Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 14
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 13
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 12
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 11
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 10
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 9
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 8
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 7
We spent the afternoon doing laundry and relaxing around the campground. That evening we watched the lighting ceremony at Mount Rushmore which was very inspiring (despite the ranger with her elementary school teacher style of talking s-l-o-w-l-y about how the four presidents portrayed were known for taking "risks.")
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 6
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 5
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 4
Wednesday, July 16 - We crammed as much of Yellowstone into one day as we could, seeing many amazing sites, including Old Faithful (no pictures unfortunately because our camera battery died right before it erupted!) We saw many other geysers and geothermal features, plus lots of bison and other wildlife, and the "Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone" river and falls. We were especially impressed with the volume of water in the rivers and in Yellowstone Lake, wondering where it all flowed from since Yellowstone straddles the Continental Divide, and is a relatively level area.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 3
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 2
Monday, July 14 - In the morning the mechanic informed us that he could not recreate the problem we were having, and his best guess was that it was caused by overfilling of the transmission fluid which then overflowed when heated. We praised God for a wonderful answer to the many prayers (thanks to all you who were praying for us!) and continued on, making it to Provo, Utah for our second night, losing one day at Yellowstone because of the delay. After dinner in Provo we visited a small, but beautiful waterfall, just out of the city, that had been recommended by a local we met at dinner. We managed to get some nice pictures of Bridal Veil Falls despite the gathering dusk.next...
Cross-Country Trip - Summer of 2008 - Day 1
next...
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Why and How Jesus Would Vote - Part 2
As the author of life, God is committed to protecting the lives even of those who have for any reason taken the lives of others. Candidates should be evaluated by their commitment not to protecting life as it is unborn, but to protecting even the lives of criminals who are incarcerated in states that support the death penalty for heinous crimes. God values all life that he alone has created.
As the author of life, God is committed to protecting the lives the innocent, and candidates should be evaluated by their commitment to protecting the unborn. On the other hand, the state may (and perhaps even should) require that those who have wilfully taken the lives of the innocent be punished by having their own lives taken in return.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Why and How Jesus Would Vote - Part 1
Point 1:
The day of voters electing candidates simply because they oppose abortion or vow protection of the unborn for nine months while in the womb, yet refuse to provide heathcare, quality education, housing, safe streets, a fair justice system, and a livable environment once the child is born, is hopefully over. Candidates should be evaluated based on their commitment to a government that values all of life---from the womb to the grave.My response:
Per Cardinal Egan of New York (from Hugh Hewitt):
We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.Given that Jesus would insist that a candidate oppose abortion, it is not the only issue on which we may decide who to elect to office. We should certainly take into account the candidate's effectiveness in dealing with other social issues. However, it is not necessarily the responsibility of the federal government to deal with all of the issues listed above. Safe streets are largely the responsibility of the local government, as are quality schools. The experiences of Canada and England indicate that socializing healthcare may well make it less accessible to those who now can easily obtain it. So while the candidates we elect should be concerned about these issues, they may sometimes best demonstrate that concern by doing nothing directly about them and leaving the resolution of the issue to those best equipped to do the work well.
Friday, August 15, 2008
To judge or not to judge.
B. Snyder...
There are times when the plain sense of one passage of Scripture contradicts the plain sense of another passage. An obvious example of this is Proverbs 26:4-5. When that happens, you can either decide that one passage is wrong, or, if you honor the authority of all of Scripture, try to look a little deeper to find out how the two passages are to be understood in a way that does justice to them both. For example, I conclude from the Proverbs 26 passage I just mentioned that there is no safe way to deal with a fool, for whether one answers him or not, you cannot avoid getting into trouble. The contradiction of the plain sense of the two verses is a way of highlighting the quandary we find ourselves in in this case.
One has to do the same thing with Jesus' warnings not to judge and the statements he and others make in Scripture urging us to judge. You can either assume that one of them is wrong (as you seem to assume Paul is) or you can try to honor both of them by looking a little deeper into them. If you assume Paul is wrong in 1 Cor 5, you also (it would seem), have to assume that a number of other "judgmental" passages in the NT are wrong as well, e.g. Gal 1:6-9, Romans 3:10-18, 2 Peter 2, 1 John 4:8. Since I'm unwilling to assume that any of the authors were in error in writing what they did, I assume that the judging Jesus forbids is not the judging that Paul, Peter or John are doing. In particular, I conclude that Jesus is talking to people with planks in their eyes who are making judgments against people who only have dust specks in their eyes. The planks may be spiritual pride, hypocrisy or any of a number of other very toxic sins, while the dust specks are probably things that may not be sins at all (e.g. styles of clothing or music). In any case, the person with the plank needs to realize that he will be examined by God as closely as he is examining his neighbor, and he may not like the results.
But when we have dealt with the planks in our own eyes (like Jesus says we should), we may be able to deal with the dust specks (or planks) in the eyes of others. This is what Paul is doing in 1 Cor 5, and what I'm claiming that we need to do more often than we are.
You have concluded that my primary target here is "the way the Church treats homosexual persons," and argued that the same approach that I use to justify judging can be used to justify homosexual behavior. You are welcome to try this, but I don't think it will work. For one thing, there are no passages in Scripture whose plain sense is "sex between two men or two women is ok." So you don't have anything that contradicts the passages in both the OT and NT whose plain sense is that such sexual behavior is wrong, and thus no justification for looking for a deeper meaning than the plain sense of these passages.
