Chicago's Chicken Little

"The sky is falling; the sky is falling," said the little chicken.

You would think Henny Penny, or Chicken Little as she is also known, had taken over the soul of Rahm Emanuel.  The Chicago mayor, Obama's former right hand man, announced yesterday that "'Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values."

The frightful position that warrants this harsh and blatantly discriminatory stance by the mayor is the admission by Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, that he is in favor of traditional marriage. As reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cathy said, "We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

So apparently traditional family values are no longer acceptable in Chicago if the city's mayor is correct. This is ironic on so many levels that it is hard to believe it is not pure fiction. One wants to ask what planet Rahm Emanuel comes from. You don't have to be homophobic to see that grandstanding against the lifestyle embraced by 90% of the population is ludicrous.

The news outlets seem to be focusing on the surface of this issue; no surprise there. They question whether it is a wise move by any company to offend those who support more liberal values. They wonder if the owner of a private concern has the right to express an opinion that may upset some of his patrons. Do anti-discrimination laws forbid private private business owners from public statements about their personal beliefs, they want to know.

I want to know if anybody sees the larger issue here. Emanuel is joined in his anti-family view by the mayor of Boston and, to read the blogs, every pro-gay spokesperson on the web. There may be an IED in the path of these people. This could blow up in their faces if supporters of traditional family values protest in sufficient numbers, in intelligent arguments that highlight the hypocrisy in this issue. The proponents of tolerance are revealing themselves as the most intolerant of all people.

The last time I wrote in this space I suggested Christians can be opposed to homosexuality for numerous "secular" reasons. Here again Christians, Muslims, anyone who believes in traditional family values can be genuinely outraged by Emanuel's statement with no reference to any religious bias. The position the gay lobby is trying to achieve is simply not constitutional. The First Amendment guarantees the right to hold and to express family values -- even in Chicago.

Ironically, the ACLU has come out on the side of Cathy. This is the first time in my memory that I have agreed with that institution. For once, a liberal outfit decries the unconstitutional treatment of Christian beliefs. If it were not so far to drive, I would go straight to the nearest Chick-fil-A for a celebratory meal in support of the company and the position expressed by Dan Cathy. Even better would be to visit a Chick-fil-A in Chicago (yes, they are there.)

There was a time when being banned in Boston was an honor; that time may have returned. I hope the family values people in Boston and Chicago (and everywhere else) raise a sky pounding noise. Then the sky may start falling as Chicken Little feared; I only hope it hits Rahm Emanuel, not us.

Gay Alternative

A while back I posted a suggestion that Christians can use science to argue against the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) agenda. I do not think that believers should use Biblical arguments in the public square. The highly charged anti-Christian bias in the media and academia overshadows any truth that might be applied directly from the Scriptures. Besides, this is a pluralistic republic; no one religious view is supposed to be imposed on anyone.

Just because we cannot use Biblical arguments in public does not mean they are invalid at home. A mom recently asked for my input with her treatment of a family member being indoctrinated with GLBT propaganda. She had formulated a well-reasoned three prong approach to which I may add a fourth after laying some philosophical groundwork.

We must accept as a foundational truth that some things in the Bible are timeless. We categorically reject the GLBT suggestion that God's injunction against homosexuality was cultural; it is rooted in who we are as creatures in God's image, not how we socialize as humans. That being said, the proscriptions in Leviticus and Paul's exposition in Romans 1 clearly place homosexual behavior out of bounds for sincere believers. There is absolutely no hermeneutic basis for saying that since "only" Paul forbids homosexuality and not Jesus, it is therefore an acceptable practice. I will return to this idea in conclusion.

The second reason the mom chose to defend an anti-gay position is that it is unhealthy. In the post I referenced earlier I linked to an article by the Family Research Council which exposed the health risks of the GLBT lifestyle. Plainly summarized, homosexuals die far younger than heterosexuals. This is due to numerous behaviors associated with gay sex which expose them to multiple diseases in addition to the HIV/aids risk. Believers must warn against all lifestyle choices which endanger health: smoking, excessive alcohol use, workaholism, overeating, and the like.

And while science is the topic, we must counter the argument that there is some genetic or biological cause for homosexual tendencies. No widely accepted, peer-reviewed study has shown any such causal relationship. Even if it were to be discovered, a bio/genetic link would not make the behavior any safer or less sinful. Also, to call something a healthy alternative lifestyle because it is genetic is like saying autism or Down Syndrome or Parkinson's disease are "healthy alternatives." Nonsense; they are aberrations, not "normal" alternatives.

