Where Do You Stand?

It was on this day in 1521 that a man stood before the supreme court of his land and answered charges brought by the most powerful figures of his time. The man was an outspoken rebel in the eyes of the authorities, a well-loved hero to his followers. His friends advised him to go into hiding and avoid the unpleasantness that would surely ensue from his court appearance. He did nothing to mask his fearfulness, as reports from those watching reveal. With shaking knees and wavering voice he stood at his arraignment and said, loosely translated, "Guilty as charged."

Fast forward a few centuries. Last night another world famous leader stood before an assembly of powerful people. His directive was not to answer explicit charges, but rather to report on how successfully his agenda has been implemented and how he hoped to continue his program. There are those in this country who do bring explicit charges: deception, dissembling, arrogance and broken promises have led Democrat and Republican alike to find occasion for indictment. Unlike the man from the sixteenth century, the man on stage last night ran into hiding in plain sight behind empty rhetoric, vacuous platitudes and disingenuous distortion.

What is the connection between Martin Luther and Barak Obama, one might ask. I was struck by the stark contrast between the two approaches to public commitment of private belief. True, one is hard pressed to know exactly what Barak Obama thinks about anything. He sat in a church where black liberation theology was preached for twenty years, yet claims he holds none of the beliefs that were espoused. During his presidential campaign he decried the lack of transparency in Washington politics, yet once elected he backtracked on Internet review of all legislation, C-span broadcasted hearings, and other open door ideas. Candidate Obama said lobbyists were the bane of D.C. until he filled his advisory posts with them. He said he'd close Guantanamo, end the war, stop global warming and cure acne. (I just wrote that to see if you were paying attention.)

Unless I am totally misreading history, there was once a day when men said what they meant and meant what they said. Try to imagine what the 1776 deliberations in Philadelphia would have been like if today's typical politicians were seated in that tiny hall. Instead of Hale's philosophy that dared to say, "my only regret is that I have not more lives than one to offer in [my country's] service.," it would have been, "Let us attempt nothing here except that which will ensure bountiful payment for our service." Jefferson's pledge to sacrifice, "our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor," sounds distant, foreign, even foolish to modern ears.

Let's all join the Marines, at least in spirit: we are looking for a few good men. If last night's performance by President Obama upset you, remember that feeling when candidates begin to knock on your door or ring your phone soliciting support ahead of the elections this November. Tell it like it is, "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!" Support only men, if you can find those of whom you can approve, who will say of their position, "Here I stand; God help me. Amen." Make Luther proud, even if you're not Lutheran.

Hunting for Gaia's Benefit

The trend in the ecology movement toward restricting human activities based on their perceived damage to the environment has risen to such heights lately that one wonders if the atmosphere way up there contains too little oxygen to sustain critical thinking. I strongly favor practices which enhance our environment and make wise use of natural resources, but much of what passes for green thinking today is neither green nor thinking.

The recent flap over emails between scientists regarding the veracity of the global warming theory presents a good case study. Ever since the unveiling of the UNFCCC study proclaiming that the earth was being warmed to dangerous levels by human activities, there has been some question as to the truthfulness of the claims. Al Gore aside (please) many reputable contributors withdrew their support of the UN summary almost as soon as it was published. There never was a consensus among climatologists concerning the human factor in global temperature trends. The twenty-five framers of the climate summary did not by any means represent all twenty-five hundred contributors. The data which have accumulated in the decade since the debate began are now beginning to suggest the earth is actually in a period of cooling, not warming. (See Global Cooling.) Regardless of one's view of climate change, it is doubtful that anything we can reasonably do will matter significantly.

It does seem that some of our human efforts fall flat. In the Amazon jungle of Peru, well-intentioned eco-tourists have built camps to import and inform wealthy Americans. In some cases the locals despise the "share nothing, buy nothing" posture of the intruders because it often involves dismantling the local economy. The intruders would have us believe that the age-old practices of harvesting animals or plants for the community's survival will end civilization as we know it. Pay no attention to the fact that the natives have been living off the land for millenia, whereas the infant eco-movement has existed for no time at all by comparison.

