Understanding the Times

What I am about to write will be misunderstood by some people. There will almost certainly be people who do not read carefully and they will miss the finer nuance of what I want to say. In spite of this risk, I want to tackle the subject of Phil Robertson's comments and the church's reaction again. My earlier posts (Just Stop It! and Here Comes the Judge) have had wider than normal readership, so I suspect this is a topic "with legs" as they say in the news business. My third shot will be a response to a response.

Franklin Graham, son of the renowned evangelist, Billy Graham, has commented on the church's response by lamenting the failure of some people to support Robertson. Without being specific, Graham says some even condemned Robertson. He suggests that, "Some churches have fallen into the trap of being politically correct under the guise of tolerance." Conservatives of all types and Christians especially know that "tolerance" is merely a buzz word used by the left to identify a fraternity of like-minded individuals. The left cannot tolerate anyone who does not agree with their program.

I am not about to suggest that the church should "tolerate" sin. God forbid. However, the approach recommended by Graham is as intolerant as anything the left has come up with. He seems to be suggesting a return to hell-fire and brimstone preaching as the best course in our cultural context. With all due respect to Franklin Graham and his family heritage, I doubt that a Jonathon Edwards (or Billy Graham) message will resonate with today's unbelievers. They have lost the language to understand a proposition based on their sinfulness or separation from God. They don't believe in God, so how can a call to repent of their sin and seek divine favor ring any bells.

I am immersed in two books right now which together have begun to recast my thinking about how to reach the 21st century unbeliever. One is Center Church, by Timothy Keller, and the other is God Space, by Doug Pollock. One of Keller's recommendations for effective outreach is that the church must develop an appreciation of its cultural context. He does not mean that we partake or condone what culture encourages, rather that we understand where they are coming from. Pollock ask that Christians "wonder" their way into conversations; by this he means questioning how our target audience has come to the conclusions they have. If I understand him, he would have us meet them where they are.

This approach sounds suspiciously like the one used by Jesus, the friend of sinners. He went to parties; he hung out with riff-raff. He was accused of being a drunkard by his detractors. He understood the times, like the men of Issachar David chose to fight with him. Perhaps he was being all things to all people so that the chance to win some would occur. Franklin Graham is right about sin and right that many churches need to get a little closer to the Bible when they speak. But in this context where the pagan culture is watching us spar over what Phil Robertson said, thumping the Bible and sounding scary will just leave more people wondering what planet we came from. 

Man the Lifeboats! Repost

Imagine a lifeboat drifting away from a ship that just slipped below the surface of a stormy sea. Imagine the lifeboat has a capacity of 20 and there are already 30 people in it. Imagine that because of the extra load, waves regularly wash over the gunwales into the boat, making it necessary to bail constantly to remain afloat. Imagine that you are huddled in that lifeboat with your family, and suddenly someone sees other people in the water swimming toward your boat. You must decide whether to try to rescue them or to avoid them.

In that lifeboat scenario, overloading the boat any more would almost certainly cause it to capsize or sink immediately. Even if the waves subsided and the boat did not founder right away, there would not be enough emergency supplies for the increased number of people if landfall or rescue were more than a few days away. The only way to save some of the people would be for some to remain unsaved. That could mean either leaving those swimming out of the boat, or it could mean exchanging some of the lives in the boat for those in the water. You could offer to put you and your family back in the water so that others could take your place.

This imaginary scene is not as unreal as it may seem. The danger is not from being cast from a sinking ship. Instead it is a sinking economy that has made survival less than certain. By survival, I mean the continuance of the standard of living to which people have become accustomed. The swimmers are immigrants wishing to climb aboard a healthy economy and escape their sinking state. This could apply to the Irish fleeing famine in the 1800's. There have been several scenes like this in Africa lately. The country I have immediately in mind is Great Britain according to a recent story in The Guardian. 

The Brits are discussing a serious problem with immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria, particularly. These two recent additions to the European Economic Community (EEC) have very poor conditions economically. The EEC demands that member nations allow unrestricted immigration from fellow members. Britain fears that a wave of unsavory types would result from continuation of this policy, so they are debating the wisdom of remaining in the EEC. In other words, they are thinking about rowing away from the sinking ship and letting the swimmers fend for themselves rather than sink their own boat.

The parallels to the US immigration situation are obvious. We don't have an outside body dictating open borders, but the social and political climate in the US often seem to dictate just such a thing. It is a complex issue, but one wonders if some employers aren't suggesting tossing a few of us out of the boat in favor of some swimmers. (See Byron York article.) La Raza and other pro-immigration groups like to paint emotional pictures of underprivileged souls looking for a better life in the land of opportunity.

The problem is that we no longer have the seemingly unlimited opportunities we once dreamed. Our ship is foundering. If you take the national debt seriously, some would say we are already taking on water at a rate that makes survival impossible. The true unemployment rate is nearly twice the 7.3% that is currently listed. Cities and even states are either bankrupt (think Detroit) or heading there. None of our social welfare programs have financial sustainability; Social Security runs out of funds in 2033, and Medicare sooner than that. Bringing in more people will simply accelerate the disaster.

The real question is who is responsible. Is Great Britain responsible for the Romanians? Is the rest of Africa responsible for the Sudanese? Is America responsible for everyone in the world? Do the rich have a responsibility to the poor? The answer in the abstract is yes, of course. Practically speaking, it comes down to how much we are willing to give up to provide for those less fortunate than we. The people of Great Britain and the US are filthy rich compared to most of the world's people. The dilemma is that if we let everyone into the boat, we will all drown. If you were expecting me to answer this dilemma, you will be disappointed. I cannot. I know what the church must do. Nations?

Here Comes the Judge

If you have been under a rock for the last week or so, you didn't hear about the ruckus raised by Phil Robertson of the TV phenomenon, Duck Dynasty, when he expressed his belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I blogged on it a few days ago, but I cannot resist another shot at the subject. Every pundit and his self-righteous brother is talking or writing about it. The ignorance on display spans several spheres of thinking. One of those in particular bothers me most.

It is no concern (or surprise) that several commercial entities are joining A&E in their own versions of chastising Robertson. Nor is it any less expected that spokespersons for the GLBT lobby are mouthing their outrage.  Even some detractors who point out Robertson's First Amendment right to say what he wishes are on pretty safe territory. Although I have been surprised that few are calling for criminal charges under "hate speech" guidelines. What bothers me is the level of biblical ignorance displayed by some of Robertson's supporters.

Those of you who read me at all regularly know I often mention Fox News' Bill O'Reilly in a positive light. I appreciate his self-described culture warrior status. He is usually on what I consider the right side of most cultural battles. He was more or less right about Robertson. What I found appalling was his level of ineptitude at applying a popular Scriptural principle. In his "Talking Points" monologue on Friday he specifically mentioned Luke 6:37, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged." He chided Robertson and anyone else who similarly "judged" sinners.

It doesn't seem to me like you need to be a Bible scholar to see what's wrong with that position. If you take the time to read the entire interview of Robertson in GQ (which I did), you will notice that Robertson never "judged" anyone. He simply stated his opinion that the Bible calls some things sin. Repeating a clear biblical position regarding human behavior and divine judgment is not, in itself, human judgment; it is merely a profession of belief in what the Scripture says on the subject.

