My wonderful wife has encouraged myself and her other blog readers to write on environmentalism from a Christian perspective/worldview. She has "encouraged" me a little more than most, I suppose, but I needed the "encouragement."
I'd like to point out that the Christian responsibility to care for the world we live in is directly related to God's initial commands to Adam and Eve in the garden, right after He created the world. There are those who would say that modern science has proven conclusively that the world is billions of years old and that mankind exists now as a result of the forces of evolution acting throughout those billions of years. I respectfully disagree. Modern science has become a worldview all its own, rather than a method for detecting truth, which is what science really is. As such, it has made conclusions about the world that fit with its materialistic view that there is no God and no such thing as a spiritual world at all. Thus, forces like evolution, which requires vast amounts of time to be mathematically plausible, are postulated to explain how everything that does exist got here.
There are many problems with all of the above thinking, but, as it relates to the environment, the problem at hand is that such thinking undercuts the heart of why we must care for the world. The primary reason is that God made both us and the world and He gave charge of it to us. Caring for the world is an outworking of a holy life and cannot be honestly done by those who deny that there is even such a thing as holiness. At best, those who deny God's existence and His creation of the world as it is written in the Bible, worship the material that they claim is all that exists.
Genesis is where the entire story of the world begins. It is where the world is made and every important institution finds its origins (family, marriage, government). It is also where the central problem of man begins - sin - and God's response to sin is foretold. This cannot be an allegory or myth. It must be truth or our whole reason for being turns to chance encounters of atoms bouncing around the galaxy, at the very best.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
It's Been a While...
Well, I've been absent from blogging for a while (OK, wife, quite a while), but I've been recently looking for an interesting thing with which to get back into the writing. Here it is...
I ran across this story today. It amazes me what people will do for their own gratification! Let me see if I can give you the run down and why it makes no sense, from a Biblical point of view.
First, there is this man who was badly injured in a motorcycle accident. His injuries leave him unconscious and probably dying, especially from attendant strokes suffered after the accident.
Second, there is this man's fiancee, to whom he was to be wed this same time next year.
Third, there is this man's parents.
The fiancee wants the hospital where her man is being cared for to harvest some of his semen (YIKES!) for her to carry his child. She explains to the reporter that this is not simply an act of love for him or out of a desire to have children in general but mostly so his parents could have something left of their only son. His parents and fiancee originally made this request under Iowa's state laws concerning organ transplants but were rejected because of the obvious distinction between saving and creating lives. However, after an emergency request was made to the court system, a judge allowed the procedure.
Now, why is this wrong, in my opinion? Well, it is wrong because it is getting the production of children backwards. While children do most often (though, not always) provide a measure of satisfaction and blessing on parents, that should never be the reason for having them. Children do not exist to provide entertainment or satisfaction for parents. In fact, as most parents will probably testify (not being one yet, I am conjecturing, though hopefully realistically) having a child quickly becomes less about what the parent gets out of the deal than what the parent must put in.
So, for parents of this man to manipulate state laws clearly meant to save the lives of people suffering from illnesses in order to "have a part of him left" is wrong-headed. They want that child (in fact, I think they are thinking more of a small version of their own son than the person that will really be produced out of this) for their own comfort in losing their son, not for the child himself. The same seems to be the case for the potential mother.
What happens if this child ends up being nothing like his/her father? This is quite likely. What then? Unfortunately, children aren't throw-away, like electronics that no longer serve our needs. Also, what about the child's need for a father? Will this be ignored? Additionally, what about this man's rights? He did not make a decision to produce a child (not even in the strictest sense of simply having sex). What is he miraculously awakens from his injuries? I can just see his response, can't you? ("You did what!!!")
I ran across this story today. It amazes me what people will do for their own gratification! Let me see if I can give you the run down and why it makes no sense, from a Biblical point of view.
First, there is this man who was badly injured in a motorcycle accident. His injuries leave him unconscious and probably dying, especially from attendant strokes suffered after the accident.