Consider also the arguments of the anti-hunters like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Humane Society. They insist that hunting is a cruel mistreatment of our fellow planet travelers. They equate shooting game animals with shooting humans. This strikes me as particularly ironic since many PETA members would also be in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion. How it can be ethical to kill an unborn human, but unethical to kill an elk or bear I do not know. Leaving that inconsistency aside, there is still much to question in the logic of the anti-hunters.

The situation with Whitetail deer in Michigan (or any state in which they are hunted) will serve to illustrate the problem. The loss to agriculture caused by browsing deer is phenomenal in some areas. Entire crops can be ruined by deer if their numbers are too high in a given area. The number of car/deer accidents also rises dramatically when the density of deer increases. This not only kills deer, but costs motorists dearly in insurance or repair costs. The deer themselves suffer from malnutrition and often death by starvation when a herd outgrows the region's ability to sustain it. Finally, revenues from deer licenses bought by hunters fund numerous deer management activities by state game departments. These government programs are designed increase the overall health of the deer population. Ask the Michigan DNR how long the deer herd in Michigan would stay healthy without the thousands of hunters who "prey" on deer every fall.

The other side of the hunting equation comes up when humans or the animals they have domesticated become the prey. Wolves, bears, pumas and coyotes kill thousands of domestic animals and attack and often kill hundreds of humans every year. Yet in places where there is a recognized problem with predatory wild animals, PETA and the like still oppose hunting these killers. The bear maulings in New Jersey a few years ago provide a perfect example. Even though black bears had moved into areas densely populated by humans, and even though they had demonstrated a lack of fear of humans, then Governor Whitman had to retract a bear hunting season due to pressure from animal activists. (See Bear Problem.)

I am enough of a Calvinist to agree that Genesis gives Christians a creation mandate. We should be careful to preserve and maintain our environment. We are, after all, only stewards of this planet, not the owners. But I also believe that reasonable use of the resources given by the Creator is part of the mandate to have dominion. PETA and her vegetarian friends notwithstanding, animals were given by God for food. While I can accept the vegan's right to choose his lifestyle, I don't have to agree that it is a Biblical choice; it is amoral.

Likewise, while I can understand why a person may choose to drive a hybrid vehicle, I find neither scientific nor Scriptural evidence that my gas guzzling V-8 pickup truck is morally wrong. The gas I burn on my way up north to hunt deer is government mandated low lead; the exhaust is scrubbed with a government mandated catalytic converter; I shoot only the number of deer I am allotted on my government mandated license. All in all, I render unto Caesar his due. Having done that, I render the rest unto God.

Darwin on Disaster Relief

Ten days after the event, the earthquake in Haiti still tops the news and pops into almost every conversation that makes it past the weather. In today's lightning round news cycle this is amazing longevity, even for a tragedy of such mammoth proportions. Last night millions of dollars were pledged during a benefit concert televised around the world. It's a repeat of the reaction to Katrina, the Indonesian tsunami, and countless other disasters natural and man made. There is something in the human soul that bends it toward pain and suffering.

It doesn't take thousands of bodies or national news coverage to incite us either. I just read of a family restaurant in a tiny Iowa town that burned to the ground. Townsfolk and patrons (some hundreds of miles distant) pitched in to help rebuild -- twice in one year. In that case, the Amish were among those involved. While these religious iconoclasts are famous for helping their own in trouble, this incident showed their generosity reaches the "English" as well. Other towns without Amish influence have similar stories of neighbors making significant sacrifices to restore a neighbor's welfare.

I have just experienced a similar sentiment personally, though in a far less tragic circumstance. My wife required eye surgery which entailed a two week convalescence with her face down 24/7. Karen's hairdresser, manicurist and masseuse each made house calls; numerous friends phoned, visited or sent cards, and several people brought meals to our door on a prearranged schedule determined by a group at our church. This is just the physical side of support which Karen attests included prayers for her well-being that were palpable. I am humbled by the genuine concern of so many caring friends.

Theologians suggest that this type of reaction to exigency within the human family intimates a divine origin of the species. This is a powerful argument. If the self-centered protectiveness of Darwinian survival were central to our being, how would one explain the almost universal desire to help the bruised and fallen among our neighbors? Wouldn't it make sense to guard our personal resources against despoiling by those too weak to fend for themselves? If only the strong survive then charity is foolishness.

