Remove God by removing consequences

No matter where you stand on the bail out of the financial markets, you must admit that what we are dealing with here is removing consequences. By definition, a bail out removes the obvious consequences of an action.

It seems to me that to remove consequences also removes God from our mind. He is a God of consequences. We can be sorry, we can be forgiven, but there are consequences to our actions. This reminds us of "right and wrong," and of a God who judges. Without consequences, God grows to be a fainter and fainter memory. If there are no consequences, there is no judgment, and we don't need saving, beyond being bailed out now and then.

Postmodernism, Again

Gene Veith writes on his blog about the effect of postmodernism in interpreting history. He does so through a quote from a presidential candidates's book. The gist of the quote is that absolute truth is bad and leads to tyranny. The proposed solution? Trust in God, but trust more in your judgment. How unbiblical is that?

Obomination

In his acceptance speech, Presidential candidate Barak Obama cited Scripture. Here is the quote of his concluding paragraph:

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

The closest verse I can find to the "hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess," is Hebrews 10:23 (with a little bit of Hebrews 3:6 included). Here is Hebrews 10:23 (NIV):

NIV Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.

Notice the difference. In the Bible, we hold to our profession in Christ because God is faithful. In the speech, we must conclude our hope is either in America, Government or Mr. Obama. Lets get it straight. Our hope is in Christ, not America, Government or Mr. Obama or any other candidate. All of those replace God with a person or place. All of those are an abomonation, or in this case, an Obomination.

Convention Thoughts

I have been watching the Democratic convention from Denver. I expect to see much of the same from Minnesota next week when the Republicans take to the air. I can't believe what I see!

The parade of legislators is endless, each with the same message. Things will change when we get a new President. Failed legislative policies of the past will be replaced by new, better ones. Bills to cut or raise taxes (depending on who you want to tax or let off) will flow down the aisles of Congress. Health Care will change overnight. Everyone will get free money!

Well, lets just stop a minute and do a Constitution check. The President, covered by Article II of the Constitution, gets about 18 lines of text to spell out his powers and duties, including five that spell out his duty to receive and appoint ambassadors and commission officers of the US (military and foreign service). The Legislature, which is the Senate and House, gets 71 lines of powers and duties, including the duty and power to make all laws. Did you read that--they make the laws, not the President. If he vetoes them, they can override the veto. THE POWER IS IN THE LEGISLATURE.

So, do you get the irony in legislators parading before the cameras calling a president to task for failing to the the thing they, and only they, have the power to do?

What could be worse than that? I'll tell you: the people who clap and possibly believe this stuff, aka the electorate.

Quick Thoughts on D.C. v. Heller--The 2nd Amendment Case

Here are my first impressions, in order that they came to me.

1. The acrimony in the majority and Justice Stevens' dissent is really over the top. The majority refers to dissent thinking as "wrongheaded" and "worthy of the mad hatter." Justice Stevens invokes the parable of the six blind men viewing the elephant to describe the word-for-word analysis of the majority. Nasty.

2. Justice Stevens uses the same historical references as the majority, yet draws different conclusions. It would be interesting to read the original sources, although the majority seems to have done a better job of explaining why Stevens is wrong than he does in disputing them.

3. Justice Breyer's dissent is substandard. That was my impression upon first reading. I then went back and searched the majority opinion for specific rebuttal of Justice Stevens' dissent, and likewise, Justice Breyer's dissent. The majority felt it necessary to answer Justice Stevens many times. Not so with Breyer. I guess they felt like me--it really wasn't necessary.

4. The idea that a city can ban handgun ownership was clearly struck down. In fact, the court ordered the district to grant a license to Mr. Heller. Now the District is not a state, but through the 14th Amendment, it would seem to me that this decision is going to loosen handgun bans everywhere. The court seemed to favor a "shall issue" standard. It is also noteworthy that the Court reviewed the historic literature and found the broadest right to keep and bear arms possible.

The Two Seeds

In Genesis 3, God, as part of the curse, puts hostility between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman; then he promises redemption to the woman.

Today in church we were reviewing the conflict that the movie, Expelled has spawned. Anti-God "seed" and those who claim Him as father argue over intelligent design. Did God create us? We say He did, they say He didn't.