On a more theological note, there is another level of ignorance in O'Reilly's misapplication. The behavior Jesus was condemning in the Luke passage was not simple discernment; rather he was proscribing judgment in the sense of condemnation. No human (except the one perfect Jesus) can sentence another person to hell. That is God's prerogative, and his alone. Christians are commanded to "judge" in the discerning sense in several Bible passages. Some people call it being "fruit inspectors."

If you want a fuller understanding of how I think Christians should relate to homosexuals, I recommend "The Uncomfortable Subject", a post of mine from several weeks ago. If you have an hour or two there is a good sermon series on the topic "The Gospel and Sexuality" at the Calvary Church, Muskegon web site. It will suffice to say here that the rule is always love the sinner; hate the sin. Furthermore, having a desire is not a sin; acting on it is. It is wrong to "judge" a sinner if that means condemning him to hell. But please, Mr. O'Reilly, we must "judge" whether certain behavior is righteous by biblical standards; it's part of what being Christian means.

I know I cannot count on any celebrity, or anyone for that matter, to perfectly reflect the truth as I see it. But it makes me wince when an otherwise respectable spokesman for Christian views misapprehends a clear Scriptural teaching. I have always known that O'Reilly's connection to the Word is tenuous, like so many people with Roman Catholic backgrounds. It really hurts when "the most watched cable show" presents such a misguided view of the truth. Perhaps I should just be happy that the Bible got prime time "air". Now if I had a TV show...

Just Stop It!

I am not a Duck Dynasty watcher. I hear it is hilarious,  but my TV time is limited, so I haven't put the homeboys from LA on my schedule. However, the recent flap over patriarch Phil Robertson's remarks demands a response. Robertson didn't say anything that any number of conservative commentators haven't repeatedly: accepting one type of perverted sexual behavior leads to the acceptance of other types of perverted sexual behavior. If morality is a hurdle, then Robertson is correct in implying that the bar is getting lower and lower.

As for Robertson's choice of venues for his remarks, one might wonder what he was doing at GQ in the first place. I know he is an entrepreneur, and marketing is the Dynasty strong suit, but GQ? Can you think of two more polar opposites than GQ and Duck Dynasty? I wonder what the Neilsen audience for Dynasty is in Manhattan. A recent show had 9.6 million viewers, but I can't imagine many of them were in the Big Apple. Those who were watching in NYC were probably not GQ subscribers.

Why should I care who watches anyway? I am reading Timothy Keller's Center Church right now. In the book Keller makes a strong point that the church often shoots itself in the foot (nod to duck hunters) by coming off as totally weird and disconnected from the issues that concern most unbelievers. Robertson's core constituency probably won't be terribly upset with his comments about homosexuality. But most unbelievers will be. That is why I think it is important to consider where we say what. In the GQ interview, Drew Magary sounded like a guy from Manhattan getting his first ATV ride with Phil. And he said plainly that Phil was being more open than he could be on the A&E network show. I just think Robertson should have been more thoughtful in his comments.

It is impossible to say whether Magary was letting a little snide sneak into his reporting or not. It would be wrong for me to assume he was an unbeliever and to hear sarcasm where none was intended. But I have heard plenty of city boys like him mocking religion and condescending like a shuttle on reentry. Keller is right to encourage us to find ways to talk to unbelievers without lighting their fuse or tweaking their sanctimonious funny bone. We don't have to change what we believe; we just need to season what we say with the audience in mind. You don't serve five alarm chili to a dinner guest with ulcers.

I'm just sayin' ... Stop it, already. Stop insisting that we have to be weird to be counter-cultural. I think the church should be counter-cultural, but in a winsome way. That may sound like an oxymoron (winsome counter-culture), but like so many other paradoxes in the faith, I believe it is exactly right. Just because Phil Robertson looks like Moses doesn't mean he should be as out of touch as the Lawgiver would doubtless feel today. We don't have to coddle the golden calf makers, but we can't just throw stone tablets at them either.

The Uncomfortable Subject

I recently came across a blog by Michael Craven on his site, Battle for Truth. He did a series called “Defense of Marriage” which I thought was a good attempt to stake out some ground in the gay marriage debate that did not require any Biblical quotations. It got me thinking about the inordinate amount of time, energy and media output that is devoted to the issue of homosexual behavior, given the small number of the affected population. It is understandably difficult to get a precise number, but the latest estimate of the gay population in the US is about 1.7% of the total. That’s 17 people in 1,000 or 5.3 million in the US.

I know five million sounds like a large number, but in a country of three hundred million, it’s not just a minority, it’s a tiny minority. So my question is where did they get such a loud voice. There are a similar number of Muslims in the US, yet you seldom hear from them unless they blow something up, which may be an instructive parallel, since the Muslim jihad probably has about the same percentage of adherents as the gays have activists. If that comparison is accurate, it means that less than one tenth of either group is responsible for their notoriety. That makes their “spokesmen” one tenth of one percent of total population. A minuscule minority.

I have a theory about this (as you knew I would). It is easy to see why the enemy of God would want to promote Islam, especially radical Islam. It calls for the conversion of the world to a false religion. It calls for the elimination of all who don’t comply. The battle lines here are obvious. But can one imagine the same kind of strategy behind the gay agenda. Look closely. The LGBT agenda calls for the acceptance of a “lifestyle” that would shatter traditional family values and structures. This is not only detrimental to the foundation of society, as Craven asserts, but it is theologically explosive as well.

In Genesis’ first chapter, God is said to have made humans in his own image; the language specifically says that male and female (together) were representative of his image. The second chapter of Genesis corroborates this by insisting that Adam was not complete without Eve. Adam and Steve don’t create the same complementary whole. A few verses later it cements the idea by calling the union of husband and wife a “one flesh” creation. I don’t wish to be salacious, but no matter what you put where, only the biologically complementary nature of male and female makes sense of this picture.

It goes without saying that the command to be fruitful and multiply is not within the realm of homosexual possibilities. But I think there is more to this than meets the biologist’s eye. I believe God was still thinking of his image when he built the family. In my opinion, the father/mother/child triad most fully represents the image of God in humans. A man or woman alone remains an image bearer, but the best reflection of a triune God is the triad of family.

As a further testament to God’s interest in promoting family, note his emphasis in Old Testament law.  Fully one half of capital crimes were for sexual perversion and family related acts; the remainder was for religious infractions or violent acts. I believe the emphasis on sex and family reflects God’s concern for purity in this area. Like so many of God’s commands, we learn (sometimes too late) that there are practical reasons why he proscribed certain things while prescribing others. The breakdown of the family leads to the break-up of society. This was the point made by Craven. What a surprise to learn once again that God had our best interests in mind when he made the rules.

Even though the gay population is small, it is one that should not be ignored. The median size church in America has 75 attendees on a given Sunday, so that means there would be 1.2 gays. Given the sad statistics on divorce and extra-marital sex among Christians, there are probably far more adulterers and fornicators in any given church than gays. Let’s not even consider the number of gossips, gluttons, disobedient children, and greedy or covetous persons seated in the pews. The church should have one message: any sex outside of marriage is wrong, but Christ welcomes all sinners of all types to come to the Cross. At the foot of that tree, any repentant heart can find redemption and release. Maybe the real question should be why the other sinners don’t feel as uncomfortable as the gays. 

What Are Friends For?

As often happens, three completely distinct sources fed me an idea I cannot get out of my head. Track one: I am preparing for a sermon on the passage in I Corinthians where Paul advises unmarried people to stay unmarried and married to stay married. Track two: a student working on an analysis assignment asked if she could challenge the writer's assumption that marriage was all about sex. Track three: a book I am reading for a study group suggests most of us in modern western society have much, much more than we need in many areas.

