more rewarding, and I think that such reward can only be found in Christ.
Of course, that last statement I made is a little hard to put flesh on sometimes, but Jesus gives us the meaning and value that we long for. Also, He provides us with a reason to be excellent at all things - His glory's sake. In addition, He has given us all (Christians that is) the ultimate mission to accomplish, which provides us with a community of support and an ultimately higher aim for our lives. Lastly, Christ gives us an eternal reward, while materialism is only valuable so long as you can enjoy it, which will certainly not last past your death and probably won't last that long.
We need to get out and offer this goal to those who are waking up to the failure of the American dream.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The Stewardship of Pain
I am reading a book called "The Joy of Fearing God" by Jerry Bridges along with two other Christian guys. We read a chapter a week and discuss it over lunch on Fridays. I recommend it as a good book for forcing us to deal with the concept of fearing God, which is not well understood in our churches and rarely preached.
In this week's chapter, something really stood out to me. It is what the author has called the "stewardship of pain." This is the idea that God brings all things into our lives for us to make use of those things to bring Him glory, even the pain, both physical and emotional, that we go through. God desires us to give over to Him our pain just as much as He desires that we commit our time, abilities, and money to Him.
This is an amazing thing to think on and accept because it brings us to a wonderful place of trusting Christ to not only grant us the grace that we need to rejoice even in our sufferings but also to make use of those sufferings in ministry to others.
As I've said before, I firmly believe that God wastes nothing. All things that we are led through will be used by Him for His glory. This gives me great delight to trust my savior who I know is in control of every situation.
As a commentary on our society, it is important to point out that this "stewardship of pain" is very counter-cultural. Our society seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Certainly, it is rare for the society to hold up pain and suffering as tools for good, which is exactly what God can make of them.
In this week's chapter, something really stood out to me. It is what the author has called the "stewardship of pain." This is the idea that God brings all things into our lives for us to make use of those things to bring Him glory, even the pain, both physical and emotional, that we go through. God desires us to give over to Him our pain just as much as He desires that we commit our time, abilities, and money to Him.
This is an amazing thing to think on and accept because it brings us to a wonderful place of trusting Christ to not only grant us the grace that we need to rejoice even in our sufferings but also to make use of those sufferings in ministry to others.
As I've said before, I firmly believe that God wastes nothing. All things that we are led through will be used by Him for His glory. This gives me great delight to trust my savior who I know is in control of every situation.
As a commentary on our society, it is important to point out that this "stewardship of pain" is very counter-cultural. Our society seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Certainly, it is rare for the society to hold up pain and suffering as tools for good, which is exactly what God can make of them.
A General Rejection of Utility
Utility is something nearly all high school graduates know something about. It is usually introduced to us in economics classes. It is defined in Wikipedia (an incredibly useful source, even though you must check its facts) as "a measure of the happiness or satisfaction gained by consuming goods and services." Now, I taught high school economics for a semester and taught about utility. When dealing with rather mundane examples, such as the number of twinkies a person eats and how that relates to utility, this is a good teaching concept. However, utility is increasingly being applied wholesale to our world to great detriment.
In the past two weeks, we've seen two different school shootings involving men who either sexually assaulted girls or seemed to intend to prior to turning thr guns on them. Those men saw those children as goods to be consumed for their satisfaction, pure and simple. They may have had other serious mental/spiritual problems, but their treatment of others is clearly utilitarian.
While less bloody or high profile, we've also seen an increase in this sort of thinking toward the elderly, infirm, and unborn over the past 30 years or so. Repeatedly, we hear reasoning related to mercy killings, euthanasia, and abortion couched in terms like "quality of life" and "contribution to society." People have been increasingly reduced to what they are able to provide to the great ME our society seems to worship.
This can be thought of directly in terms of utility. Person A (an elderly mother, for example) provides Person B (son) with steadily decreasing utility because A no longer makes an income and requires constant care from both family and medical workers. In this way of thinking, when the utility derived falls below an acceptable level, B no longer has the responsibility to provide for A. In fact, some are arguing that A should be pressured, or even forced, to go ahead and put an end to her life so everyone else can maximize their utility.
And the examples abound.
We must reject this sort of utilitarian view of the world in favor of a Christian view that upholds the value of every human life as a sacred thing treasured by God. If we allow utilitarianism to become the main way of thinking, we will be left with a world in which a sexual predator is no longer doing anything wrong, since those children provide him with utility.
In the past two weeks, we've seen two different school shootings involving men who either sexually assaulted girls or seemed to intend to prior to turning thr guns on them. Those men saw those children as goods to be consumed for their satisfaction, pure and simple. They may have had other serious mental/spiritual problems, but their treatment of others is clearly utilitarian.
While less bloody or high profile, we've also seen an increase in this sort of thinking toward the elderly, infirm, and unborn over the past 30 years or so. Repeatedly, we hear reasoning related to mercy killings, euthanasia, and abortion couched in terms like "quality of life" and "contribution to society." People have been increasingly reduced to what they are able to provide to the great ME our society seems to worship.
This can be thought of directly in terms of utility. Person A (an elderly mother, for example) provides Person B (son) with steadily decreasing utility because A no longer makes an income and requires constant care from both family and medical workers. In this way of thinking, when the utility derived falls below an acceptable level, B no longer has the responsibility to provide for A. In fact, some are arguing that A should be pressured, or even forced, to go ahead and put an end to her life so everyone else can maximize their utility.
And the examples abound.
We must reject this sort of utilitarian view of the world in favor of a Christian view that upholds the value of every human life as a sacred thing treasured by God. If we allow utilitarianism to become the main way of thinking, we will be left with a world in which a sexual predator is no longer doing anything wrong, since those children provide him with utility.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Revolt and Its Impact on History and Us
Recently, I finished reading a book by Ron Wells called "History Through the Eyes of Faith." It was an excellent read, and I recommend it strongly to anyone interested in a companion text to help shade in some areas left untouched by most Western civ history books. It helps point out many Christian points of view on events without coming to judgment on those events. In fact, the author makes the point, which I think I agree with, that history is not about making judgments on past events rather than reporting on them. The judgment must happen, but that is not history - it is us learning from history.
One of the most important parts of the book is the way it highlights three different revolts that have occurred in Western history, all of which have serious implications for our world today. The first two can be considered good, from a Christian perspective, but the last has been a serious tragedy to be sure. They are: the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment.