Second, there is this man's fiancee, to whom he was to be wed this same time next year.
Third, there is this man's parents.
The fiancee wants the hospital where her man is being cared for to harvest some of his semen (YIKES!) for her to carry his child. She explains to the reporter that this is not simply an act of love for him or out of a desire to have children in general but mostly so his parents could have something left of their only son. His parents and fiancee originally made this request under Iowa's state laws concerning organ transplants but were rejected because of the obvious distinction between saving and creating lives. However, after an emergency request was made to the court system, a judge allowed the procedure.
Now, why is this wrong, in my opinion? Well, it is wrong because it is getting the production of children backwards. While children do most often (though, not always) provide a measure of satisfaction and blessing on parents, that should never be the reason for having them. Children do not exist to provide entertainment or satisfaction for parents. In fact, as most parents will probably testify (not being one yet, I am conjecturing, though hopefully realistically) having a child quickly becomes less about what the parent gets out of the deal than what the parent must put in.
So, for parents of this man to manipulate state laws clearly meant to save the lives of people suffering from illnesses in order to "have a part of him left" is wrong-headed. They want that child (in fact, I think they are thinking more of a small version of their own son than the person that will really be produced out of this) for their own comfort in losing their son, not for the child himself. The same seems to be the case for the potential mother.
What happens if this child ends up being nothing like his/her father? This is quite likely. What then? Unfortunately, children aren't throw-away, like electronics that no longer serve our needs. Also, what about the child's need for a father? Will this be ignored? Additionally, what about this man's rights? He did not make a decision to produce a child (not even in the strictest sense of simply having sex). What is he miraculously awakens from his injuries? I can just see his response, can't you? ("You did what!!!")
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Crimes Against Religious Liberty
This past week a bill passed through the U.S. House of Representatives which, if passed into law, will curtail our freedom of religion enormously. This bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is designed with one goal in mind - to make it a crime to express any negative thought or feeling regarding homosexuality. It equates teaching against homosexuality, even in a religious setting like a church service, with hate crimes such as murdering or otherwise attacking a person solely because of their race or sexual choices. It is clear that homosexuals are the only group whose "rights" are meant to be protected by this law from certain measures that were rejected from being part of the bill, such as an exemption for religious liberty and protections for the homeless and senior citizens. This bill is part of the wider agenda to normalize homosexuality and silence any voice raised against it.
All freedom-loving Americans, especially those who cherish their religious liberty, should unite to defeat this bill. For one thing, there are already laws in every state and on the federal level that deal with hate crimes. Secondly, this law could be used to prosecute pastors who preach the Bible's teaching on homosexuality from the pulpit - a clear violation of true separation of church and state (see the First Amendment to the US Constitution). In fact, laws similar to this one have been passed in several others countries, such as Canada, and in Canada ministers have been charged with hate crimes because they taught the Bible. Finally, this bill gives government the right to pas judgment on citizens' thoughts and attitudes. I believe that inciting someone to commit a hate crime should be illegal (calling on people to beat up illegal immigrants, for example), but teaching that something is morally wrong is certainly not the same thing. Our minds must be free!
The argument is that it is people like preachers who teaching the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality that actually promote hate crimes. However, this is far from the truth. Christians who are staying true to the Bible will always condemn sin whil holding up the love and hope of Christ. For, in every passage of the Bible where homosexuality is condemned, other sins that are somewhat more common are also condemned. We all stand guilty before a holy God, but we have a Way to Him which is opened to us by grace, to which all sinners, no matter what sin, have been called to enter. The Christian message is at once terribly concerned with holiness and amazingly offering of wholeness.
It is interesting that the same people who have cried loudest against the government entering our bedrooms have sought most for that same government to enter our heads!