How can these possibly coincide, you ask. The answer will follow. First, Paul was trying to get believers to see the importance of blooming where they were planted, if I can borrow a cliche. Elsewhere in the same letter, Paul counsels believers not to rashly divorce unbelieving spouses as the believer may positively influence the unbeliever. In another place he says that unmarried people have more time to commit to ministry. More generally, he admitted to the Philippians that he had learned to be content in whatever state he found himself.

I had been thinking of the college-age young people I deal with regularly, and I wondered if they would happily hear Paul's advice to stay single. I wonder if the woman who desperately wants to have children or the young man with naturally raging hormones would consider service to the Master worth the sacrifice. Sex and procreation (or the avoidance thereof) may not be the only thing on young peoples' minds, but it is a big thing, constantly drummed into them by popular media (as if natural urges weren't enough).

For believers, the concepts of sex and marriage are inextricably linked. Sound biblical teaching insists that physical intimacy between a man and woman is appropriate only within the bond of marriage. Secular society has assaulted this exclusivity on two fronts. First, obviously secularists ignore the Bible injunction and promote sexual relationships of all kinds with no restraints. Second, by hammering on the already highly tuned hormonal proclivities of young people, sex is sold as the ultimate product in any relationship. This is false advertising.

While the pleasures of physical intimacy are a beautiful thing when contained within the construct of marriage, those pleasures are the icing on the cake, not the cake. The emotional and spiritual intimacy which ideally accompany the physical pleasures are the cake. Continuing the food metaphor, if I were offered all the flavors of a delicious Thanksgiving feast but deprived of any nourishment, I might consider enjoying the pleasure. However, if every meal I "ate"was similarly empty, I would starve to death.

We are bombarded with the message that sex is everything and made to feel we never have enough so that we are not satisfied with what we have. (That sentence finally conflates the three ideas I started with.) The most important thing we get in marriage is a companion; the Bible calls it a "help mate" in the older translations. It means a complement: a completer. A spouse is the ultimate friend. She knows me best and loves me anyway. Good friends are the same thing, minus the "one flesh" part.

If I were to contemporize Paul's remarks I might say true friends are a true treasure. Don't let the world "squeeze you into its mould" (as Phillips has it) by insisting that friends "with benefits" are the ultimate relationships. And to married believers: cultivate the rich possibilities that exist within the marriage you have. And in every situation or relationship, keep Christ primary. That means submitting everything to the demand of the Great Commission to make disciples. Developing friendships that encourage and strengthen our relationship with God may not be sexy, but the reward lasts beyond the moment, even beyond the season. Like to eternity and beyond.

Judge me by my size, do you?

So here’s a weird conflation of unlikely topics: Star Wars and the Bible. Okay, so maybe there have been books written on it. But the other day I realized the connection between one of Yoda’s comments and the “Great Commission.”

I have a picture I have of my grandson wearing a t-shirt that says, “Judge me by my size, do you?”  It hit me in the midst of preparing a Sunday school lesson on Matthew 28:18-20. As I looked at the passage for the umpteenth time, I saw a “therefore” I had not really considered before. Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore… make disciples.” I have the authority, so you go make disciples. How does that work? Your “size” does not matter, Jesus said. I have all authority (which can be translated “power”), so you need to get out there and let people know about me.

Paul may have had something like that in mind when he told the Corinthians that his message to them was not important because of its worldly-wise words, but because of its power.  (1 Cor. 2:1-4) Paul’s “size” didn’t matter; it was his power that counted. When Moses at the burning bush said he felt impotent at the thought of facing the most powerful man on earth, God told him to stop feeling puny; it would be a God-sized response when the time came.

I don’t think I am alone in occasionally feeling kind of small when I have to confront the world’s bullying of Christian thinking. How do you stand up to the “outdated myth” attack? Or the “opium of the people” charge? Or the “benighted simpleton” portrayal? They think they have it all figured out, yet all authority was not given unto them; it was passed on to us. That is what the “therefore” in Matthew 28:19 is there for. The Way, the Truth and the Life is not Karl Marx or Carl Sagan; it’s Jesus of Nazareth.

Yoda said, “Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”  Change the line to, “my ally is the Creator of the universe… you must feel the Creator around you…”

So I go back to Yoda’s challenge: judge me by my size, do you? If I remember the scene where he said that, he proceeded to lift a 20 ton space craft out of a bog with his mind – telekinesis. I am not suggesting that Christians should take up that sort of paranormal activity. But yes, I am suggesting some type of paranormal activity. If we understand the importance of “all authority/power” being delegated to believers (I think that’s what Jesus meant) then we are all equipped for some heavy lifting, metaphorically speaking.

“Luminous beings we are, not this crude matter” – another great quote to take to heart. Paul told the Philippians we are to shine like stars in the sky. We shouldn’t just be in the spotlight; we should be the spotlight. Size doesn’t matter – it’s the size of who’s got your back that matters.

Kindergarten Rules

The folks we have representing us in Washington right now should read Robert Fulghum’s little book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. This government shutdown is revealing them to be very much like spoiled children who cannot learn to get along. Any kindergarten teacher worth his or her salt could straighten them out in about five minutes if they would listen.

I have linked to the list above, but I wanted to apply some of Fulghum’s ideas myself. First, “Share everything.” Power is Washington is meant to be shared. That is the beauty of the founders’ plan: limited government with multiple checks and balances. Power is supposed to be shared between the three branches of government. If actions speak louder than words, then President Obama is saying that he thinks he was elected king and the rest of us peasants must do his bidding, including Congress and the courts. If he can’t get his program rammed through Congress (like Obamacare), then he just orders the job done by one of the many bureaucracies the executive branch controls (like Cap and Trade). So much for shared power.

Second, “Play fair.” The phrase, “All’s fair in love and war” needs to be amended with the addition, “and in politics.” If Cervantes’ intention in Don Quixote was to imply that sincerity trumps morality, then the shoe certainly fits. The Obama administration seems to believe that their ideology is so important that its implementation must proceed regardless of moral, ethical or legal boundaries. There are many examples, but the one that comes immediately to mind is the recent scandal involving the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. There are others: voter intimidation by Black Panthers, capitalizing on emotion laden situations like Congresswoman Giffords being shot or the Sandy Hook tragedy, knowingly sending guns to Mexican thugs, barricading national monuments and attractions because of the shutdown.

Next, “Don’t hit people.” There have been few reported physical assaults, I admit, but verbal abuse is rampant. Two of the cardinal rules of rhetoric are to argue responsibly and respectfully. Ad hominem attacks are supposed to be below civil argument. The kids in Washington need to be reminded of that.

Then there is, “Clean up your own mess.” There are so many examples of this I don’t know where to begin. The federal government has gotten so large and so intrusive that I fear nothing short of a literal nuclear option will ever bring it back into its intended proportion. No Child Left Behind is a mess; the farm subsidy situation is a mess; immigration and border security is a mess; Obamacare is a mess; I could go on. These are messes that Congress and the burgeoning bureaucracies have created. There is an old joke that asks what you call a lawyer drowned in the bay; the answer is a good start. That’s what I would call ending just one government program that operates outside of the narrow boundaries of our Constitution. After that we should go on to deep six the rest of them.