Both the Renaissance and the Reformation were, in their own ways, revolts against Medieval thinking and attempts to get back to an ancient ideal - ancient Roman and Greek thought and art on the one hand and early church doctrine as found in the Scriptures on the other. While some might see these are reactionary, it is clear that they both had positive goals that have remained ideals for some of us. Of course, there were problems. The Thirty Years War in Central Europe was an excess that came directly out of the Reformation that is probably the darkest aspect of that movement (literally 30% of people living in that part of Europe were killed!). However, that hearkening back to our roots was a wonderful thing.
The Enlightenment has really been a rejection of Christianity to be replaced by a new ideal altogether. This is based on the ideas of progress and evolution that coincided with the Enlightenment. The main jist is that man can become perfected, given the right circumstances of environment. Enfortunately for us, the Enlightenment is still the dominant thought pattern for our society, and all other Western societies. In fact, both of the dominant government systems in the past century (democracy and communism) were birthed from the Enlightenment (think about the "new Soviet man" that the Russian were always trying to create and the many social programs often attempted in the USA).
One interesting thing to note is the nature of our government. In truth, we do not have a democracy in the United States. We have a republic. Both come out of the Enlightenment, but one (democracy) is an attempt to see the Enlightenment principles fulfilled while the other (republic) is a system designed to check Enlightenment principles before they can cause too much damage. It is a good think for us that the Articles of Confederation (our first government and constitution) failed and was replaced by the Constitution. Additionally, while I have serious problems with many government programs, it is important to note that government exists to limit man's fallenness, not to create a perfect world in which man can become new.
We Christians hold that the one and only means by which a man can become a new creation is in Jesus Christ. There is no program that can match His graceful work - and that is the sort of revolution that I long for!
One of the most important parts of the book is the way it highlights three different revolts that have occurred in Western history, all of which have serious implications for our world today. The first two can be considered good, from a Christian perspective, but the last has been a serious tragedy to be sure. They are: the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment.
Both the Renaissance and the Reformation were, in their own ways, revolts against Medieval thinking and attempts to get back to an ancient ideal - ancient Roman and Greek thought and art on the one hand and early church doctrine as found in the Scriptures on the other. While some might see these are reactionary, it is clear that they both had positive goals that have remained ideals for some of us. Of course, there were problems. The Thirty Years War in Central Europe was an excess that came directly out of the Reformation that is probably the darkest aspect of that movement (literally 30% of people living in that part of Europe were killed!). However, that hearkening back to our roots was a wonderful thing.
The Enlightenment has really been a rejection of Christianity to be replaced by a new ideal altogether. This is based on the ideas of progress and evolution that coincided with the Enlightenment. The main jist is that man can become perfected, given the right circumstances of environment. Enfortunately for us, the Enlightenment is still the dominant thought pattern for our society, and all other Western societies. In fact, both of the dominant government systems in the past century (democracy and communism) were birthed from the Enlightenment (think about the "new Soviet man" that the Russian were always trying to create and the many social programs often attempted in the USA).
One interesting thing to note is the nature of our government. In truth, we do not have a democracy in the United States. We have a republic. Both come out of the Enlightenment, but one (democracy) is an attempt to see the Enlightenment principles fulfilled while the other (republic) is a system designed to check Enlightenment principles before they can cause too much damage. It is a good think for us that the Articles of Confederation (our first government and constitution) failed and was replaced by the Constitution. Additionally, while I have serious problems with many government programs, it is important to note that government exists to limit man's fallenness, not to create a perfect world in which man can become new.
We Christians hold that the one and only means by which a man can become a new creation is in Jesus Christ. There is no program that can match His graceful work - and that is the sort of revolution that I long for!
Friday, August 25, 2006
The Immigration Problem - A Biblical Perspective on the Treatment of "Aliens"
Immigration, especially the illegal kind, is a hot topic in our current political situation in the U.S. and will likely grow into a key point of contention in this November's elections. As such, I thought it would be a good topic to explore from a Christian/Biblical perspective. In order to do this, I have done a short (which is to say "not exhaustive") word study of the English word "alien" in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. I also thought to study the word "foreigner" but found that it was not used often in a context other than a description of the spiritual state of believers in this world. So, I will display my findings on what can be said about treatment of aliens and what cannot be said first before attempting to frame a larger discussion of our current problem and what might be done about it.
First, there are several injunctions in the text about the treatment of aliens living among the Hebrew people. In Exodus 22:21 and 23:9, God tells the people to not mistreat or oppress aliens among them because they were once aliens among the Egyptians and were not well treated. In Leviticus 24:22, God requires the same laws to be used with both native-born Hebrews and aliens. I think we can imply that this also means that they were to be applied equally, as well. In Psalm 146:9, God is said to watch over the alien. In addition, we Christians are described as aliens in this world by Peter in I Peter 2:11.
Additionally, the Hebrew culture was not closed to outsiders. There are numerous examples of foreigners who found a place among the Hebrews and were eventually assimilated. Among them are: Ruth, Rahab, and several of David's mighty men, just to name a few. From this, we can see a readiness to accept foreigners, assuming that they were willing to enter into the Covenant.
From these observations about aliens, we can understand that God desires us to apply our laws as evenly as possible and not discriminate against an alien living in our nation. However, I would like to draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants that comes from the difference in political structures between a 1000 B.C. Hebrew people and our 21st century selves. In that time, the idea of the nation-state did not exist. In fact, much of the world was unclaimed wilderness through which any person could rightfully travel without fear of retribution from the owner, since there was none. Because of this, an alien living among the Hebrews would not ever have been thought of as illegal, as there was no border to have illegally crossed. However, today's world is much different. There is not one spot (other than Antarctica and who wants to live there!) that is not owned by some nation, and the borders between nations are clearly marked for all. In addition, we have all set up laws to govern the admission of people into countries, for all sorts of valid reasons. Therefore, I would like to say that the primary focus of the Biblical teachings on aliens are properly applied to legal immigrants and not illegal immigrants. This is not to say that we should mistreat illegal immigrants or oppress them, but they should be treated as people who do not belong precisely because of the manner of their arrival. I find the Biblical warrant for this in the many teachings calling for Christians to be lawful people, as well as the fact that our God is Himself a law-giver who expects laws to be obeyed. Illegal immigration may touch on many problems, such as economics, cultural/social issues, demographics, and the war on terror, but I think it is primarily a problem of crime. We have a law that details how a person can legally enter our country, and some people have chosen to enter the country in an unlawful way.