It's no surprise to me that Darwin appears to be wrong again. Not only is evolution entirely without foundation in the field of biology, it makes no sense in the fields of mayhem and destruction caused by natural or personal disaster. Darwin's famous "black box" has been opened to his utter demise, philosophically speaking. And the church's collection box opens at every instance of human need to further declare that there exists within us the essence of something that is from beyond us. The ancient wisdom of Solomon correctly declares that the Creator has placed in each human heart a longing that outstrips the mortal frame.

I much prefer to notice a spark of divinity within humanity than to suppose we have climbed to some pinnacle of evolutionary height through mindless chance and fortuitous circumstance. Darwinism and theism each require more than a modicum of faith. I will take Pascal's wager and go all in, believing that we are better off with our money resting on the God number on the roulette wheel of life. In this case, as in every casino everywhere, the house always wins. Only in this case, I own a piece of the house.

Helping Haiti

I almost never read anything found on the Huffington Post, but a rabbit trail led me there this morning. I was not surprised to find a blogger, Rev. Paul Raushenbush, upset that Pat Robertson has made another controversial statement about a natural disaster. Pat Robertson thought it relevant to mention that Haitians had once made a pact with the devil. A press release by Robertson's CBN says, "His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. .... Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath." In response to Robertson's comments, the Rev. Raushenbush invited Mr. Robertson to "go to hell... the sooner the better."

I am generally skeptical of people who wear "Rev." like a badge. (Think "Rev." Jessie Jackson or "Rev." Al Sharpton) Often, there is little to revere in such persons. Raushenbush, an ordained American Baptist minister and associate dean of religious life at Princeton, applauds the work of the Parliament of World Religions, which he says represents "a celebration of religious pluralism." Being associated with Princeton is not necessarily anathema, but praising the work of an organization which pushes the notion that there are many paths to god reduces one's Christian credibility past the limit. Certainly, his public condemnation of Pat Robertson to hell is regrettable at best.

Beyond the fatigue with Robertson's foot-in-mouth tendency, what are we to think of this situation. No Christian who is vaguely aware should be surprised that liberal "christians" find fault with those who would attach spiritual consequences to physical actions. One hopes that Rev. Raushenbush does at least recognize that natural disasters are in fact the result of human sin. But then, perhaps he does not. Sin is seldom spoken of in liberal circles these days. Maybe it wouldn't be ridiculous to think an American Baptist minister no longer holds to the historical, orthodox doctrine of the consequences of the fall. Maybe he doesn't even believe in the fall.

This is why belief in an authoritative, accurate Word of God is so important. We will never understand human evil or natural disaster if we disregard what the fall of man implies. God's perfect creation has been subjected to a curse due to the failure of our first parents. The conditions we now experience are not what the Creator intended. The rebellion of Adam, God's vice-regent on earth, cast the whole creation into disarray, a situation which will continue until the re-creation at the last day. Without this doctrine, one is left to muddle about in whatever platitudes or pessimism which may come to mind.

What about Haiti? Raushenbush is mostly right in saying, "Haiti is suffering, and the only response from Christians and other decent human beings is compassion, love, and all the concrete support we can supply." What he misses here is the call to prayer, especially the most urgent of all prayers, the intercession for all lost souls. What Haiti needs more than food or water or infrastructure is revival. All of the world's people are in a pact with the devil, a pact imposed upon us by Adam, not some rebels in 1791. Pat Robertson's mistake is that he speaks too broadly to a public which has no basis for understanding. Rev. Raushenbush's mistake is his condemnation of a fellow Christian (assumptions admitted.) I wonder how that kind of judgment would play in the Parliament of World Religions if the Rev. condemned a Jew, Muslim or Buddhist.

Of Rats and Sinking Ships

The news cycle rotates so fast that it is like trying to watch the spokes on a speeding bicycle wheel. In the last few weeks, several prominent Democrats have announced that they will not seek re-election or may switch parties. During this fiasco the voters in New Jersey elected the Republican candidate for governor and Massachusetts elected a Republican replacement for Ted Kennedy. Recently, the Vice President Byden's son, Beau, withdrew from his congressional race in Delaware. Joe Lieberman concedes that he might consider switching again, this time to the Republican camp. The rumors are flying today that Rahm Emmanuel may be on his way out too (back to Chicago, not to the enemy.)