Absent any internal contraction of this sort in the plain sense of Scripture, you seem ready to resort to love or reason or to override the plain sense of Scripture. But it is neither loving nor rational to encourage people to do what Scripture forbids, regardless of how much they want to do it. If God says through Paul
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21)then it is the height of irresponsibility to encourage people to go on with a little drunkenness, or bit of sorcery or some occasional sexual immorality on the assumption that their faith or other good works will override these sins and that God will forgive it all in the end. The truly loving and rational act is to warn people to stay away at all costs from these behaviors, because the pleasure that comes from them cannot possibly compensate for the loss of the kingdom of God. And if it takes ejecting some people from the church (and I do not restrict this group to the those who are sexually immoral) to make clear to them their peril (as Paul recommended in 1 Cor 5), then that is what love and reason should urge us to do. Though we can't say for sure, 2 Cor 2:5-8 appears to indicate that this strategy worked in Paul's case.
Friday, May 09, 2008
The ID controversy is similar in a number of ways to the other major point of scientific controversy today, that of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In both cases, the scientific establishment is adamant that the point is settled in their favor and that it is an affront even to question the "scientific consensus." Anyone who does question the consensus is assumed to have an ulterior motive, either religious or commercial, and is dismissed without serious consideration. The mainstream media has taken the side of the establishment in both cases and generally refuses to seriously investigate either the tactics that the establishment uses to defend its position or the legitimacy of the arguments uses to put forward dissenting views. How is it, I wondered, that the same sort of battle has developed around these two particular issues? Could these issues be manifestations of a single deeper spiritual purpose that could account for the similarity of these reactions?
One of the points that Expelled clearly made was that Darwinian thought has provided justification for people pursuing dehumanizing thoughts and behaviors. The principle of "survival of the fittest" nurtured Hitler's efforts to destroy the Jews and create of the German people a superior race. The conviction that human beings are simply highly evolved animals has allowed Darwin and others since him to conveniently hold the conviction that it was ok to treat human beings as a farmer would treat animals; breeding those who seemed likely to produce desirable offspring and killing off those whose cost to society exceeds their perceived value. On the other hand, AGW has justified a kind of hatred of technically advanced human beings as destroyers of the world. The more advanced the society, the larger its "carbon footprint" and therefore the more it is to be hated because of its perceived contribution to a pending global catastrophe.
The combined effect of these two theories is to make both weak and strong human beings liable to destruction. Darwinian survival of the fitness will ensure that the weak (including the unborn and the elderly) will be killed off, while AGW will ensure that the strong get hamstrung to reduce their carbon footprint. When these two ideologies have done their work, only the middle will be left. Since the middle will have its weaker and stronger members as well, they too will be destroyed in time. Left unchecked, these forces will destroy humanity.
This looks very much like spiritual warfare to me. If so, a victory in either of these areas will require combat in the spiritual arena. The Christian conviction of the dignity of all human beings as bearers of the image of God and stewards of the world is under serious assault by both of these movements and we must take up our spiritual weapons to defend this conviction, or else we may find ourselves losing the benefits that Christianity has brought to western civilization.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Satan's strategy.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
That pent up desire.
When I think about the dynamics of sin, I find it helpful to look at Genesis 3:1-6, which is probably the finest short exposition of how sin works there is. The passage reads as follows:
3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate (ESV).There's a lot that can be said about this passage, but for now it's good just to notice that the serpent made God out to be a liar who was depriving Eve of what was rightfully hers and would benefit her greatly if she had it. Once Eve believed this about God the outcome was obvious; she would take the fruit, just as I would have had I been in her place.
In fact this is how I justify much of my sin today; by telling myself that God is wrong to have forbidden what he did, that I'm entitled to have it and that it will greatly benefit me (or others, if I flatter myself into believing that I'm altruistic). As a result, I grab what I want, despite God's prohibition. Or, if I am too weak or afraid to impose my will on the situation in which I find myself, I don't grab what I want, but I harbor in my heart a deep resentment against God for placing me in a situation which prevents me from having what I need and deserve.
What happens when I become a Christian? Hopefully I am less prone to claim that God is wrong when he forbids things that I want and more likely to believe that some (at least) of my desires for things may be wrong. But I still encounter things that God appears to be forbidding (or at least refusing to make possible) that are (to my eyes at least) manifestly good or even necessary. What do I do with these?
In C. S. Lewis's allegory The Pilgrim's Regress the main character John asks the heroic lady Reason what would happen "if a man wanted to know [something] so badly that he would die unless the question was decided --- and no more evidence turned up." Reason's answer was simple; "[t]hen he would die, that would be all." Is it possible that if I were to ask God what would happen if I encountered something that I urgently needed and could not get, that he would also answer me "then you would die, that would be all?" Is fatalism the answer to possible disappointment?
I don't think that God wants us to stop caring or to stop striving for what is good or to stop petitioning him to give us what we and others manifestly need. But I need to remember that if God chooses not to give what is good, it is not because he is indifferent to my situation. The worst that can happen to me in this life if God fails to answer my prayer is that I die - and then I go to heaven. I may not get the job I want or my family may not treat me well or society may make terrible choices, but in the end we all die, and what happens then? Do I really believe that God has done in Christ all that needs to be done to make good the suffering and evil in my life and in the lives of those I love, even this present suffering that I find so intolerable?
If I don't really believe this, then I will find myself furious at God for allowing this evil, convinced that nothing can justify the suffering I now endure. But if I look at the cross, I sometimes realize that maybe there are reasons why God permits unjust suffering, and that if I or someone I love finds ourselves in that position we are in good company. And that realization may help the inner urges to subside, if I realize that if they're not satisfied "I'll just die," and that that's not such a bad thing.