So, just what can be done about this problem? First, I think that we need to deal seriously with the influx across the border with Mexico. (I realize that the northern border with Canada is not particularly secure, either, but also understand that the vast majority of illegal immigrants come across the southern border, making of primary importance.) I would see an immediate military deployment to the border to last until police forces can be beefed up to deal with the problem. It is important for police to be the ultimate guardians of the border because, as I said above, this is a problem of crime and because military forces are not really trained for this sort of duty and will tend to excess by their nature as war-makers.
Second, I think a long, critical look must be taken at our mechanisms for legally entering the country. I have heard many people argue that the system is too slow and difficult and that this actually contributes to illegal immigration because it is much easier than the red tape. I tend to believe these arguments because of my understanding of normal government practice. Our government is not quick on much of anything and finds all sorts of ways to make simple things difficult. So, I think this system should be streamlined, though while still maintaining some checks to prevent certain types of people from entering the country, such as convicted criminals, known terrorists, etc. However, in keeping with the command from Leviticus 24, we must not discriminate in our immigration system on the basis of race, as has been the case in U.S. history.
Thirdly, even though it is a crime to enter the country illegally, we cannot realistically arrest and jail all of the millions of illegal immigrants now in the country. That would require more resources than could possibly be available. Alternately, we also do not have the wherewithal to eject all of those people from the country, both because we couldn't find and arrest them all and because many businesses, as has been claimed, would fail without their labor. So, a system must be put into place that makes these illegal immigrants into something else. I would not see an amnesty that conveys citizenship on all of them because it would only encourage more illegal immigrants, rewards criminality, and is basically unfair, especially to those who have pursued immigration legally. I would rather see a guestworker system put into place. This would allow illegal immigrants to obtain working papers for a limited time, such as two or three years, after which they would have to either apply for full citizenship in the normal way or leave to return to their nations of origin. This project would have a short sign-up period of maybe three months for illegal immigrants to register with the government after which they would be considered criminals to be deported immediately upon capture. In addition, severe penalties would have to be put into place for any company employing illegal immigrants who do not have working papers. I think this plan, while not perfect, would be advantageous for all - the immigrants would not immediately be deported but would have time to earn some money which would stand them in good stead in their homelands, the government would know where these people are and be able to tax them in order to make up for the medical and education expenses they are already incurring on our society, businesses would be required to treat all of their employees equally without their illegal status to hold over them, and our national security interests would be better served. I think it would ultimately help us to treat immigrants to our nation fairly and without oppression, as called for in the Bible, and to uphold lawful lives, also an interest of the Bible.
Well, those are my ideas, though most are not original to me. Tell me what you think.
First, there are several injunctions in the text about the treatment of aliens living among the Hebrew people. In Exodus 22:21 and 23:9, God tells the people to not mistreat or oppress aliens among them because they were once aliens among the Egyptians and were not well treated. In Leviticus 24:22, God requires the same laws to be used with both native-born Hebrews and aliens. I think we can imply that this also means that they were to be applied equally, as well. In Psalm 146:9, God is said to watch over the alien. In addition, we Christians are described as aliens in this world by Peter in I Peter 2:11.
Additionally, the Hebrew culture was not closed to outsiders. There are numerous examples of foreigners who found a place among the Hebrews and were eventually assimilated. Among them are: Ruth, Rahab, and several of David's mighty men, just to name a few. From this, we can see a readiness to accept foreigners, assuming that they were willing to enter into the Covenant.
From these observations about aliens, we can understand that God desires us to apply our laws as evenly as possible and not discriminate against an alien living in our nation. However, I would like to draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants that comes from the difference in political structures between a 1000 B.C. Hebrew people and our 21st century selves. In that time, the idea of the nation-state did not exist. In fact, much of the world was unclaimed wilderness through which any person could rightfully travel without fear of retribution from the owner, since there was none. Because of this, an alien living among the Hebrews would not ever have been thought of as illegal, as there was no border to have illegally crossed. However, today's world is much different. There is not one spot (other than Antarctica and who wants to live there!) that is not owned by some nation, and the borders between nations are clearly marked for all. In addition, we have all set up laws to govern the admission of people into countries, for all sorts of valid reasons. Therefore, I would like to say that the primary focus of the Biblical teachings on aliens are properly applied to legal immigrants and not illegal immigrants. This is not to say that we should mistreat illegal immigrants or oppress them, but they should be treated as people who do not belong precisely because of the manner of their arrival. I find the Biblical warrant for this in the many teachings calling for Christians to be lawful people, as well as the fact that our God is Himself a law-giver who expects laws to be obeyed. Illegal immigration may touch on many problems, such as economics, cultural/social issues, demographics, and the war on terror, but I think it is primarily a problem of crime. We have a law that details how a person can legally enter our country, and some people have chosen to enter the country in an unlawful way.
So, just what can be done about this problem? First, I think that we need to deal seriously with the influx across the border with Mexico. (I realize that the northern border with Canada is not particularly secure, either, but also understand that the vast majority of illegal immigrants come across the southern border, making of primary importance.) I would see an immediate military deployment to the border to last until police forces can be beefed up to deal with the problem. It is important for police to be the ultimate guardians of the border because, as I said above, this is a problem of crime and because military forces are not really trained for this sort of duty and will tend to excess by their nature as war-makers.
Second, I think a long, critical look must be taken at our mechanisms for legally entering the country. I have heard many people argue that the system is too slow and difficult and that this actually contributes to illegal immigration because it is much easier than the red tape. I tend to believe these arguments because of my understanding of normal government practice. Our government is not quick on much of anything and finds all sorts of ways to make simple things difficult. So, I think this system should be streamlined, though while still maintaining some checks to prevent certain types of people from entering the country, such as convicted criminals, known terrorists, etc. However, in keeping with the command from Leviticus 24, we must not discriminate in our immigration system on the basis of race, as has been the case in U.S. history.
Thirdly, even though it is a crime to enter the country illegally, we cannot realistically arrest and jail all of the millions of illegal immigrants now in the country. That would require more resources than could possibly be available. Alternately, we also do not have the wherewithal to eject all of those people from the country, both because we couldn't find and arrest them all and because many businesses, as has been claimed, would fail without their labor. So, a system must be put into place that makes these illegal immigrants into something else. I would not see an amnesty that conveys citizenship on all of them because it would only encourage more illegal immigrants, rewards criminality, and is basically unfair, especially to those who have pursued immigration legally. I would rather see a guestworker system put into place. This would allow illegal immigrants to obtain working papers for a limited time, such as two or three years, after which they would have to either apply for full citizenship in the normal way or leave to return to their nations of origin. This project would have a short sign-up period of maybe three months for illegal immigrants to register with the government after which they would be considered criminals to be deported immediately upon capture. In addition, severe penalties would have to be put into place for any company employing illegal immigrants who do not have working papers. I think this plan, while not perfect, would be advantageous for all - the immigrants would not immediately be deported but would have time to earn some money which would stand them in good stead in their homelands, the government would know where these people are and be able to tax them in order to make up for the medical and education expenses they are already incurring on our society, businesses would be required to treat all of their employees equally without their illegal status to hold over them, and our national security interests would be better served. I think it would ultimately help us to treat immigrants to our nation fairly and without oppression, as called for in the Bible, and to uphold lawful lives, also an interest of the Bible.