All freedom-loving Americans, especially those who cherish their religious liberty, should unite to defeat this bill. For one thing, there are already laws in every state and on the federal level that deal with hate crimes. Secondly, this law could be used to prosecute pastors who preach the Bible's teaching on homosexuality from the pulpit - a clear violation of true separation of church and state (see the First Amendment to the US Constitution). In fact, laws similar to this one have been passed in several others countries, such as Canada, and in Canada ministers have been charged with hate crimes because they taught the Bible. Finally, this bill gives government the right to pas judgment on citizens' thoughts and attitudes. I believe that inciting someone to commit a hate crime should be illegal (calling on people to beat up illegal immigrants, for example), but teaching that something is morally wrong is certainly not the same thing. Our minds must be free!
The argument is that it is people like preachers who teaching the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality that actually promote hate crimes. However, this is far from the truth. Christians who are staying true to the Bible will always condemn sin whil holding up the love and hope of Christ. For, in every passage of the Bible where homosexuality is condemned, other sins that are somewhat more common are also condemned. We all stand guilty before a holy God, but we have a Way to Him which is opened to us by grace, to which all sinners, no matter what sin, have been called to enter. The Christian message is at once terribly concerned with holiness and amazingly offering of wholeness.
It is interesting that the same people who have cried loudest against the government entering our bedrooms have sought most for that same government to enter our heads!
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Sharia - Proof of a Broken, Unjust System
The other day I read of a 19 year old woman in Saudi Arabia who had been sentenced by a court there to 90 lashes. Her crime - being alone with a man who is not a relative. Now, that in itself is an obvious injustice. What personal freedom is there in this case? However, the real injustice is the rest of the story. She had apparently been dating a man without her parents' knowledge, a no-no, and he decided to blackmail her. So, when she went to meet with him, he and six other men kidnapped and raped her! Some of her assailants have been punished, but not all. It is as if the courts there, which are governed by a strict adherence to Islamic law found in the Koran called Sharia (sorry to any who actually speak Arabic for my Western spelling), are trying to send the message that a woman who leaves the protection of her family for being in public with another man deserves to be treated like this!
This system is broke, and people all over the world should say so. However, we Westerners have mostly bought into the ambiguities of moral pluralism to the extent that we can't even call evil by its true name.
This system is broke, and people all over the world should say so. However, we Westerners have mostly bought into the ambiguities of moral pluralism to the extent that we can't even call evil by its true name.
School Vouchers - An Issue of Church-State
I just today finished a paper related to how Baptists (past, present, and ideally) view the separation of church and state within the realm of benevolence and education activities done by Baptists. This has become an important issue because of President Bush's aim to fund faith-based programs with public dollars. Another push, which I've witnessed up close in Texas, is for a school voucher system, allowing parents to send their kids to whichever school they desire, even religious schools.
Since I was, and am still licensed as, a teacher, I would like to address this voucher idea. I am opposed to it. I am opposed for several reasons: it would result in the privatization of all education, it would necessarily promote a greater disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" in our society, and it would create a terrible breach of the separation of church and state, which would drive religious schools to bend completely to the will of the state or get out of the education business (ministry?) altogether.
As to the privatization of education, this is something of a tricky thing to say. Technically, a public education is now free to all children of the appropriate ages in the USA. This is technical because it is paid for by society through property taxes primarily, as well as other state and federal monies, so that parents who are property owners are paying for their children to be educated. Under this new system, once vouchers are distributed (never mind the massive bureaucratic headache that would be!) they would become a form of money, which could then be exchanged for an education or part of one. I say "part of one" because there are plenty of schools, even some public schools, that spend more per year on a student than the voucher would be for. Also, and this bleeds over to my second objection, there will certainly be private schools that increase their tuition so that they can control who applies and is admitted to their schools. While I am generally in favor of privatization, this is not true in fields so important as education. The majority of children are at the mercy of whatever system is in place, usually simply because their parents don't care one way or another. With a system like this, parents would necessarily have a greater role to play. This would be wonderful for those parents who are responsible, but would be a tragedy for the rest.