There are about a dozen other lessons on Fulghum’s list, many of which are a perfect corrective to the childish whining and bickering going on in Washington right now. I have not written much lately because I am sickened by what I see, and I see no point in endlessly repeating the same charges. I chose to write now because I stumbled across Fulghum’s list and the word “childish” seems so apropos. All I can say is I hope we can elect a few grownups to send down there in the next couple cycles. God help us if we don’t.

A Modest Proposal (Redux)

My daughter posted an article on Facebook about a meth bust in Park City. It got me thinking: why would anyone in that beautiful, fun-filled place want to mess around with methamphetamines? I did a little research and came to a startling conclusion: we should legalize meth.

I know that position shocks many of you who know me. I am a conservative Christian who is always quoting Shakespeare or Swift or some other dead white guy. But there would be several undeniable benefits to American society if meth were made legal. First of all, the same arguments which have convinced many in this country to legalize marijuana apply to meth as well: reduced crime, lowered burden on law enforcement, easing the over-crowded prisons, and so on.

People who have argued in favor of legal marijuana point out that alcohol use (which is legal) is far more harmful to society than smoking weed, pointing to marijuana’s calming effects on belligerent individuals and the slowing of speeding drivers. Much the same can be said for meth; it makes people feel better about themselves and when they drive, studies show that attention and reaction time actually improve with moderate meth use.  And besides, it seems mean-spirited to further traumatize hard working middle class families who are struggling in this troubled economy who have simply made the choice to feel better.

Speaking of the economy, legalizing meth would be a serious boon. First it would eliminate all those production jobs going to Mexico. Then, if produced here legally, it would be taxed just like alcohol and tobacco. Careful producers would not only be gainfully self-employed thereby increasing the tax base, but they would also do society a further service. Everyone knows it is dangerous to run a meth lab; hardly a week passes without at least one exploding in our area. The good news is that methamphetamine acts to self-select the careful from the careless. Anyone who has read Darwin knows that natural selection is good for a species.

Another benefit from meth legalization is the boost to the orthodontist profession. If meth were legalized, orthodontist schools should begin recruiting immediately. Additionally, the cash and cars that don’t get incinerated in the explosions of the careless producers could be donated to worthy causes or used to decrease the national debt. I know this is a modest proposal which does not solve all the world’s problems, but surely there are those among my dear readers who will understand my position.

How to Boil a Frog

The common tale says you can’t drop a frog in hot water because he will jump out. However, if you put the frog in cold water and gradually heat it, the frog will allow itself to be boiled to death. This is a perfect analogy for what is happening to Christians in modern culture. The culture around us has been becoming more secular by increments for at least a century and maybe even longer.

This has been occurring in many areas, but the one that best illustrates it is women’s fashion. I recently saw a picture of a public Lake Michigan bathing beach in Muskegon from the late 1900’s. The women were basically covered from neck to ankle in form-disguising attire. By the middle of the twentieth century, women were still covering their torsos, but the suits had become more form-fitting. No one needs to be told how scantily clad many women are on today’s beaches. The postage stamp size patches on strings hardly qualify as attire, bathing or otherwise.

I am not a prude; my wife and daughters have worn and still wear what we like to call “modest bikini” fashions. But I find it difficult to attach the biblical term “modest” to a bikini. Christian women who wear them (and the men who go along) have allowed themselves to be deceived by the surrounding culture into thinking that such attire is acceptable. The Greek term translated “modest” literally means “not chaotic.” All you have to do is imagine the hormonal chaos created in a normal male upon seeing a woman in a bikini. Distraction, temptation and outright lust are almost inevitable. This is chaos.

Hold on; I am going to make a turn that may cause your head to spin: I think the same thing has happened in other areas of our Christian witness. Science is full of examples; reproductive technology is one. I honestly don’t know the exact point at which we should have called a halt to in vitro embryonic technology. Once we reached the point of creating embryos specifically for experimentation, we had certainly crossed an ethical line in my opinion. Few Christians are opposed to in vitro fertilization and re-implantation, especially for childless couples. Perhaps few realize that multiple embryos are fertilized and implanted; if more than one attaches to the uterine wall, excess numbers are culled – aborted in point of fact.

Politics is another area of concern. (You knew this was coming.) Again there is a perfect example. The trouble began with the removal of the Bible and prayer from public schools. Then religious expressions were banned from public areas. Then the Ten Commandments were “outlawed.” Last year Obama tried to force Catholic institutions to offer birth control. We learned in recent weeks that the IRS was asking certain applicants to reveal the subjects of their private prayers as one aspect of their investigation. It will be only a short time before some conservative preacher is hauled to jail for preaching “hate” from Leviticus or Romans regarding homosexual practices. (It has already happened in Canada.)

I read recently that Missouri (among other states) is attempting what is called nullification of federal requirements of gun control. They are being tricky, saying the feds can only impose their sanctions through the interstate commerce clause, so Missourians can have complete freedom with guns made and sold in Missouri. Some states have tried a similar tactic with Obamacare’s insurance mandate saying the state has the sovereign right to control commerce within its borders. In other words, people are finally getting a sense of the near boiling point of federal intervention in our lives, so they are jumping out of the pot.

Why couldn’t Christians do something like this with abortion, school prayer and other religious freedom issues? There are still states where Christians could wield majority power if they wanted to. Imagine “nullification” of Roe v. Wade. Christians often claim they want to do something, but the problem is too big and Washington is too far removed. State politics are more easily influenced. One need only consider the effect of the Tea Party movement to see that much can be accomplished through grass roots organizing. Despite the Obama win in 2012, many states elected conservatives to their state houses and the US House of Representatives remained under Republican control.

2016 seems like a long way off, but there will be mid-terms in 2014. In today’s political atmosphere, it takes a long time to build a really effective movement. If Christians really feel the heat, it is time they jumped out of the pot. The task is daunting, but nothing will change if apathy reigns. If we wait until the week before the election to get “involved,” our vote still counts, but we will have squandered an opportunity to effect real change. There is another fable about the mouse that fell into the milk bucket; he worked so hard to get out that he churned the milk into butter and was saved from drowning. Whether frog or mouse, the lesson is clear; if we do nothing, we’re cooked.

My Will Be Done

Some events force you to think about what really matters: a personal tragedy like a house fire that consumes all your possessions; a large scale disaster like Hurricane Sandy or wildfires in the West; the death of a relative or close friend; these can narrow your vision to the truly important things in life. Considering our mortality or the impermanence of things should make us introspective.

An event that is less traumatic but equally effective in making one think is drafting a will. My wife and I have just completed the process of updating a woefully outdated will. In the years that have passed since we wrote our first will, several things have taken place which made the process of rewriting more meaningful. Both of us lost our parents in the interim. In my wife’s case, the settlement of the estate was amicable – almost pleasant, if that does not sound too cheery for such a solemn affair. My mother’s passing, on the other hand, wreaked havoc on our family. We want our will to prevent that kind of result if at all possible.

When I have shared the sad outcome of my mother’s passing with a few people, I have been shocked to learn that such family disasters are not that uncommon. A close friend is currently experiencing the meaning of “no good deed goes unpunished” with his family. Another friend narrowly escaped a tragic outcome a couple years ago. Almost everyone has a tale of the family squabbles that erupted after the passing of a loved one. A well written will won’t necessarily stop all the possible creepiness that oozes from the woodwork at such times, but it certainly can set down ground rules that may help avoid some.