Well, those are my ideas, though most are not original to me. Tell me what you think.
Friday, August 11, 2006
A Child of One's Own
In this post, I'd like to examine a question that seems to be increasingly asked in our society and answered in a way I disagree with. That question is: do we have an inherent right to a child of our own flesh?
At first glance, this seems like a no-brainier. Many people will assert that, of course, we do have such a right. I, however, reject that position because I believe it takes us into behaviors and pursuits that are directly opposed to a holy life.
As a clarification, I need to state that I do believe that people (here I am being general to all couples, when I would like to be specific to married couples only) do have an inherent right to attempt to procreate. The only reason I can think of for a couple being denied this right is that one or both of them are in prison. Otherwise, no one should ever be given the power to discriminate against any group in this way. I have heard of people suggesting this sort of action for various groups: those with birth defects or mental retardation as a form of eugenics, the poor to limit the number of children that the government must support, or in China where a form of this is used to curtail population growth problems, etc. This seems to me to be a particularly cruel mentality, which leads only to further mistreating of these groups.
The first reason I believe we do not have an inherent right to a child of our own flesh comes from the problems created by today's reproductive therapy industry, which is driven by this sort of thinking. Many of these therapies require the creation of numerous fertilized embryos to be implanted inside the womb of a mother (and this isn't even always the "real" mother, either). When doctors perform these procedures, they often use many embryos to increase the chances that one will successfully implant. Of course, we Christians who maintain that life begins at conception (even if that occurs in a Petri dish) hold that each of those fertilized embryos is a separate human being valued by God (I do realize that not all Christians will agree with this, but I hold them to be wrong on this issue). This causes problems with these procedures because, even a successful one involves the destruction of many of those embryos. In addition, it occasionally is too successful, resulting in a multiple pregnancy, which doctors often wish to reduce through selective abortion. Even more, in these sorts of procedures, it is cost effective to create many more fertilized embryos than will be needed, resulting in unwanted embryos, which are now being haggled over by certain groups wishing to use them for stem cell research. All of these evil results of reproductive technology are driven by the perceived right to a child of one's own, which is difficult for so many.
Now, to be fair, it could be argued that there is a way to use reproductive technology in a highly controlled and conservative way that is compatible with Christian views. While this is possible, it is simply not the case in practice. In addition, as it is the costs for such therapies are extreme. Further restrictions would enable only the super-rich to use these methods, creating an unattainable hope for nearly all couples suffering from infertility.
A second reason I am opposed to this idea, and I think the most disturbing, is that I believe it is often just one more symptom of the me-centered culture we live in. By this, I mean that many couples (and even some singles) are having children primarily for their own fulfillment. We can see this in celebrities having children as just one more of their entourage, as well as regular parents obsessing over every little detail of their children's lives, from baseball dads beating up coaches and refs to cheerleading moms plotting against their daughters' rivals. This is not to say that having children does not provide some fulfillment to parents. In fact, it does and should, but this is not the only or best reason for having children. The Bible describes children as a blessing and a gift from God, but also as a responsibility. While it is a two-way street, the relationship between children and parents seems to me to be primarily one that flows from parents to children when in its proper shape. Children do not exist to fulfill some need in parents.
I realize that my views here have far-reaching implications for such things as adoption and the problem of evil (why does a good God allow people to not be able to have children of their own in the normal way?). Those would be great topics for comments, as I now have some other things I must attend to.
At first glance, this seems like a no-brainier. Many people will assert that, of course, we do have such a right. I, however, reject that position because I believe it takes us into behaviors and pursuits that are directly opposed to a holy life.
As a clarification, I need to state that I do believe that people (here I am being general to all couples, when I would like to be specific to married couples only) do have an inherent right to attempt to procreate. The only reason I can think of for a couple being denied this right is that one or both of them are in prison. Otherwise, no one should ever be given the power to discriminate against any group in this way. I have heard of people suggesting this sort of action for various groups: those with birth defects or mental retardation as a form of eugenics, the poor to limit the number of children that the government must support, or in China where a form of this is used to curtail population growth problems, etc. This seems to me to be a particularly cruel mentality, which leads only to further mistreating of these groups.
The first reason I believe we do not have an inherent right to a child of our own flesh comes from the problems created by today's reproductive therapy industry, which is driven by this sort of thinking. Many of these therapies require the creation of numerous fertilized embryos to be implanted inside the womb of a mother (and this isn't even always the "real" mother, either). When doctors perform these procedures, they often use many embryos to increase the chances that one will successfully implant. Of course, we Christians who maintain that life begins at conception (even if that occurs in a Petri dish) hold that each of those fertilized embryos is a separate human being valued by God (I do realize that not all Christians will agree with this, but I hold them to be wrong on this issue). This causes problems with these procedures because, even a successful one involves the destruction of many of those embryos. In addition, it occasionally is too successful, resulting in a multiple pregnancy, which doctors often wish to reduce through selective abortion. Even more, in these sorts of procedures, it is cost effective to create many more fertilized embryos than will be needed, resulting in unwanted embryos, which are now being haggled over by certain groups wishing to use them for stem cell research. All of these evil results of reproductive technology are driven by the perceived right to a child of one's own, which is difficult for so many.
Now, to be fair, it could be argued that there is a way to use reproductive technology in a highly controlled and conservative way that is compatible with Christian views. While this is possible, it is simply not the case in practice. In addition, as it is the costs for such therapies are extreme. Further restrictions would enable only the super-rich to use these methods, creating an unattainable hope for nearly all couples suffering from infertility.
A second reason I am opposed to this idea, and I think the most disturbing, is that I believe it is often just one more symptom of the me-centered culture we live in. By this, I mean that many couples (and even some singles) are having children primarily for their own fulfillment. We can see this in celebrities having children as just one more of their entourage, as well as regular parents obsessing over every little detail of their children's lives, from baseball dads beating up coaches and refs to cheerleading moms plotting against their daughters' rivals. This is not to say that having children does not provide some fulfillment to parents. In fact, it does and should, but this is not the only or best reason for having children. The Bible describes children as a blessing and a gift from God, but also as a responsibility. While it is a two-way street, the relationship between children and parents seems to me to be primarily one that flows from parents to children when in its proper shape. Children do not exist to fulfill some need in parents.