As to this plan encouraging a widening of the gap between those who are wealthy and those who are not, it seems obvious to me. Imagine a private academy in Manhattan and a public school in the Bronx less than 2 miles away. Also, assume for the point of argument that both schools cost the same amount, which would correspond to the amount of the voucher given to parents at each. It is obvious that the private school cannot accommodate all the students from both schools. It is also obvious that at least some of the parents sending their kids to the private school do so because they do not want their kids to be influenced by what can be found at the public school, included the people there. Is it not but a simple thing for the private academy to raise their rates, maybe even double them, in order to hold attendance there out of reach of the public schoolers? The result would not hurt the private school families, who were already paying that amount out of their pockets and would promote greed on the part of the private academy. The result is really a continuance of the status quo that would, I think, result in an even weaker public school.
The most important reason to reject this idea is the commingling between the church and state that would occur in any religious schools that accepted these vouchers, which they would almost have to do to stay competitive. This is true for a couple of reasons, two of which I will look at more closely. First, any education institution accepting the vouchers would have government oversight of the people it admitted and rejected for attendance. Of course, I'm not against anti-discrimination rules in general, but should a religious school be forced to accept applications from homosexual teachers or students who have shown in their previous schooling to be incorrigible? I think not. However, the government funds would tie the hands of the schools, no matter how loudly government agencies claim now that this would not occur. A second problem, also dealing with oversight, comes in the form of educational accountability. I have extremely mixed feelings about this concept, having seen it abusing teachers and students in public schools. However, it would only be a matter of time before schools accepting government funds are forced to submit their students to standardized exams that would prove, one way or another, that they had learned what the government has decided is the bare minimum for a graduating senior to know. This amounts to control, and I mean a death-grip, over the curriculum of schools. If you don't think so, just ask any public school teacher in Texas! Would there be room in a religious school for Bible class? Would the government test allow for the fair hearing that creationism is receiving in such a school? What about sex education? The questions just go on and on! Such a blurring of the lines between the state's realm and that of the church is intolerable.
This doesn't even begin to address the difficulties such a program would have with special needs students.
I am all for both public education, free for all, and private education that is paid for by families. I would love to see Christian groups, possibly associations of churches, provide a better, and financially viable education option that is available to more and more people. However, I reject the temptation to grasp the funds of the state for the use of the church.
Since I was, and am still licensed as, a teacher, I would like to address this voucher idea. I am opposed to it. I am opposed for several reasons: it would result in the privatization of all education, it would necessarily promote a greater disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" in our society, and it would create a terrible breach of the separation of church and state, which would drive religious schools to bend completely to the will of the state or get out of the education business (ministry?) altogether.
As to the privatization of education, this is something of a tricky thing to say. Technically, a public education is now free to all children of the appropriate ages in the USA. This is technical because it is paid for by society through property taxes primarily, as well as other state and federal monies, so that parents who are property owners are paying for their children to be educated. Under this new system, once vouchers are distributed (never mind the massive bureaucratic headache that would be!) they would become a form of money, which could then be exchanged for an education or part of one. I say "part of one" because there are plenty of schools, even some public schools, that spend more per year on a student than the voucher would be for. Also, and this bleeds over to my second objection, there will certainly be private schools that increase their tuition so that they can control who applies and is admitted to their schools. While I am generally in favor of privatization, this is not true in fields so important as education. The majority of children are at the mercy of whatever system is in place, usually simply because their parents don't care one way or another. With a system like this, parents would necessarily have a greater role to play. This would be wonderful for those parents who are responsible, but would be a tragedy for the rest.
As to this plan encouraging a widening of the gap between those who are wealthy and those who are not, it seems obvious to me. Imagine a private academy in Manhattan and a public school in the Bronx less than 2 miles away. Also, assume for the point of argument that both schools cost the same amount, which would correspond to the amount of the voucher given to parents at each. It is obvious that the private school cannot accommodate all the students from both schools. It is also obvious that at least some of the parents sending their kids to the private school do so because they do not want their kids to be influenced by what can be found at the public school, included the people there. Is it not but a simple thing for the private academy to raise their rates, maybe even double them, in order to hold attendance there out of reach of the public schoolers? The result would not hurt the private school families, who were already paying that amount out of their pockets and would promote greed on the part of the private academy. The result is really a continuance of the status quo that would, I think, result in an even weaker public school.