Solomon wrote repeatedly about the vanity of collecting things that would eventually be passed on to others. He is right to warn against clinging to things that have no eternal value. However, on the other side of the coin is the wise distribution of whatever things may remain after one’s passing. Warren Buffett has resolved to leave nothing to his heirs, wishing that they make their own fortunes (or not). Some parents bequeath all their estate to charitable causes because they agree with Buffett or they realize that inherited wealth would ruin children who are irresponsible. We have three equally mature and dependable children, so we are dividing everything equally between them. Each person must determine what is best in the given circumstances.

A will is a virtual necessity for everyone. Dying intestate (with no will) leaves the distribution up to the state; that is unlikely to be the wisest choice in any situation. There are online services that promise legal wills for very low rates. I suppose they would be better than nothing, but my wife and I chose to hire an attorney because this is a situation where what you don’t know really can hurt you, or more accurately, hurt the ones you love and leave behind. A young lawyer at our church has a home based practice which allows her to charge substantially less than a typical law firm. This put personal legal assistance within our financial reach and gave us a degree of confidence an Internet document could never match.

The over-arching lesson the Bible teaches about money is that believers must give due consideration to its use. Creating a spending plan (budget), limiting debt, saving for emergencies and giving generously to the work of the kingdom are all good behaviors at any stage of life. Executing a will is just as important because it will assure the wise continuation of your wishes after you leave everything behind. You can’t take it with you, but you can dictate where it goes when you leave.

Vive la difference

If I hear one more person say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats I may not be able to restrain myself any longer. A dear friend who is otherwise a thoughtful, concerned conservative uttered the damnable phrase just last week. I fail to understand how anyone with even a modest grasp of the big picture can make such a ridiculous statement.

Rush Limbaugh has coined a label for these people; he calls them “low information voters.” His theory is that either through disinterest or misapprehension this group accepts the sound-bite menu and talking point drivel of the major media outlets. Rather than taking the time to become better informed, they base their opinions on the six o’clock news headlines. This behavior leaves them with a very small slice of the news, and that slice is tailored and trimmed to fit the larger progressive narrative which colors all their reporting.

I agree with Limbaugh’s theory that Obama was reelected only because a significant number of otherwise conservative leaning voters fell into the category of low information voters. I would add that there are also many conservatives who have become frustrated by the gridlock that stifles even honest and true conservative politicians who do get elected. For my part, I think gridlock is the best we can hope for and not a bad thing considering the unappealing nature of the legislation which is being held up.

To make any real progress politically, American traditionalists, Constitutional republicans, Tea Partiers or whatever one calls us must not fall for the lie that there is no difference between politicians or parties. Given the current state of things in Washington D.C. the differences between parties are striking. Both sides are composed of flawed human beings, so there will be similar incidents of misfeasance and even malfeasance, but that does not make the two morally equivalent. The larger questions of what kind of government we want and what set of moral values we support do not have the same answers for both parties.

One could say that the Nazis and the Allies were both driven by flawed people. One could say that the Pharisees and Jesus’ disciples were imperfect representatives of their respective ideologies. But in neither case could one say that there were no differences between them. The same thing holds true in today’s political landscape. The two parties are seeing a different horizon, marching to different drummers if you will.

The entitlement mentality and moral relativism of the typical Democrat platform is worlds apart from the limited government and traditional morality of most Republicans. The willingness to shred the Constitution and legislate by fiat demonstrated by progressives is diametrically opposed to the vision of the typical conservative. Do conservative spokesmen make bone-headed statements? Of course they do. Will they occasionally fall prey to base instincts? Certainly. Did Jesus defrock Peter for his misunderstanding the program? Did Paul excommunicate the Corinthians for their indiscretions? No and no.

Sarah Palin’s Independence Day Facebook post draws a striking parallel between our situation and the picture of Orwell’s 1984. Huxley predicts something similar in Brave New World. Are we becoming so tired of the lies and scandals in government at all levels that we are retreating into a low information haze? Instead of Soma, are we taking a drug called Apathy or Fatigue with the same disastrous results. Jesus has called us to be working until he returns. One aspect of that work is to remain salt and light, preserving what we can save and revealing the dangers of things we cannot save. There is a difference among politicians; we must keep the light on those differences.

Gay Boy Scouts

Part of me wants to be cute and suggest that there already is an organization for boys who wish they were girls. The Girls Scouts USA does accept transgender applicants; GSUSA has openly supported, actually promoted the LGBT agenda for years, even allowing lesbians to serve as leaders. With such an open and diverse attitude, I can't imagine how they could refuse a boy membership if he felt inclined to apply. This would allow the Boy Scouts to remain as it has for 103 years an organization for boys who want to learn to be men of character. Let the Girl Scouts handle the rest.

 

The foregoing makes perfect sense to me, but I know it is not realistic, nor is it the reason I fired up the computer this morning. I am troubled by the reaction of some "evangelical" Christian leaders to the decision by Boy Scouts of America (BSA) leadership this week to allow openly gay boys to join Boy Scout troops. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention said, “Frankly, I can’t imagine a Southern Baptist pastor who would continue to allow his church to sponsor a Boy Scout troop under these new rules,” he said, predicting “there will be a mass exodus of Southern Baptists and other conservative Christians from the Boy Scouts.”

 

The reason for my pique may seem petty, but I think it reveals a serious misstep by the church leaders in question. The issue revolves around the interpretation of the last phrase in the Boy Scout Oath (see below). A scout must pledge to be "morally straight." The pun is too obvious, but the meaning is at the core of the cultural battle we are currently fighting. What are the standards of morality by which we will judge behavior? Even if one allows the church leaders in question to find homosexual practice to be immoral, does this stance necessarily prohibit the involvement of boys who declare their sexual preference to be for other boys.

 

The dissatisfied church leaders seem to be implying that a boy with a moral position that differs from theirs is not acceptable in their organization. What if this standard were applied to church membership? If only morally perfect individuals were granted membership, the roles would decline to the remaining few who were either delusional or devoid of understanding. No honest person who understands the Scriptures would qualify. As I understand it, the church is not a gathering of those already perfect, but a collection of those wanting to be made perfect -- wanting to mend their immoral ways.

Most churches (except maybe Westboro Baptist) would allow gay boys to attend with the intention of "reforming" them. I chose the word "reform" purposely. Scripture teaches that we are all being reformed into the image of Christ daily. No one should be excluded except those who are militantly against reforming. If a boy says he is gay, but practicing "chastity" in his relationships, can he be considered the same as any other sinner. Compare this situation with a man who dabbles in pornography. As long as he is not browsing it on his smart phone during the service, would we exclude him? What about the gossip or the child who is regularly disobedient to her parents? Are these people to be excluded from the church?

 

What if the Boy Scouts were to say, as the church should, that gay boys are welcome as long as they are not practicing their preferences during scouting activities and would listen to the advice of those who would counsel them against a homosexual lifestyle. Does this differ from a scout policy towards a boy who is sexually active with girls? I assume scout leaders would counsel sexually active boys to curtail their activities in general; there are several reasons why the practice of any sexual activity would be inappropriate at scout-sponsored events. Why does it matter if the activity is hetero- or homosexual? The Scout Oath does call the boys to "do [their] duty to God." The question before the BSA is how to define that particular duty in light of today's culture.