I realize that my views here have far-reaching implications for such things as adoption and the problem of evil (why does a good God allow people to not be able to have children of their own in the normal way?). Those would be great topics for comments, as I now have some other things I must attend to.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Jus ad Bellum - Applied to Israel's Current Conflict
I would like to take a look at the current Israeli conflict and see if we can determine if it is a just war or not, based on the traditionally accepted criteria for a just war. I am interested in this topic in a general way because of my love of military history and in a specific way as a Christian seeking to understand the world in a Christ-like way. Another reason for this is that Israel has been widely criticized for breaking some of the rules for a just war by many important members of the international community, especially several European nations and the head of the UN.
The basic question is: Does Israel's current military activity versus the known terrorist group Hezbollah inside the state of Lebanon fit the criteria for a just war? I will list the most commonly accepted criteria, define the criteria, and discuss each as it relates to this conflict. I realize that this is not a theory (just war) that is universally accepted, but it is widely accepted. Any additions or objections to my analysis is welcome in the comments section, but please do be polite even if this is a heart-felt issue for you. Also, please do not think that I am a typical Israel-loving evangelical Christian. I do not believe that the current state of Israel is the same as the people who were once God's chosen people. The New Testament makes it quite clear that God's chosen people are those who have put faith in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.
OK, with all that said, let's get started.
For a Just War there must be:
A. Just Cause - basically a just cause has been defined as using force to redress a grave public wrong (one that involves many people, not few) or in defense - examples of this would include being attacked by an enemy nation, having a foreign nation prevent enough food for the people of a nation, or any number of other possibilities.
Israel's current fighting began after an attack by Hezbollah on one of its military outposts on the border with Lebanon in which 3 soldiers were killed and 2 were captured. Hezbollah's stated aim in this act was to exchange these soldiers for several of their own prisioners in Israeli jails. Israel's initial military response was powerful but limited. Only after failing to find their lost soldiers did Israel beef up its military attack on Hezbollah.
At this point it seems like a fairly small event caused a huge one by Israel. However, a further historical account might aid things. Hezbollah was founded in 1985 by Shiite fighters seeking to create in Lebanon an Islamic state, much like Iran. They have had most of their support from Iran and Syria over the years. Their overall reason for existence is to destroy Israel, and they have committed numerous terrorist acts over the years. There is much more history of Hezbollah's terrorist activity, including being commonly thought to have been behind the bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in 1983 which killed 241 marines.
Thus, taken all together it would seem that Israel's response is to redress a grave public wrong, which is the threatened destruction of their entire nation symbolized by the capture of two soldiers.
B. Comparative Justice - in order to begin hostilities, the injustice suffered by the just party must outwight any injustice suffered by the opposing party - this is important because it is rare that a conflict will occur in which one side bears absolutely all responsibility and the other side has done no wrong of any kind.
Here we will see that Lebanon has suffered some severe problems over the years at the hands of Israel. Lebanon is certainly not a wealthy state, and at least some of that can be attributed to several military defeats at the hands of Israel since the 1947 Israeli War of Independence. However, Israel has never attacked Lebanon in order to destroy it as a nation. In fact, Israel has only ever occupied Lebanese territory for the purpose of keeping Hezbollah at arms length from its own population centers. Which, of course, points out that Lebanon is not Israel's actual enemy here. Hezbollah is, and it would be hard to prove that Hezbollah has suffered more at the hands of Israel than vice versa. At any rate, I would conclude that Israel has suffered more injustice than Hezbollah, though I will concede that this is a debatable issue.
C. Legitimate Authority - Only a duly constituted public authority may wage war or use force - this is to prevent rogue groups from using force to get their way.
Obviously, this is an easy one. The authority to declare/wage war in Israel is in the hands of the Knesset (their version of parliament) and the prime minister, Ehud Olmert.
D. Right Intention - force can only be used in a just cause or to correct a wrong - force is never OK for simple material gain or for pumping up a nation's economy.
This too seems like an open-and-shut case, as Israel's stated aim in the current conflict is to disarm Hezbollah to a point where it no longer constitutes a threat to the people of Israel. This is directly proportional to the problem that brought about the fighting. Also, it is obvious that Israel does not stand to gain anything from this in terms of money or land or even international prestige.
E. Probability of Success - War may not be waged when there is no hope of success - this is important because it would prevent both futile bloodshed and the use of extreme measures (think nukes here) in order to win a conflict.
This seems simple, but I don't think it really is. At first glance, Israel's much vaunted military (pretty much accepted by all parties as the best in the Middle East and often thought of as one of the best in the world, pound for pound) would seem to be capable of this task without any problem. However, as the U.S. is learning in Iraq, Hezbollah will likely be a much tougher entity to absolutely defeat than is anticipated. The fighting will be confused and guerilla. The Hezbollah fighters are religious zealots not likely to give up at all, much less easily. Also, it is thought that both Iran and Syria may be aiding Hezbollah with money and arms. Even so, I feel committed to the idea that Israel is capable, in the end, of defeating Hezbollah to the extent that they have aimed. This is so because I am also committed to a similar idea about the U.S. military's chances in Iraq.
F. Proportionality - The overall destriction from the conflict must be outwighted by the good to be acheived by it - a nation may not kill ten thousand enemies in order to save the lives of ten of their own, for example.
Interestingly, this is the main issue that others critical of Israel have raised - that their attacks have been disproportional to the harm done to them. This might be warrented. Certainly, Israel has damaged the infrastructure of Lebanon to a great degree - knocking out roads, bridges, airports, and preventing easy resupply to the state. Also, there have been somewhat more deaths on the Lebanese side than the Israeli side. However, this may be a difficult thing to quantify, since it is difficult to say that any destruction visited upon Lebanon would be disproportionate to Hezbollah's aim to completely destroy Israel. Also, we may have a difficulty in holding Lebanon as an innocent party in this. Their government has allowed Hezbollah to flourish in southern Lebanon for many years, even after agreeing in 2000 to disarm them - it simply never even tried. In fact, Hezbollah has political members inside of the government of Lebanon, even on the prime minister's cabinet. Also, this issue seems mostly to relate to civilian deaths suffered in Lebanon because of fighting and Israeli bombing. However, this is an accepted part of a just war under the idea of double effect - which allows for the "legality" of accidental killing of civilians when the enemy has chosen to place his forces in a civilian area. Notice that Israel is bombing Hezbollah targets that have been purposely mixed in with civilians in Lebanon, while Hezbollah's rockets are targeting civilian areas in Israel without any military value at all (especially when you consider that Hezbollah is using non-guided rockets which can only be aimed at general regions while Israel is using mostly guided missiles to go after their targets; also, it should be remembered that the killing of civilians is to Hezbollah's advantage in PR and to Israel's disadvantage). Thus, I would end up saying that Israel's actions do conform to proportionality, even if they have some horrible, unintended repercussions.