The most important reason to reject this idea is the commingling between the church and state that would occur in any religious schools that accepted these vouchers, which they would almost have to do to stay competitive. This is true for a couple of reasons, two of which I will look at more closely. First, any education institution accepting the vouchers would have government oversight of the people it admitted and rejected for attendance. Of course, I'm not against anti-discrimination rules in general, but should a religious school be forced to accept applications from homosexual teachers or students who have shown in their previous schooling to be incorrigible? I think not. However, the government funds would tie the hands of the schools, no matter how loudly government agencies claim now that this would not occur. A second problem, also dealing with oversight, comes in the form of educational accountability. I have extremely mixed feelings about this concept, having seen it abusing teachers and students in public schools. However, it would only be a matter of time before schools accepting government funds are forced to submit their students to standardized exams that would prove, one way or another, that they had learned what the government has decided is the bare minimum for a graduating senior to know. This amounts to control, and I mean a death-grip, over the curriculum of schools. If you don't think so, just ask any public school teacher in Texas! Would there be room in a religious school for Bible class? Would the government test allow for the fair hearing that creationism is receiving in such a school? What about sex education? The questions just go on and on! Such a blurring of the lines between the state's realm and that of the church is intolerable.
This doesn't even begin to address the difficulties such a program would have with special needs students.
I am all for both public education, free for all, and private education that is paid for by families. I would love to see Christian groups, possibly associations of churches, provide a better, and financially viable education option that is available to more and more people. However, I reject the temptation to grasp the funds of the state for the use of the church.
Friday, February 09, 2007
What Are You Praying For? How 'bout Revival?
I've been taking a wonderful class this semester all about revivals and awakenings that have occurred in the past, especially the role of students (teenagers and college students) in them. This has been easily the most exciting class I've had in seminary, with philosophy of religion taking a close second, believe it or not.
My professor is a man of God who prays hard and has a heart for God's work in students' lives, and he has shared with his classes that he feels that revival is soon to come to the church in America. There are all sorts of reasons to think this, too. For example, one thing that has preceded every single revival is moral/spiritual decline. You need only look briefly at a news website, such as foxnews.com, to see that this is increasingly true of our culture. Just tonight I see on that site's main page stories about the following: Anna Nicole Smith's death and the controversy over her daughter's paternity, Elie Wiesel's being attacked by a holocaust-denier, a man who kept the body of his homosexual partner frozen so that he could keep receiving pension checks, a Disney employee who acts as the Beast from Beauty and the Beast and has been arrested on child pornography charges, and a pastor in New York who committed suicide after being caught by the local television station engaging in a homosexual relationship and entering an "adult bookstore." Our culture is literally coming apart at the seems. Each institution is failing, from our schools to our families. We are certainly in decline.
However, this decline is not what I'm really after here. What I want to communicate is what my professor has said several times now to me. One other thing that has been common with every revival is that it was preceded by prayer, sometimes the prayer of a few and sometimes by more. This is not to say that God is in a box and does things the same way every time, but the fact that He has chosen to bring a refreshing of His Spirit when His people have earnestly asked Him for it should open our eyes. Can we expect that He will revive us now without our earnest prayer? I think the answer is obvious.
So, this brings me to the question: are you asking God on a daily basis to come refresh us with His awesome Presence? Are you crying out to Him to show mercy on our nation and people? I have been incredibly convicted that my prayer is too often inward and lacking the sort of direction that God would have for me. Would you join with me in beginning to daily lay our desire, our need, for His Spirit to come powerfully upon us, our churches, and our nation? It is time we shed the tears of brokenness before our God!