 

There I go dreaming again. I was dreaming that the BSA leadership would be counseling boys against adopting a homosexual lifestyle, just as the church should. It is more likely that they will go the way of the Girl Scouts and fully embrace the LGBT lifestyle. That is the true meaning of the vote: it represents another loss for Christians in the culture war. But I still think the Christian leaders missed an opportunity to correct a misperception the public holds about us. We don't hate gays, nor do we (should we) exclude them from our churches out of hand. We welcome any boy who will listen to the truth and consider its claims on life. There but for the grace of God go we.

The Scout Oath says:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

The Boom Heard 'Round the World

In the aftermath of the Marathon bombings the "why" questions are once again swirling around the tempest in the Boston teapot. The allusion to Boston as a place of disputes over dissatisfaction with government is intentional. There is a critical distinction to be made, and there are undeniable similarities to be discovered. What follows must not be mistaken for a defense of what the Boston bombers did; it was a heinous act of cowardly treachery which can never be condoned under any circumstances.

 

Readers who are recent graduates of our public school system may not have heard of the Boston Tea Party. The reference is not to the 21st century political movement, but to an evening of civil disobedience perpetrated in 1773 just prior to the Revolutionary War with England  by people called Patriots who were upset over the King's tax policies pertaining to the American colonies. Dumping the cargo of tea into the harbor would be tantamount to closing every Starbucks across the entire nation. Depriving the merchants of their expected revenue and the citizens of their daily stimulant was a cause for serious concern. In other words, the Patriots made their point loud and clear.

 

Similarly, the Boston bombers made quite a splash, albeit a deadly and (again) inexcusable one. Whereas last week's bombers used violence as their first move, it was the British who precipitated the bloodshed that led to the costly Revolutionary War. Crown troops fired on civilian protesters in 1770 in what has become known as the Boston Masacre and later on an April morning in 1775 it was again the British from Boston who fired the "shot heard 'round the world" and began the war in earnest. It may be putting too fine a point on it to say that the Patriots were simply acting in self defense; after all, the government was merely trying to collect duly levied taxes on commercial goods. The fact remains, the protesters were in a defensive posture, not offensive (in both senses of the term.)

 

So much for the distinction; now to the similarities. It is assumed at this point that the Boston bombers were radical Islamist sympathizers. As such they are a powerless minority chafing under what they consider to be an immoral and oppressive regime against which duty calls them to rage. Likewise the Patriots had exhausted their rights of legal protest under the British monarchy and resorted to civil disobedience as a form of unlawful protest. They were equally powerless (in their eyes at least at first) against the military and commercial global superpower which was England. It is pure speculation, but it would seem likely that on that fateful evening in 1770, someone probably suggested burning the ships in the harbor as opposed to just dumping the cargo. The salient point is that no such violent protest occurred.

 

The history lesson might continue by remembering the actions of a Medieval Roman Catholic Church which slaughtered Islamic radicals who were pushing their way deeper and deeper into European territory. The Crusades, as they were called, were a form of "Christian" jihad: violence against infidels. Then there is the violence perpetrated by the Inquisition where heretics were tortured mercilessly and burned at the stake. It was the church which was responsible for witch trials at which violence was done in the name of God. All of this church sponsored mayhem has been soundly and correctly criticized and disowned by modern Christian apologists as unworthy of believers in any age.

 

It may be nothing more than a curiosity, but it is interesting that both Christianity and Islam were about thirteen centuries old when their theology broke out in violence. To be sure, Mohamed himself supported violence against those who opposed him, but there have been a dozen intervening centuries during which Islam has been spreading more or less peacefully. It is the 20th century Wahhabi theological branch and their political arm, Al-Qaeda, that seem to have rekindled the flame of jihad in our generation. Perhaps the Sufi or another more peaceful sub-set of Muslims will take precedence in the next generation and quell the radical jihadists. Supposedly, the radicals make up only ten percent of all followers of Mohamed.

 

Americans must hear the cry behind the sound of the Boston bomb; not to condone it, but to understand it. There is a broad segment of today's progressive movement (some but not all Democrats) who lobby constantly for near universal tolerance. There are even those who call themselves Christians who are attempting to syncretize Islam and Christianity. It may not be politically correct to say so, but there are some things that must not be tolerated. There are some beliefs that cannot coexist within the framework of American society as we know it. The attempt to embrace radical Islam or appease their demands is tantamount to cradling fire in one's vest. I think Americans understood that on September 12, 2001. Perhaps the boom in Boston reminds us again.

Strange Bedfellows?

I stumbled across a fascinating article on marriage in World Magazine this week. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of The Ruth Institute, a group that promotes traditional marriage, has a unique view of the subject coming from her training as an economist. She reminds us that in traditional society, family is the bedrock on which systems rest and no-fault divorce, cohabitation, sex outside of marriage undermine that foundation. Economically speaking, it has been shown that single parent households make up a large part of the population which lives in poverty. The interesting thing Morse points out is that there are also long range economic consequences to society from children not raised in a traditional family. She asserts, "By one estimate we’re spending over $100 billion dollars a year on dealing with the consequences of out-of-wedlock childbearing and family breakup and family breakdown [through] the criminal justice system and the cost of welfare, health, and education."

Morse implies that the debate over gay marriage overlooks the fundamental basis of marriage saying, "that the essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children, and to one another. That is still true no matter how much you love your gay neighbor or your lesbian classmate." Young people today want so much to be tolerant of diversity that they often ignore the societal and personal costs of the diversity agenda. In a related article in the same issue, World reprints a sermon by John Piper in which he challenges believers to consider the inherent discontinuity of man-man and woman-woman "marriages." Piper suggests something I have long believed, that the family is the truest representation of the imageo dei we can understand. Subtracting one gender from the family unit subtracts from its perfection as the image we are intended to portray.

 

Even more interesting, Morse draws a parallel between the ideology of the political left and the dissolution of the traditional family. "For people on the radical left, equality is their primary value. But it doesn’t even make sense to think about families in terms of equality because babies are never the equal of the parents and men and women can never be equal in the sense of baby-making and child-rearing and development." Morse then draws a shocking parallel with Marxist beliefs that "monogamous marriage as just as oppressive as private property and capitalism." Today's progressives stridently deny any validity in such a connection, but the similarity is undeniable.

 

Hence we discover the strange conjunction of the pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage factions of our society. It does appear to be a cause of the left to demolish the traditional family. Morse compassionately concludes her article by calling believers to prepare to deal with the fallout of a political decision in favor of gay marriage. "Just as the pro-life movement has spent a lot of effort helping women deal with the physical and psychological fallout of abortion, we need to deal with the victims of the sexual revolution and help them to be whole so that we can move forward in society, whatever the political structure may turn out to be." Sound advice. Sounds like what I imagine Jesus would have done.

The Big Question

Welcome to another installment of Professor Verway's answers to questions nobody is asking. Maybe in this case it is a question somebody should be asking, but no one seems to be. First I will pose the question followed by the assumptions which necessarily precede it. Then I will seek to answer to the apparently unasked question, and in the process hopefully make plain why I believe the question needs to be asked and answered.

 

When does a spirit become united with a human body? Assumptions abound. We must first agree that human spirits exist, and that they are in fact bound to human bodies. An underlying assumption is that the human spirit is somehow unique; only humans have human spirits. For my part, there is a further assumption that the term spirit refers to a singular and distinct element within the composition of that entity which we call the human being. I assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that no other life form has a human spirit. I would go so far as to say that no other physical life form has a spiritual component.