G. Last Resort - War may only be resorted to after all viable, peaceful alternatives have been seriously attempted and exhausted.
Israel has attempted repeatedly to come to terms with its neighbors to form a lasting peace in the region. That can be shown by the fact that Israel has peace treaties currently in place with both Egypt and Jordan, once enemies. Also, only in the past year, Israel has been pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an attempt to allow the Palestinians a fair chance at developing themselves as a democratic state, even if that attempt has not worked out just yet. Even in Lebanon, Israel pulled out of the same land they are now fighting over with the promise from Lebanon that Hezbollah would be disarmed. In addition, the UN has been in southern Lebanon since 2000 in a supposed attempt to make sure Hezbollah was disarmed, but they have done nothing. Rather, some reports have it that Hezbollah has used areas near the UN forces as zones for firing off their rockets because they knew that Israel would be reluctant to attack them there. All of these attempts by Israel to appeal to other involved nations for help and the international community have failed. Thus, it would definitely seem that Israel has exhausted their alternatives to war.
After all of this, it seems to me that Israel is justified in their current conflict to use force to destroy Hezbollah's ability to conduct terrorist actions inside of Israel. I sincerely hope that this does not spread, as it seems likely to because of the support for Hezbollah of Iran and Syria and the general instability in the Middle East. I also, for my part, deeply regret any deaths that occur in this that were not warrented. However, I also wish to see any terrorist group such as Hezbollah brought to a point where it is no longer able to conduct such actions against others. This seems to be a pre-condition for any lasting peace.
A wonderful website for further study of the theory of just war is: www.justwartheory.com
Looking forward to any comments...
The basic question is: Does Israel's current military activity versus the known terrorist group Hezbollah inside the state of Lebanon fit the criteria for a just war? I will list the most commonly accepted criteria, define the criteria, and discuss each as it relates to this conflict. I realize that this is not a theory (just war) that is universally accepted, but it is widely accepted. Any additions or objections to my analysis is welcome in the comments section, but please do be polite even if this is a heart-felt issue for you. Also, please do not think that I am a typical Israel-loving evangelical Christian. I do not believe that the current state of Israel is the same as the people who were once God's chosen people. The New Testament makes it quite clear that God's chosen people are those who have put faith in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.
OK, with all that said, let's get started.
For a Just War there must be:
A. Just Cause - basically a just cause has been defined as using force to redress a grave public wrong (one that involves many people, not few) or in defense - examples of this would include being attacked by an enemy nation, having a foreign nation prevent enough food for the people of a nation, or any number of other possibilities.
Israel's current fighting began after an attack by Hezbollah on one of its military outposts on the border with Lebanon in which 3 soldiers were killed and 2 were captured. Hezbollah's stated aim in this act was to exchange these soldiers for several of their own prisioners in Israeli jails. Israel's initial military response was powerful but limited. Only after failing to find their lost soldiers did Israel beef up its military attack on Hezbollah.
At this point it seems like a fairly small event caused a huge one by Israel. However, a further historical account might aid things. Hezbollah was founded in 1985 by Shiite fighters seeking to create in Lebanon an Islamic state, much like Iran. They have had most of their support from Iran and Syria over the years. Their overall reason for existence is to destroy Israel, and they have committed numerous terrorist acts over the years. There is much more history of Hezbollah's terrorist activity, including being commonly thought to have been behind the bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in 1983 which killed 241 marines.
Thus, taken all together it would seem that Israel's response is to redress a grave public wrong, which is the threatened destruction of their entire nation symbolized by the capture of two soldiers.
B. Comparative Justice - in order to begin hostilities, the injustice suffered by the just party must outwight any injustice suffered by the opposing party - this is important because it is rare that a conflict will occur in which one side bears absolutely all responsibility and the other side has done no wrong of any kind.
Here we will see that Lebanon has suffered some severe problems over the years at the hands of Israel. Lebanon is certainly not a wealthy state, and at least some of that can be attributed to several military defeats at the hands of Israel since the 1947 Israeli War of Independence. However, Israel has never attacked Lebanon in order to destroy it as a nation. In fact, Israel has only ever occupied Lebanese territory for the purpose of keeping Hezbollah at arms length from its own population centers. Which, of course, points out that Lebanon is not Israel's actual enemy here. Hezbollah is, and it would be hard to prove that Hezbollah has suffered more at the hands of Israel than vice versa. At any rate, I would conclude that Israel has suffered more injustice than Hezbollah, though I will concede that this is a debatable issue.
C. Legitimate Authority - Only a duly constituted public authority may wage war or use force - this is to prevent rogue groups from using force to get their way.
Obviously, this is an easy one. The authority to declare/wage war in Israel is in the hands of the Knesset (their version of parliament) and the prime minister, Ehud Olmert.
D. Right Intention - force can only be used in a just cause or to correct a wrong - force is never OK for simple material gain or for pumping up a nation's economy.
This too seems like an open-and-shut case, as Israel's stated aim in the current conflict is to disarm Hezbollah to a point where it no longer constitutes a threat to the people of Israel. This is directly proportional to the problem that brought about the fighting. Also, it is obvious that Israel does not stand to gain anything from this in terms of money or land or even international prestige.
E. Probability of Success - War may not be waged when there is no hope of success - this is important because it would prevent both futile bloodshed and the use of extreme measures (think nukes here) in order to win a conflict.
This seems simple, but I don't think it really is. At first glance, Israel's much vaunted military (pretty much accepted by all parties as the best in the Middle East and often thought of as one of the best in the world, pound for pound) would seem to be capable of this task without any problem. However, as the U.S. is learning in Iraq, Hezbollah will likely be a much tougher entity to absolutely defeat than is anticipated. The fighting will be confused and guerilla. The Hezbollah fighters are religious zealots not likely to give up at all, much less easily. Also, it is thought that both Iran and Syria may be aiding Hezbollah with money and arms. Even so, I feel committed to the idea that Israel is capable, in the end, of defeating Hezbollah to the extent that they have aimed. This is so because I am also committed to a similar idea about the U.S. military's chances in Iraq.