My professor is a man of God who prays hard and has a heart for God's work in students' lives, and he has shared with his classes that he feels that revival is soon to come to the church in America. There are all sorts of reasons to think this, too. For example, one thing that has preceded every single revival is moral/spiritual decline. You need only look briefly at a news website, such as foxnews.com, to see that this is increasingly true of our culture. Just tonight I see on that site's main page stories about the following: Anna Nicole Smith's death and the controversy over her daughter's paternity, Elie Wiesel's being attacked by a holocaust-denier, a man who kept the body of his homosexual partner frozen so that he could keep receiving pension checks, a Disney employee who acts as the Beast from Beauty and the Beast and has been arrested on child pornography charges, and a pastor in New York who committed suicide after being caught by the local television station engaging in a homosexual relationship and entering an "adult bookstore." Our culture is literally coming apart at the seems. Each institution is failing, from our schools to our families. We are certainly in decline.
However, this decline is not what I'm really after here. What I want to communicate is what my professor has said several times now to me. One other thing that has been common with every revival is that it was preceded by prayer, sometimes the prayer of a few and sometimes by more. This is not to say that God is in a box and does things the same way every time, but the fact that He has chosen to bring a refreshing of His Spirit when His people have earnestly asked Him for it should open our eyes. Can we expect that He will revive us now without our earnest prayer? I think the answer is obvious.
So, this brings me to the question: are you asking God on a daily basis to come refresh us with His awesome Presence? Are you crying out to Him to show mercy on our nation and people? I have been incredibly convicted that my prayer is too often inward and lacking the sort of direction that God would have for me. Would you join with me in beginning to daily lay our desire, our need, for His Spirit to come powerfully upon us, our churches, and our nation? It is time we shed the tears of brokenness before our God!
Wild at Heart - A Short Review
Let me start out by saying that this book by John Eldredge has literally been life-changing for me. I had heard good things about it before I read it, but I was blown away by the insight into manhood that was contained between the covers. I often felt like the author was writing about me, personally, and this is not limited to me. Several other men I've discussed the book with have expressed similar feelings. It addresses some of the core issues that Christian men face.
I learned quite a few things about myself and my standing with God through reading this book, but I'll save you all from a long post and just talk about the thing that has affected me the most.
For quite some time I've dealt with a sense of impossibility about my Christian walk, my spiritual life. That is, I felt that I never could measure up to God's requirements for me because there was something fundamentally wrong with me, as if at my core there still lay sin. Now, I'm nowhere near perfect, but I've been learning through this book what it means to have become a new creation in Christ Jesus. Part of what that means is that no longer is a Christian fundamentally broken because of sin at his or her core. Rather, a Christian is now fundamentally good. All that remains of the old self is what Eldredge calls the Traitor within who lies and cajoles to get us back into old habits of sin, and this is only a dying part, no longer what defines the Christian. God has made us good, righteous, and holy in Christ, and that is something to rejoice about! I find myself overcome even now as I type!
If you haven't read this book, please do. You don't have to be a man, either. Women would gain a huge understanding of men, as well as of thier relationships with men from this.
I learned quite a few things about myself and my standing with God through reading this book, but I'll save you all from a long post and just talk about the thing that has affected me the most.
For quite some time I've dealt with a sense of impossibility about my Christian walk, my spiritual life. That is, I felt that I never could measure up to God's requirements for me because there was something fundamentally wrong with me, as if at my core there still lay sin. Now, I'm nowhere near perfect, but I've been learning through this book what it means to have become a new creation in Christ Jesus. Part of what that means is that no longer is a Christian fundamentally broken because of sin at his or her core. Rather, a Christian is now fundamentally good. All that remains of the old self is what Eldredge calls the Traitor within who lies and cajoles to get us back into old habits of sin, and this is only a dying part, no longer what defines the Christian. God has made us good, righteous, and holy in Christ, and that is something to rejoice about! I find myself overcome even now as I type!
If you haven't read this book, please do. You don't have to be a man, either. Women would gain a huge understanding of men, as well as of thier relationships with men from this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)