I asked why there aren't more conflicts representative of the seed conflict. Why don't we see more "spiritual warfare?" The conversation concluded that we don't because we have made peace with so many ideas that are contrary to a Christian worldview.

Cindy said that she thinks that most of us lack the training needed to go on the defensive (offensive) and take on those who speak loudly against God. Yet, Peter says that we are always to be ready to "apologize" for our faith.

My suggestion was that we use our minds to point out the inconsistencies in other worldviews. For example, I read from Darwin's The Descent of Man, and showed where he, within five pages of explaining how the survival of the fittest applies to civilized man, and where he says it doesn't. That is an inconsistency we need to talk about.

At the same time, we should expect that the natural man won't understand our worldview, but at least we will have taken the first step to get him to question his. That may create conflict, but it is a kind act towards preparing others for the Gospel.

Always, when doing apologetics, use the Railroad Sign" approach; stop, look and listen. Stop before you barge right in. Look and listen to see if this is a good time to do this. Will your making your point humiliate your friend in front of others? Is he so angry that he won't hear what you say? Can you plan a follow up conversation?

Finally, don't be surprised by conflict. Spiritual conflict is what Jesus promised us. It is what He uses to reach others through you--the seed.

Sadly, He's Right

Illinois just elected a Representative to replace retired Rep. Dennis Hastert. His name is Bill Foster. Aside from having a successful career in science and business, he is a classic American pragmatist. Here's what he said:

People on both sides should take the message that we want people who are less divisive, less ideological and more problem-solving.

Rightly, he senses that people don't care if you have beliefs or principles. The issue is, can you work for them. All the great people abusers in history have understood this. Foster does, although I don't mean that he is automatically a people abuser. He is just an average American pragmatist. The ends justify whatever means. We don't have to think about it. It works, or it doesn't.

He wants to be there to fix the war, social security, poverty, etc., without a thought on why--just that it works. Sadly.

Post-modernism, pluralism and Roman Catholicism

I have noticed an interesting trend among twenty-something post-moderns who also claim an evangelical heritage. They flirt with (Roman) Catholicism.

I guess you can explain this by reviewing something that R.C. Sproul said once. He said that pluralism was not a real worldview. Instead, it is an "ism" that exists between the dominance of a new "ism" over a former "ism." People land adrift in pluralism after rejecting a worldview. Then, that pluralism gives way to adopting a new "ism."

In many ways, post-modernism is a form of pluralism--all views are okay and equal. With the post-moderns rejection of modernism often comes the rejection of Reformation theology, which they see as modernistic. (Actually, I see it as a biblical correction to scholasticism, but that is another story.) This leads them to seek refuge in the time before Reformed theology hit, and that is medieval Catholicism.

This is "strange" for two reasons. First, what we call Reformed Theology is older than medieval times. It is a rediscovery of Augustinian thought, which springs straight from Paul the Apostle. The post-modern wheel stops too soon!

Secondly, with the post-modern rejection of the meta narrative, it is strange that the wheel would stop in a period of low scholastic standards, where authority took the place of thinking. Since post-moderns reject authority, it seems strange that they would rest in the bosum of the most authoritarian form of church government that is around.

This is sort of like someone who rejects the current style of automobile because it was influenced by the last style. In reaching back to the style before that, he fails to observe that his chosen style actually followed a style that is much like the current style. So, know history, know knowledge--no history, no knowledge!

Golden Compass brings meaning to compass deviation

In the world of real compasses, mariners and others deal with something called "deviation." (They also worry about "variation," but that for another time.) Deviation is caused by nearby objects that affect the compass as it seeks out magnetic bearings. To correct deviation, a mariner has to "swing ship." He adjusts the compass, or notes the errors throughout the whole 360 degree swing. It is different for different courses.

In the movie Golden Compass, there is a lot of compass error. Last night some of us were discussing the movie. As Cindy said, it is "episodic." It consists of scenes of special effects or "exciting content" which don't seem linked together in any particular order. In fact, some episodes were moved in their order from the book, without any real damage. Where was the plot?