The mom's final point was to remind us that we are called to love sinners regardless of the sin by which they are ensnared. For some reason we tend to create classes of sin which engender a more visceral response. We can love the thief, but hate the pedophile; excuse the glutton or gossip, but condemn the lesbian; support the adulterer, but excommunicate the homosexual. Sin is sin, and we are all sinners saved (or not saved) by grace. Our love is to mirror God's: universal and unconditional.

Having said that, I do believe there is a reason why perversions of a sexual nature get more attention. First, God created humanity as male and female. This dual nature comes closer to representing God's image than either gender could singly. Add the fact that normal male/female association eventually begets children (within God's ordained structure: marriage) and you have the fullest picture of the image of God. I believe the family was intended to come closest to representing the triune character of the Creator: Father, Son, Holy Spirit mirrored by father, mother, child. Mess with the family and you mess with the imageo dei. I believe the strong injunction against aberrant sexual behavior is rooted in the desire of God to protect his image in his creation.

The second reason that sexual sin seems worse is closely related and stems from its unique spiritual nature. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 that sexual sin affects humans at a deeper spiritual level than other sins. It is my opinion that this is because of the unique bond that God intended to be formed between a man and wife, ultimately producing children.  The intimacy of the conjugal act is reserved for the husband/wife relationship because it speaks to the deepest part of who we are as divine image bearers. All sin tarnishes the image, but Paul suggests that sexual sin actually is in a class by itself.

Many Christians reject this kind of thinking as too harsh, too unforgiving. Post-modernism drifts away from all absolutes of any kind. The uncomfortable truth is that Scripture clearly makes absolute statements about many things. Anyone hoping to forge a Biblical world-view must come to grips with the discomfort of absolute truth. It's either that or make it up as you go along. Inventing reality, playing make-believe is fine for children. It looks kind of foolish in adults.

Why am I Here?

A return to the beginning or why I named this blog what I did.

Some friends and I are reading through Randy Alcorn's Money, Possessions and Eternity. Alcorn's purpose seems to be to get people thinking correctly about the relationship between this life and the "next", as some call it. Very much in line with Biblical teaching, Alcorn reminds readers that life on earth is the prelude to the program, not the whole deal. He rightly asserts that most people, Christians included, have lost the sense of the eternal. "Many of us habitually think and act as if there were no eternity," he says.

Alcorn emphasizes the Scriptural truth that money, possessions and our very lives here are temporal (having to do with time) and our ultimate destiny is eternal (not related to time.) Maybe because forever is such a difficult concept to wrap our finite minds around, we tend to ignore the implications. People have tried to use spatial metaphors to make the point more clear. If time and eternity were both on the same line, time would be a dot and eternity would be the rest of the line stretching enlessly in both directions. This may help, but it still leaves one struggling with what "endlessly" means.

For me, there is a more basic question that even Alcorn may be missing. Why should I care about eternity? (Why does heaven always matter most?) Alcorn points out that "There seems to be built into every person, society, and religion a basic belief that good deserves reward and evil deserves punishment." Got it. What goes around comes around. You eventually have to pay the piper. Karma. Alcorn's thesis is that our treatment of the temporal stuff that consumes our time here dictates our eventual state in eternity. I don't dispute that. But Alcorn, like so many other Christians, focuses on the rewards heaven holds for those who act appropriately on earth.

I wonder if this emphasis remains rooted in our temporal mindset. Forgo earthly pleasure and wealth to earn those same delights in heaven. Delayed gratification remains gratification of the original desire. Yes, the Bible promises temporal things as reward; I suspect this technique is used because we can't even imagine what the eternal reward will be like, so temporal metaphors must suffice. The Apostle Paul said that “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

I can imagine some pretty cool temporal things. Perfect wind for sailing every day, bike trips with no rain, hole-in-one golf on a regular basis all sound very satisfying. But if I can think them, they are less than what awaits if Paul is to be taken literally. Alcorn quotes some really, really rich people saying that the temporal stuff never does satisfy. Why would we think that an unlimited supply of it in heaven would be so wonderful?

Besides all this, isn't doing the right thing here on earth so we can be materially rewarded in heaven a twisted motive? Pie in the sky by and by is still just pie. Heaven matters most to me because I will be in perfect union with the God who created me. I will be in eternal fellowship with the One who can satisfy every need I have. As a fringe benefit, I believe my relationships with my fellow travellers will also be perfect. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," and he prayed that we (his followers) would be one in the same way. That is why heaven matters most. It is only there, in eternity that I will be completely fulfilled.