 

The assumptions mentioned so far reveal me to be tripartite in my understanding of the composition of human beings. For those unfamiliar with the term, I mean to say that I believe there is a clear distinction between the terms soul and spirit. To clarify I could say that whereas all mammals have souls, only humans have spirits. I suspect that all things living have something soul-ish about them, but the element I refer to as spirit is unique to humans. It is not my aim to defend that opinion here; it will stand as another assumption.

 

At least one more assumption occurs to me, which I will leave undebated. I will assume for the sake of this discussion that God creates or prepares a spirit for unification with a human body at some point in time. I say "point in time" carefully, because I also believe God exists in a dimension outside of what we call time. Therefore, when I use words that are time-related and involve an action by God, there is necessarily an imprecision. The time element in the question at hand involves our human, finite, time-centered awareness of events; as such, the question may be restated: "At what point does it become material or significant that a spirit inhabits a human body."

 

Two logically possible answers present themselves immediately. Either God imbues a fertilized egg (point of conception) or accompanies the first breath with a spirit. The latter seems to resonate with the language of the Genesis creation account. "God breathed into Adam, and he became a living soul," says Moses of the event. Three things argue against the idea that this refers to the giving of a spirit. First, the Hebrew word for "soul" is used throughout the Bible with reference to animals and humans alike, leaving little room for the uniqueness intended for humans. Second, the progressive nature of God's revelation to humans leaves many details of our existence hidden in His early interactions; perhaps He had no intention of explaining to Moses from whence the spirit comes. Third, Adam is a unique case in that he had no conception in the normal sense of the word; making broad generalizations from his experience is not safe.

 

I prefer the explanation that God places a spirit in the fertilized egg at the moment of conception. This seems to be the most satisfying conclusion both logically and theologically. First, if we assume that a baby, once delivered is human, then a full-term fetus in a mother's womb must be fully human. There is no significant difference between the two beings except in the method by which they receive oxygen and nourishment. A fetus inutero is no different than an adult human on a respirator and intravenous feeding aparatus. No one would claim that a person in the process of having open heart surgery is not human during the time he is on life support.

 

If it is logical to propose that a fetus is fully human, what can be said of the embryo? At what point dare we say that human-ness ceases to pertain to the fetus? There is only a vague distinction between the two terms, and no single point in time or development which demands the switch in terminology from embryo to fetus. A similar problem exists if we attempt to pinpoint a time during embryonic development when that which we call human comes into being. Some would postulate that the presence of a brain signifies human distinctiveness, yet even the lowest creatures have neural control centers that can be called brains in some sense. The other danger in using brain development as a signal for human-ness is that it opens the door for disqualifying certain living humans from the class of humanity.

 

So if the fetus is human, the embryo is human. If the embryo is human, the blastula and eventually the zygote (fertilized egg) is human. I can see no logical defense of any other position than this. Because I identify the presence of a human spirit as that which signifies human-ness, I must conclude that God places a spirit in the fertilized egg.

 

The same conclusion is well supported theologically. The beautiful Psalm 139 description of God's involvement in human pre-natal existence makes a good argument for full human-ness from the point of conception. Paul's argument for God's sovereignty in Romans 9 declaring that children not yet born had irresistible destinies insists that they were indivduals even at that nascent stage. Even the leaping of John in Elizabeth's womb at the presence of his Savior in Mary's womb betrays of a level of existence too human to be denied.

 

Now if you have read this far you are either a very dear friend and you wish to humor me, or you are so stubborn that you will not quit reading until you find out where in heaven this argument is going. I trust you will not think the reward too paltry, but it is firstly this: abortion is wrong because it takes a life, a human life, without just cause. (I do not oppose just war or capital punishment. This is not inconsistent, because the principle at hand is justice, not life.) Secondly, the presence of a human spirit at conception makes awkward the usual interpretation of Paul's teaching that we were all dead until we were made alive in Christ. That theological discussion can wait for another day.

The good news is that recently two states that I know of have passed laws that assign human-ness to fertilized eggs, or said another way, that human rights inhere from conception. Hooray! Dare we hope that Roe v. Wade may yet be challenged? Does this mean that state-sponsored slaughter of humans will be ended in the near future? Realistically one doubts that anything will be done on a national level anytime soon; there are too many liberals who hold abortion, excuse me, women's reproductive rights sacrosanct. This should not keep believers from praying zealously that more states will follow Kansas and North Dakota. If you are up to the challenge, get working on that very thing where you are. There could be a de facto reversal of Roe if all the states followed Kansas and North Dakota; the big question is whether enough of us will get involved to make it happen.

A Prayer Primer

Prayer is one of those activities that is just about universal. Most religions practice some form of communication with transcendent or ascendant entities. Prayer is a central feature of the three main Bible religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Whereas polite conversation is supposed to avoid religious issues in general, few people will object to having prayers spoken around or about them. And the sentiment behind WWII correspondent Ernie Pyle's well known aphorism, "There are no atheists in foxholes," rings true across the globe.

 

Perhaps it is the familiarity with prayer that leads some people to harbor false assumptions about its true nature. Since I have mentioned a journalist already, allow me to use the old newspaperman's outline, who, what, when, where, why and how as a framework for this primer on Christian prayer.

 

Who is involved in prayer? The short answer is every living soul. Prayer is not limited to only those who inhabit some inner circle of God's favor; the Bible is clear that even the cries of people outside God's chosen are heard in Heaven. Consider the case of the Ninevites or the Apostle Paul's insistence that the lost need only to call upon the Lord to be saved. On the receiving end of prayer, God the Father is the only person the Bible recognizes. While the apostles, saints and departed ancestors are worthy of respect, they are not mentioned in the Bible as a proper audience for our prayers. Nor is Mary, though she is certainly among the most revered of women. Prayer is properly directed to our Heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit in the name of Christ Jesus. Anything else is meditation and should not be considered prayer.

 

What is prayer? It is a two-way communication between creatures and Creator. Most people understand the uplink part; we speak to God through prayer. There is also a download side to prayer. Many people don't consider that God also wishes to speak to us as well. Through His Holy Spirit and the Word, God makes His will and ways known to us, sometimes in virtually audible tones, but more often in promptings and leadings within our deepest parts.

 

When is prayer appropriate? Certainly as Pyle implies, in times of dire need. But a proper Christian attitude should be one of continual prayer. It is not right to think that we can handle most things on our own and then call on God when things get tough. As A.W. Tozer said, "The whole life must pray." Islam prescribes specific times of prayer, and to many this seems like a more spiritual thing than unscheduled, unscripted prayer in the Christian manner. Nothing is farther from the truth; Jesus himself said that ritualistic prayer, while appearing godly to those on earth, was of no heavenly good.

 

Where should one pray? The same holds true for this as for "when:" Anywhere and everywhere.

 

Why does one pray? This is the most complicated question to answer. The simple answer could be that Jesus commanded us to pray, so we pray out of obedience. But the question naturally follows as to why Jesus would command such a thing. One could say it is because Jesus himself prayed and we are to follow his example. This is true, but still leaves much unsaid. We are told to pray for our needs: give us this day our daily bread. We are told to pray for the sick. We are told to pray for the success of Christian ministry. We are told to pray for so many things that the upshot is that we should pray for and about everything. But this still does not tell us why we are to pray.