F. Proportionality - The overall destriction from the conflict must be outwighted by the good to be acheived by it - a nation may not kill ten thousand enemies in order to save the lives of ten of their own, for example.
Interestingly, this is the main issue that others critical of Israel have raised - that their attacks have been disproportional to the harm done to them. This might be warrented. Certainly, Israel has damaged the infrastructure of Lebanon to a great degree - knocking out roads, bridges, airports, and preventing easy resupply to the state. Also, there have been somewhat more deaths on the Lebanese side than the Israeli side. However, this may be a difficult thing to quantify, since it is difficult to say that any destruction visited upon Lebanon would be disproportionate to Hezbollah's aim to completely destroy Israel. Also, we may have a difficulty in holding Lebanon as an innocent party in this. Their government has allowed Hezbollah to flourish in southern Lebanon for many years, even after agreeing in 2000 to disarm them - it simply never even tried. In fact, Hezbollah has political members inside of the government of Lebanon, even on the prime minister's cabinet. Also, this issue seems mostly to relate to civilian deaths suffered in Lebanon because of fighting and Israeli bombing. However, this is an accepted part of a just war under the idea of double effect - which allows for the "legality" of accidental killing of civilians when the enemy has chosen to place his forces in a civilian area. Notice that Israel is bombing Hezbollah targets that have been purposely mixed in with civilians in Lebanon, while Hezbollah's rockets are targeting civilian areas in Israel without any military value at all (especially when you consider that Hezbollah is using non-guided rockets which can only be aimed at general regions while Israel is using mostly guided missiles to go after their targets; also, it should be remembered that the killing of civilians is to Hezbollah's advantage in PR and to Israel's disadvantage). Thus, I would end up saying that Israel's actions do conform to proportionality, even if they have some horrible, unintended repercussions.
G. Last Resort - War may only be resorted to after all viable, peaceful alternatives have been seriously attempted and exhausted.
Israel has attempted repeatedly to come to terms with its neighbors to form a lasting peace in the region. That can be shown by the fact that Israel has peace treaties currently in place with both Egypt and Jordan, once enemies. Also, only in the past year, Israel has been pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an attempt to allow the Palestinians a fair chance at developing themselves as a democratic state, even if that attempt has not worked out just yet. Even in Lebanon, Israel pulled out of the same land they are now fighting over with the promise from Lebanon that Hezbollah would be disarmed. In addition, the UN has been in southern Lebanon since 2000 in a supposed attempt to make sure Hezbollah was disarmed, but they have done nothing. Rather, some reports have it that Hezbollah has used areas near the UN forces as zones for firing off their rockets because they knew that Israel would be reluctant to attack them there. All of these attempts by Israel to appeal to other involved nations for help and the international community have failed. Thus, it would definitely seem that Israel has exhausted their alternatives to war.
After all of this, it seems to me that Israel is justified in their current conflict to use force to destroy Hezbollah's ability to conduct terrorist actions inside of Israel. I sincerely hope that this does not spread, as it seems likely to because of the support for Hezbollah of Iran and Syria and the general instability in the Middle East. I also, for my part, deeply regret any deaths that occur in this that were not warrented. However, I also wish to see any terrorist group such as Hezbollah brought to a point where it is no longer able to conduct such actions against others. This seems to be a pre-condition for any lasting peace.
A wonderful website for further study of the theory of just war is: www.justwartheory.com
Looking forward to any comments...
Friday, July 28, 2006
Book Review - "Love Your God With All Your Mind"
I just completed this wonderful book, and it inspired me to actually work on this blog. I imagine that it will take me a while to get to the quality of postings that I feel are needed, but I'm going to make an earnest effort at it.
So, let me tell you a bit about this book. First, I had to read it for my philosophy class, and I will be writing a more detailed review of the book for the class. The class has been extremely good for me, though tough. I've become convinced more than ever before of how important it is that we Christians think through our lives and the decisions we make in order to more closely live our whole lives as Christians and not just a part that we label "spiritual."
The author, J. P. Moreland, seeks to address the serious issue of the weak intellectual state of the Christian community. He points out in the first part of the book that Christians have been surrendering the marketplace of ideas to non-Christians for the past 100 years...so much so that Christians have a hard time even being taken seriously by the world. This is because of several bad experiences (like the humiliation of Christians in the Scopes Monkey Trial) and the rise of some scientific theories (like evolution) that seemed to make Christian ideas about the way the world is irrelevant. I think anyone who looks at their own church can see how this has impacted us all. There is a lot of suspicion of learning and education among evangelicals, which is exactly opposite of what should be. In addition, there are far too few Christians in the many fields of academia who are making an impact on their fields for Christ. Rather, many Christians who go into fields like art, science, and psychology end up compartmentalizing their lives such that their faith is kept separate from their vocation. This not only goes against a Biblical view of how our lives should be, it doesn't make sense. No wonder Christians are not taken seriously in the press or on college campuses - we say we believe certain things in church and deny those same things in our academic pursuit...not because science or any field actually proves our beliefs to be false but because we have allowed the world to force us into its mold.
Moreland then goes on to show how important it is to develop a Christian mind - important for its role in our own spiritual transformation from baby-Christians to mature believers and for the way it will affect those around us.
Naturally, Moreland then gives many good ways that each of us can begin to develop our minds for Christ...literally as worship for Christ. Is this not the sort of thing meant by Paul, when he said that we should renew our minds for our transformation in Romans 12:2?
Probably the most important part of this book for me was Moreland's teaching on the way a Christian mind is necessary for a proper doctrine of vocation...that is, for a Christian to properly be Christ-like in his/her vocation, which is also an act of worship. The truth of this is so important that it cannot be overstated!