Be still my swiftly beating heart. Can it be that "we the people" are actually waking up this fast? Some of us knew that Barak Obama was a fraud all the way back in the Democrat primaries. Some of us were surprised to watch him crush the Clinton machine. As much as we admire Senator John McCain, we were less than elated with him as an opponent for Obama. In the mold of Gerry Ford and Bob Dole (G.W. Bush also, to a great degree,) McCain was too much the conciliatory go along to get along senatorial type. We wanted a strong (dare I say Reaganesque) conservative spokesperson to counter Obama's far left misanthropy.

The only surprising thing about President Obama is how quickly he has fallen into disfavor, and how deeply the dissatisfaction runs. No American President in history has fallen so far so fast in the public opinion polls. Jimmy Carter runs a close second, deservedly so. But Obama's flame-out is the more dramatic considering that he had a congressional majority behind him that Jimmy could only dream of. But then too, Barak had two of the most inept leaders imaginable in Ried and Pelosi. Shoe polishers in Washington D.C. must be among the swelling ranks of the unemployed, what with the frequency with which the legislative leadership lips their own shoes.

There seems to be at least one clear lesson from all this. I have heard it from the professional punditry on TV and radio as well as my friends at the coffee shop: Americans do not appreciate a single party monopoly. The two party system, for all its shortcomings, does generally provide for a degree of the check and balance that our nation's founders intended. When the executive, legislative and (stacked) judicial branches coalesce in single party dominance, there are only foxes left to guard the chicken house. Not to strain the metaphor, but even foxes can see the potential for mischief in this situation.

Undeniably, Christians are divided politically. Some see Obama's program to help the less fortunate with the wealth of the more fortunate as a noble attempt. Others see it for what it is: legislated robbery, no more moral than the program of Al Capone (a Chicago power broker of days gone by.) Stealing money from the rich to help the poor is only a good thing if your name is Robin Hood and you are pitching Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. I have previously blogged on the subject of compelling good deeds; it doesn't work and it is immoral.

If there is Christian hay to be made in the sun of these Democrat dog days, it is in reminding people of the principles upon which our republic was founded. Socialistic wealth re-distribution was tried in the early days of the American experiment; it failed miserably then, as it has everywhere else it has been tried. For all its risk due to the sinfulness of humans, the capitalist free market system is still the most likely of all the alternatives to provide the best opportunities for the nation which embraces it. Free capital markets and free idea markets will allow for the best to rise to the top.

Christians must agitate for freedom. Truth will eventually prove true; right will eventually defeat might; justice will eventually prevail. The enemy is not the Democrats, the Muslims, the illegal immigrants or the name-your-pet-adversary. The enemy is darkness. Christians are called to be light. Toss the bushel basket and head for the nearest hill; that's your calling.

Make Me Be Good

I always know that God is teaching me something when He layers the lessons from multiple sources in my life. A month ago I decided to re-read Francis Schaeffer's He is There and He is not Silent. Not coincidentally (with God there are no coincidences) I was recently asked to teach a lesson capsulizing the Christian world-view. Who better to reference than Schaeffer? Then my devotional reading (two additional re-reads) in Yancey's The Jesus I Never Knew and Stephen James' Sailing Between the Stars each brought fresh insights to the table as well.

Schaeffer says that the Christian world-view offers the only rational explanation of why there is such moral confusion in the world: this condition is abnormal. The report of the fall from grace in Genesis three is not just a morality play; it is the basis for everything that has gone wrong since. Trying to make sense of the human condition without understanding how we got here is like explaining email without reference to the Internet.

We are moral creatures; this is a moral universe; the Creator made it that way. But we are, as G. K. Chesterton says, "broken gods," or in Blaise Pascal's formulation: "fallen princes." We know intuitively that some things are right and some things are wrong; we often wish to right those wrongs which appall us particularly. But as one dear soul recently complained, how do we know who to help when we are bombarded by needs every day?