 

The "why" is not answered in Scripture. There is debate among sincere believers as to whether we can change God's mind by our prayers. I happen to believe that God is going to do what he is going to do whether we pray or not, and that he knows that we either are going to or not, so the outcome is established by his will, not our prayer. Having said that, however, I still pray for things in the hope that God will grant my requests. It has become much less an act of me wanting God to do what I ask, and more an act of wanting God to prepare me for what he intends to provide for me in any given situation. I like what someone once said: prayer is not about getting God's will to line up with ours, but about getting our will to line up with God's. The perfect example was prayed in Gethsemane: take this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.

 

How one prays is not really an issue. The anywhere, anytime nature of prayer dictates that it can be done in any position or condition. I have spent countless hours praying while driving. (Note that closing one's eyes is not recommended in this activity.) I have prayed while standing in line at a grocery store. I often pray while lying in bed. I pray with my hands idle at my side, folded reverently, upraised in praise and many other ways. I say most of my prayers in English, but I believe that God gives believers the ability to pray in a language that is not known to them for specific purposes. This is not the place for a treatise on praying in tongues, but I accept it as valid for today's Christians. (I reject the notion that a believer must pray in an unknown tongue to certify salvation or guarantee effectiveness.)

 

I close this primer with an encouragement: if you want to learn to pray, start by praying for wisdom from God; he has promised to grant that particular request every time. If you pray only a little, pray more. If you pray quite a lot, pray more. If you pray continually, bless you and please put me on your prayer list: I covet your prayers... and I really need them... just ask my wife.

What Happened to Debate?

A story hit the wire from AP today expressing mock surprise that a fit of compromise broke out in Washington DC yesterday. Republican senators withdrew the threat to filibuster on gun control and Democrats actually honored John McCain on his 40^th anniversary of release from a Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp. President Obama’s gesture toward reducing entitlement spending was also mentioned, but I suspect that was more of a gambit than a true compromise.

Sarcasm notwithstanding, it is sad that a return to normalcy makes news. By normalcy I mean the act of sitting down with one’s opposition and actually debating the merits of each side with an eye toward reaching a workable compromise. Political discourse in this country has always descended into hyperbole and name-calling. Beginning with the days of the verbal jousting between Jefferson and Adams, we have always been a bit dramatic, but at least we debated. No more. Think back to 2008 when the Democrats steam-rolled Obamacare into existence with platitudes like elections have consequences; you lost; shut up.

Then there is all the fake angst by the Dems over Republican filibusters. What hypocrisy. Does no one remember the endless hours the Dems themselves spent filibustering Bush’s court nominees? The Senate rules may be arcane, even ridiculous, but they were instituted so that actual debate would be assured, and so that no majority could run roughshod over any minority. The Senate is supposed to be the chamber of reasoned debate; the House is where all the young firebrands dance and gesticulate around the flames of their various popular causes.

Sadly, even those few conservative politicians (both D and R) who would debate are caught up in the battle over issues that have sailed right past the elementary principles and into the murky water clouded by assumptions and predispositions. Two examples will clarify. The debate over health care has drifted so far from the real issue, that even staunch free market advocates are battling over things that wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if the true sticking point were ever settled. To wit: where is it written that every citizen (and illegal alien) is entitled to health care? Since when is health care an entitlement? When did it become my right to expect you to pay for my health care? That is the debate we should be having instead of grumbling about mandates and health boards.

Another example that screams for a more fundamental discussion is gun control. Listening to Bloomberg and Biden and the President, one would assume that it is a settled fact that stricter controls on the sale and ownership of guns would produce a safer society. In this flurry of minutiae, rifles that have a certain appearance become “assault weapons,” and 10 becomes the magic number of bullets that is safe to allow in a weapon. Yet there is no statistical evidence that tighter control of guns reduces violent crime. In fact just the opposite appears to be true. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws anywhere, yet it leads the nation in gun violence. Connecticut had fairly tough gun laws which did nothing to stop Adam Lanza from murdering a score of children.

And so it is with gay marriage, school vouchers, immigration and a host of other issues. There are foundational principles that should be debated before having the arguments we are currently besieged with. Jesus had a lot to say about the importance of the heart in assessing character. This may seem to be a rhetorical stretch, but I think we are failing to get at the heart of the important issues facing our society. Society is no more or less than the amalgam of its people. Christians know it is people’s hearts that matter; we should be a voice calling for a return to the heart of the matter – whatever the matter is.

How to Watch Television (3)

The third in a series. (Browse titles for other installments.)

My previous installment in this series discussed some of the physical components of responsible TV watching. This time I want to get more cerebral and spiritual. Probably the best thing anyone could do would be to disable the cable and dump the dish. No one really needs TV in the same way one needs food and shelter, yet it has become such an integral part of life in this age that going without it is so rare as to be surprising when someone admits it. Eyebrows rise and jaws drop when someone says there is no TV in the house. I frankly admire that person.

However, most of us are going to keep the box babbling away, so I have some suggestions for fine tuning TV watching so that it more closely follows the Scriptural injunctions I mentioned last time: setting our minds on things above and making good use of our time. The first suggestion is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to say it, but experience teaches that it must be said: don’t watch the filthy stuff. I am not referring to the so called adult programming some providers offer; that is obviously unhealthy. I am thinking of certain dramas and sitcoms that present blatantly unwholesome situations as standard fare, and which do nothing to indicate that the behaviors and situations are anything but normal. We should not find lying, cheating, promiscuity and adultery entertaining. WWJD? Change channels.

I am not suggesting that any presentation of inappropriate behavior is cause to bolt. Certainly education and entertainment have always been a part of watching other people mess up. The criterion for judging whether bad behavior is good entertainment is the outcome presented by the drama. If we see a marriage fall apart because of one spouse’s infidelity or a student lose an opportunity as a result of being caught cheating, we learn an important lesson. Even when we don’t see immediate consequences for bad behavior, if we are thinking Christianly, we will realize that although the wicked do often seem to prosper, a day of reckoning is ahead of us all. Do not envy the wicked, the Proverbs warn; their day is coming.

Besides using TV time to adjust our moral compasses, we can also use it to prompt prayer. My sister once told me that every time she heard a siren she would stop and say a short prayer over the situation. It should be a natural reaction to a news bulletin regarding a house fire to pray for the family: their immediate well-being; their physical needs for replacement housing and material goods; the comfort of friends and family; that God would somehow be glorified in the tragedy. The reports coming out of Syria should have us all praying daily for the Christians there: for their safety and their witness. Any mention of our military should prompt prayer for those we know in service and those we don’t know but benefit from every day they serve.

TV dramas can be just as fruitful in providing prayer prompts. When I see a portrayal of a couple struggling in their marriage, I am reminded of someone in my church going through similar difficulties. When someone gives in to temptation, I can say a prayer of thanks that God delivers me from something or that a friend might have the strength to overcome his trials. When I watch depictions of life on today’s school campuses, I offer a prayer of protection for my grand children. My point is that we can find ways to turn most situations into prayers if we are sensitive to the needs around us.

I should say here that I am not opposed to occasionally sitting in front of a game or drama just for escape. Watching the Tigers or the Red Wings or those goofballs on Top Gear, for example, as a down-time pastime is fine if it is not all the time. If you are anywhere near the national average I cited in the first installment of this series (34 hours/week,) it would be irresponsible to use it all as down-time. Try this thought experiment: if you learned today that you have one week left to live, how much TV would you watch? Since none of us knows how much time we have, shouldn’t that always be the computation?