Still, my reason for behaving as I ought here on earth is not just because I will be granted perfect satisfaction in eternity; that would be selfish. I do what I ought because the One who paid my price of admission into eternal bliss asks me to. Out of love for Him and in recognition of the great sacrifice He made for me I do what he asks. And I want others to know that good has its reward and evil its punishment. And I want to make clear what true good is. All this is because I have a hope of heaven, and that is what matters most.

Thanks Vets

Like Christmas or Easter, Memorial Day is one of those times when we focus on something that should be foremost in our minds every day. Every blessing we enjoy in this country has been bought and paid for by the men and women who through the years have given of themselves, sometimes at tremendous personal sacrifice, to ensure our freedoms. So, yes, we salute them today. But what exactly are we honoring?

Do we applaud war? Not me. I abhor the death and destruction that war brings, especially on the innocent. But it is necessary to have a bunch of people in a free society who are willing to stand and defend the rest of us. I am the proud son and father of US servicemen. I came of age in the Vietnam era and participated in the draft. It was a lottery back then, and my number was not called. Although I despised the way the politicians were prosecuting the war, I would have done my duty if asked. Had I not been too old, I might have enlisted after 9/11; seriously.

We are not honoring mayhem and destruction. Killing people and breaking things is not typical Christian activity, but when there are people in the world intent on killing us and breaking our things, it is only wise to have a defensive force to withstand them. The Bible teaches that God ordained certain men to carry swords (that's first century imagery) to restrain evil. Might never makes right, but there are times when right must be defended by might.

Are we honoring the policy decisions of today's leaders. Not me. There are legitimate questions to be asked in light of the shrinking nature of the globe; the libertarians rightfully ask whether it is ultimately in our best interest to project our might into every conflict in any hemisphere. I may not go as far as say, Ron Paul, on this issue, but there is a real need to reconsider America's role in the world when our battles are being financed by our grandchildren. There are many hurting people in the world that compassionate hearts ache to heal, but it seems unwise to mortgage the future give aid today.

On this day we honor the people like my son and my father who did not consider their lives too dear to risk everything to protect the rest of us back home. Forget politics; forget fiscal accountability; forget discussions about Augustine's just war theory. Just remember and salute all those who make it possible to have a free debate about all such issues. Do it today and tomorrow and tomorrow, ad eternum. They deserve it.

Healthy Fear

"Conservatives' paranoid alternate-reality can be explained by their brain chemistry."

So says the sub head under "Republican Fear Factor" on a blog I stumbled onto this morning. Salon.com reprinted an Alternet blog reporting a University College London brain study which purports to identify differences in the way conservatives and liberals process information neurologically. This study is linked with one at University of Nebraska - Lincoln which draws similar conclusions according to Chris Mooney, author of The Republican Brain.

The two studies point out that the part of the brain known as amygdala are active in the human response to troubling situations. Citing differences in the relative size of the amygdala between conservatives and liberals, Mooney concludes that this “new research suggests [that] conservatism is largely a defensive ideology — and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments.”

I am not a neurologist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I know that the brain is incredibly complex. Five minutes of research reveals that the amygdala perform a far broader suite of activities than just inciting fear. For example, according to one encyclopedia, "The amygdala is also involved in the modulation of memory consolidation. Following any learning event, the long-term memory for the event is not formed instantaneously." I would like to suggest that a smaller amygdala might explain the liberals' apparent inability to remember promises or learn from history. I will not wait for any of our (primarily liberal) universities to confirm that.

My point is not to play dueling brain study. I would actually like to embrace what Mooney is implying. As a believer, I am inherently and proudly conservative. I wish to conserve tradition, morality, family, the Constitution and an orthodox interpretation of the Bible. I am genuinely concerned about threats to these dear principles. The Apostle Peter openly warns that our "enemy the Devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." That is what I hear in Mooney's conclusion. If we do not remain "sensitive and highly attuned" (Mooney) or "alert and sober" (Peter) we end up as lion lunch -- or as liberals.

Whoa! Baby.

Warning: this post may contain references that will leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Something on my Facebook wall got my attention this morning. It seems I missed the exciting first round and came in on the end of the fight. Earlier this year a group called Children of God for Life instituted a boycott of PepsiCo for alleged use of embryonic stem cells in its flavor research. Pardon my gruesome thought, but I pictured ground up babies in my Pepsi, not unlike the collagen scare a few years ago.

My first thought was that this is another melodramatic hoax fueled by mindless Internet forwarders and Facebook posters. So I did what I usually do when I smell fish: I went to Snopes.com. I found that the tangents people have taken off on (like my baby flavoring nightmare) are completely unfounded. The issue is too complex for the simple minded, but since I respect my readers' mental powers, I will summarize what I think has happened.