When Philip Yancey was visiting Russia in 1991 after the fall of communism, an editor of Pravda, once an atheistic mouthpiece, ironically complained, "We don't know how to motivate people to show compassion.... How do you reform and motivate people? How do you get them to be good?" Yancey's reply: "Goodness cannot be imposed externally, from the top down; it must grow internally, from the bottom up."

Which leads me to the political situation we find ourselves in regarding health care reform. Universal health care stands as a symbol for the human desire to rage against the effects of the fall. Physical sickness plays as a metaphor for the metaphysical disease that plagues the whole world system. Most conservative politicians understand this no better than their progressive counterparts. Conservatives have allowed the premise to be assumed that health care is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The whole gang in Washington D.C. is trying to negate the consequences of the fall through legislation. They are trying to get us to be good, as the Russian editor put it.

Study the history of health care, hospitals in particular, and you will find that for millennia the care of diseased or injured persons was thought to be a responsibility of religion. The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. urged Christians to build hospitals in every cathedral city. Well into the nineteenth century virtually all health care in the west was either provided by non-profit religious institutions or paid for by the recipients. The growth of the insurance industry in the last century finally made health care profitable, shifting the burden away from the church. Shared risk allowed people to bear the costs health care without relying on charity.

But insurance used to be optional; those who could afford it bought protection. The debate in Washington now seems to assume that either health care itself, or at least the insurance to pay for care is a human right. Some proponents of universal health care equate their opponents with those who stood against civil rights in the last century. But is the right to vote or work or live where one chooses on the same plane as the right to a free tonsillectomy? Or free birth control or free Viagra?

I am not unmoved by the plight of those who have need of physical care they can not afford. I am unmoved by the argument that the government has the right to force me to pay those unmet costs. (See my "Open Letter to Debbie Stabenow.") Helping those in need is good; forcing people to be good is not. Call me Pollyanna, but I believe that if the health insurance industry and its related costs went away today, there would be enough charity in the hearts of men to care for everyone who truly needed care, but could not afford to pay for it. That would be the Christian way; but as President Obama recently opined, we are not a Christian nation anymore.

What Are You Waiting For?

It is the second day of a new year, a year marking the beginning of a decade. 01.02.2010 is a numerical palindrome, which is fitting because I am both looking back and forward at the same time. Looking back at the decade we have been through -- terrorist attacks, economic distress, social turmoil, political upheaval -- it is easy to wish it good riddance. Some people think these conditions herald the end of the age, the Last Days, the birth pangs of a new world coming.

I occasionally find myself wishing the end might be near. After all, several of Jesus' parables admonish us to watch and wait for His return. However, the Lord also suggested that we occupy our time wisely while anticipating His coming. Those who sell everything and head for a mountain top to await the blessed reunion are missing this vital aspect of His teaching. But I sometimes wonder if many of us aren't behaving more like the servant who buried his talent or the bridesmaids who ran out of oil.

Looking forward to the Lord's return and overlooking the Lord's work is a comfortable trap. Like so much of Christian thinking, the proper attitude toward the future feels like a paradox. We are to live for today, giving no thought for where tomorrow's bread will come from, because only fools build giant storehouses; yet we are to study the ant and lay up stores for a coming winter. Although we have no true earthly dwelling place, we must build our houses upon the rock, counting the cost to assure sufficient means to complete the project. Finding the balance in this is a challenging tight rope walk.

It is also a mistake to look forward with expectations for nothing but blessings in the material plane. I am well aware that some Christians believe physical prosperity is a measure of spiritual faith. This just doesn't line up with New Testament teaching or the experience of centuries of faithful saints. Jesus had the chance to proclaim the prosperity gospel during His confrontation with the Devil. Satan challenged the Lord to stake His claim in the material realm and our Savior steadfastly refused. "In the world," He later promised, "you will have tribulation. But be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

And so we wait. The already/not yet nature of our existence is frustrating in the extreme. But we must live our lives in that tension: Christ conquered the enemy by living a sinless life and then giving it up on the cross, and our ultimate victory is assured by His resurrection from the dead; but our struggle with the world, the flesh and the Devil will not be over until we die or Jesus returns for us. The question is, what are you waiting for. The kingdom of heaven starts now; the next heavenly deed is yours for the doing. If you want 2010 to be better than 2009, don't waste any time waiting for things to get better. Make them better starting now.