In addition to all of this, Moreland gives several suggestions of how a church can help its members to develop their minds. Some of these suggestions are really challenging, especially given the current state of most churches, and I'm not going to say right off that each is the best way to go - only that they deserve some good thought. Among his suggestions are: no senior pastors (he thinks that the senior pastor model of leadership is not Biblical and tends to a codependent relationship between a needy pastor and needy people, so he thinks the church should be led by a group of co-equal elders who share responsibilities for preaching and leadership development), decentralized ministry (the elders should be equipping the church members for ministry and not doing the lion's share themselves), a distinction between forms and functions (seeing the difference between what the Bible says a church should be doing and how any given church chooses to go about it, especially seeing that a church has the responsibility to examine its forms often and make changes where necessary in order to better do the functions), sermons should be shared (no one teacher should preach more than half of a year's sermons, since no one person can be prepared to do a good job that many times, a greater use of supplemental material for sermons like study notes and suggested readings, and an occasional intent to teach higher ideas even if some people in the congregation cannot keep up with the level of teaching), a greater utilization of the church library (through printing book reviews in the bulletins from time to time, suggesting certain books to be read, and bringing the library out to the people, so to speak), separating the "enfolding" aspect of Sunday Schools from the Bible study aspect (so that we do not neglect either aim and we can develop groups of Christians whose vocations are similar in order to impact that vocation for Christ), and holding up both the individual church's growing members and Christian intellectuals from all over (even from Christian history) as examples and heros.
The final thing Moreland does in this book, which might be one of the most important, is provide 33 pages of other resources for the Christian thinker. These are subdivided by subject/vocation so that someone can look up resources (books, organizations, periodicals, etc.) that will shed light on their own areas of interest.
I think we have an obligation as Christians to search for the truth and dispel falsehood. We cannot do that without sharp minds. Therefore, we must develop our minds for the cause of Christ.
So, let me tell you a bit about this book. First, I had to read it for my philosophy class, and I will be writing a more detailed review of the book for the class. The class has been extremely good for me, though tough. I've become convinced more than ever before of how important it is that we Christians think through our lives and the decisions we make in order to more closely live our whole lives as Christians and not just a part that we label "spiritual."
The author, J. P. Moreland, seeks to address the serious issue of the weak intellectual state of the Christian community. He points out in the first part of the book that Christians have been surrendering the marketplace of ideas to non-Christians for the past 100 years...so much so that Christians have a hard time even being taken seriously by the world. This is because of several bad experiences (like the humiliation of Christians in the Scopes Monkey Trial) and the rise of some scientific theories (like evolution) that seemed to make Christian ideas about the way the world is irrelevant. I think anyone who looks at their own church can see how this has impacted us all. There is a lot of suspicion of learning and education among evangelicals, which is exactly opposite of what should be. In addition, there are far too few Christians in the many fields of academia who are making an impact on their fields for Christ. Rather, many Christians who go into fields like art, science, and psychology end up compartmentalizing their lives such that their faith is kept separate from their vocation. This not only goes against a Biblical view of how our lives should be, it doesn't make sense. No wonder Christians are not taken seriously in the press or on college campuses - we say we believe certain things in church and deny those same things in our academic pursuit...not because science or any field actually proves our beliefs to be false but because we have allowed the world to force us into its mold.
Moreland then goes on to show how important it is to develop a Christian mind - important for its role in our own spiritual transformation from baby-Christians to mature believers and for the way it will affect those around us.
Naturally, Moreland then gives many good ways that each of us can begin to develop our minds for Christ...literally as worship for Christ. Is this not the sort of thing meant by Paul, when he said that we should renew our minds for our transformation in Romans 12:2?
Probably the most important part of this book for me was Moreland's teaching on the way a Christian mind is necessary for a proper doctrine of vocation...that is, for a Christian to properly be Christ-like in his/her vocation, which is also an act of worship. The truth of this is so important that it cannot be overstated!
In addition to all of this, Moreland gives several suggestions of how a church can help its members to develop their minds. Some of these suggestions are really challenging, especially given the current state of most churches, and I'm not going to say right off that each is the best way to go - only that they deserve some good thought. Among his suggestions are: no senior pastors (he thinks that the senior pastor model of leadership is not Biblical and tends to a codependent relationship between a needy pastor and needy people, so he thinks the church should be led by a group of co-equal elders who share responsibilities for preaching and leadership development), decentralized ministry (the elders should be equipping the church members for ministry and not doing the lion's share themselves), a distinction between forms and functions (seeing the difference between what the Bible says a church should be doing and how any given church chooses to go about it, especially seeing that a church has the responsibility to examine its forms often and make changes where necessary in order to better do the functions), sermons should be shared (no one teacher should preach more than half of a year's sermons, since no one person can be prepared to do a good job that many times, a greater use of supplemental material for sermons like study notes and suggested readings, and an occasional intent to teach higher ideas even if some people in the congregation cannot keep up with the level of teaching), a greater utilization of the church library (through printing book reviews in the bulletins from time to time, suggesting certain books to be read, and bringing the library out to the people, so to speak), separating the "enfolding" aspect of Sunday Schools from the Bible study aspect (so that we do not neglect either aim and we can develop groups of Christians whose vocations are similar in order to impact that vocation for Christ), and holding up both the individual church's growing members and Christian intellectuals from all over (even from Christian history) as examples and heros.
The final thing Moreland does in this book, which might be one of the most important, is provide 33 pages of other resources for the Christian thinker. These are subdivided by subject/vocation so that someone can look up resources (books, organizations, periodicals, etc.) that will shed light on their own areas of interest.
I think we have an obligation as Christians to search for the truth and dispel falsehood. We cannot do that without sharp minds. Therefore, we must develop our minds for the cause of Christ.
Friday, April 21, 2006
An Opening Explanation...
Well, as this is my first post on this blog, or any for that matter, I think I need to explain the spelling variation in my title. "Lense" is a correct variant spelling for "lens," even if it is old and more British than American. Now, I didn't pick it because that is the case. I picked it because I actually thought that was the correct spelling. So, I find myself in the position of defending a mistake - never a good place to be.
However, this is a good occurrence because it reminds me of my fallibility as I begin this blog. I suppose that it might be seen as a little ego-centric to claim to be able to articulate a Christian worldview and critique the culture from that worldview. So, I need to once again remind any readers that my ideas are not perfect, but they will always be based upon the unchanging Truth of Scripture, so far as I am able. And I must remember that the Holy Spirit is in the business of redeeming even my thoughts.
Also, feel free to disagree with me, though I would request any who comment be courteous. I'll do the same. A good conversation is preferable to angry outbursts every time.
However, this is a good occurrence because it reminds me of my fallibility as I begin this blog. I suppose that it might be seen as a little ego-centric to claim to be able to articulate a Christian worldview and critique the culture from that worldview. So, I need to once again remind any readers that my ideas are not perfect, but they will always be based upon the unchanging Truth of Scripture, so far as I am able. And I must remember that the Holy Spirit is in the business of redeeming even my thoughts.
Also, feel free to disagree with me, though I would request any who comment be courteous. I'll do the same. A good conversation is preferable to angry outbursts every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)