PepsiCo contracted with a company called Senomyx to research ways to enhance flavor using less sugar, salt and MSG. These are goals almost everyone can support. What came to light earlier this year and caused all the stir is that Senomyx had used a test agent which had come from a strand of DNA taken from an embryonic kidney in the 1970's. No embryonic cells went into any Pspsi products, and no embryonic cells were used by the firm PepsiCo hired to do research.

What did happen is that one piece of human embryonic DNA was used over forty years ago to start a stem cell line which has prospered into "workhorses of cellular biology," according to Forbes' Michael Herper in a Snopes report on the issue. So the sacrifice of one embryo years ago led to the creation of a research tool which has been used regularly in the medical field, and now surfaces in a commercial application. As Herper points out, "No new fetal tissue has been used; the use of this cell line isn't leading to new abortions." In fact, the cells themselves are no longer human; they are genetically engineered tissue which sprang from a bit of human DNA.

No one is more disgusted by abortion and the toll of human lives taken than I am. If some one wants to boycott PepsiCo for funding Planned Parenthood or paying for abortions in its employee health coverage, I can understand. But to imply that all research which has even the remotest link to human cells is evil is going too far. By that reasoning we would have to be against organ donation (I know some Christians are.) By that reasoning we would have to shut down all research that uses any form of human cells, adult or embryonic (Say goodbye to all those wonder drugs we use so freely.) By that reasoning medical schools should not use cadavers to teach anatomy. Etcetera ad infinitum.

We are sometimes forced into dark places "that good may come," to borrow a line from Edith Wharton. I understand the need to close doors that might lead to new incentives to harvest embryonic cells. But in this case, the "damage" is long done, and only good may come. I see the use of genetically engineered material as an opportunity to create life from death. Not to stretch our spiritual mandate too thin, but is that not what we are called to do every day in this death dominated domain we inherited from our proto-parents?

Spamming Facebook

Breaker, breaker Fb. Anybody got a copy on me? Over.

Almost half a century ago, when I got into the then new Citizens' Band radio fad, there were rules governing the establishment of what was called a "station." As I recall, I had to read and swear compliance with a set of operational standards. These included stating my call sign (KJB6733) at the beginning and end of each transmission. I was supposed to limit my transmissions to a few minutes. Stations were not allowed to have more than four watts of power. And one more rule which brings me to my subject of the day: I was not supposed to "broadcast," which means sending a transmission with no intended receiver.

When people started violating these rules, boosting their power and talking endlessly to no one in particular, CB radio lost its usefulness for the average citizen. The airwaves became electronically cluttered with indecipherable noise being generated by illegal stations to the point where usable reception was limited to little more than a mile. Before the rules were smashed, send-and-receive transmissions of over twenty miles were not unusual.

My dear reader may be wondering what in Heaven's name this has to do with Facebook. Just this: Fb is now becoming so cluttered with trivial "broadcasts" by my "friends" that it has become practically unusable. One may argue that this situation is a result of my choice of friends. This would be correct in part. Someone else may wish to point out that I have the option of un-friending anyone who clutters my wall or at the very least, hiding their posts. That is also true. Sadly this places the burden of creating a usable tool entirely in my hands.

I say sadly because my hidden friends may occasionally write something I want to read, and it should not be my sole responsibility to police the medium. If there were a set of rules, Facebook etiquette say, we could all take part in keeping our walls clear for useful posting. Were that the case, I would be able to take note of the significant happenings in my friends' lives without having to wade through fathoms of frivolity to get the news. If people posted only truly meaningful or entertaining information, Fb would be far more useful. I say this as a member with less than two hundred friends. I cannot imagine what it is like for those with more.

This situation is nearly a direct parallel to spamming in email. I am not referring to the commercial practice of broadcasting advertising through email. I am calling spam those ridiculous forwards that some people cannot help but forward no matter how trivial or outlandish they may be. If I read one more time how rich we would all be if only the government had given the stimulus dollars directly to us, I will scream. (Do the math people; it's hundreds, not tens of thousands each.) Nor is my opinion of my contacts improved when they forward mail which ends with near death threats if I refuse to follow suit and spam my entire contact list.

The question may have arisen in someone's mind asking what this post is doing under my blog title. It should be obvious: believers are called to join in fellowship (koinonia) with one another. Facebook is a great place to do this. I could do a better job of laughing when you laugh and crying when you cry if I could get to those posts more easily. I have been known to stop at a post and utter a little prayer when the Spirit leads me. That is the body in action in cyberspace. That's Y2Kristian. 10-4?

Please post a comment or "like" this on Fb if you agree.