And, where was character development? The relationships, a serious part of the book, were totally gone in the movie. No Lyra and Roger, no Lyra and Farder Coram. Mrs. Coulter, perhaps the best developed character in the movie, was not nearly as impressive in her power and nastiness as she is in the book. In the book, lofur Raknison,the Bear King, is a developed character we can dislike. There is internal cheering going on when he dies in a gory death. The death isn't even gory in the movie, and he seems like a character who has to die to make way for a new king. We miss all of his "human like" sinful ways that the book delivers.

The book is packed with biblical allusion. It is mostly gone from the movie. Either the screenwriters and director missed it, or they supposed (rightly) that we wouldn't miss it. Pullman knows his Bible, but you wouldn't know it from watching the movie. The great Simeon-in-the-temple scene is shortened and the words put on the lips of another character. The Moses analogy with lorek Byrnison exiled for unlawful killing in anger is not only gone, but his reason for exile is changed!

The Compass itself, an "alethiometer," from the Greek word, aletheia, is just an instrument, with perphaps a bit of supernatural thrown in. In the book, there is much more of a metaphysical sense in which Lyra becomes more than just a compass reader.

So, as a Christian reader, I found much to interact with in the book. The children's movie was just a children's movie, and not a very good one.

Bloggers, Beware

Today's Pearls before Swine comic strip is about blogging/bloggers.



Leave it to a redirected lawyer to tell us what he really thinks. Stephan Pastis is really great at capturing post-modern life in America. His comments on how we live are spot on. He says that blogs are an outlet for frustrated authors. He should know. since his comic strip started much like a blog. In the past, he has drawn about a superhero called, "Ego Man," and called the tort system we live under a lottery.

Bloggers don't have editors, though. And too often, those of us who blog also instantly publish. (Look mom, no editor!) Sometimes I have been surprised at the difference in the level of thinking and writing displayed in the blog of a writer whose work I value(d). I read his or her column and he or she is a brilliant writer and thinker. I read his blog--his outlet for frustration--it is a different story, and a sad one. So, bloggers, beware. As Pastis would suggest, some of us might be better off resorting to the toilet seat.

Cool Literature

Over on paisleyandplaid, Cindy writes about her favorite, "non-classic" book. That got me thinking about my favorites. Actually, I concluded that generally, whether it is a book of the Bible, or pulp fiction, whatever I am reading, provided it is good, is my favorite.

For about two years I have been reading lots of fiction from the early 20th century, particularly British stuff. To my mind, it is well written. Catch this description of dawn from Louis Joseph Vance's False Faces, a part of the "Lone Wolf" series of mystery/spy books:

Awesome pallor tinged the eastern horizon, gaining strength, spread in imperceptible yet rapid gradations toward the zenith. Stars faded, winked out, vanished. Silver and purple in the sea gave place to livid gray. Almost visibly the routed night rolled back over the western rim of the world. Shafts of supernal radiance lanced the formless void between sky and sea. Swollen and angry, the sun lifted up its enormous, ensanguined portent. And the discountenanced moon withdrew hastily into the immeasurable vastnessness of a cloudless firmament, yet failed therein to find complete concealment. Keen, sweet airs of dawn raked the decks, now to port, now to starboard, as the Assyrian twisted and writhed on her corkscrew way.

Great Stuff. Thanks, Cindy, for getting me thinking!

Who Moved the Maze?

Familiar with Spenser Johnson' s book, Who Moved My Cheese? It is a condescending parable about, among others, Hem and Haw, two humans who find their cheese (happiness and success) has disappeared from the usual spot in the maze. They have to learn to move on to new cheese to survive in life.

A few days ago I remarked to some friends that the "center" of acceptable values concepts has moved from the past. What used to be "center thinking" has become stuff to the right.

I think what has happened is that someone moved the maze. The path in the maze leads today to something called cheese, but it is actually pasturized, processed, vegetable based cheese food. No nutritional value, but it sits there in the maze and people gobble it up because it is in the maze.

In a post-Christian society, the maze (path) has moved. That brings to mind the narrow path of the Bible, and Christian's (in Pilgrim's Progress) encounter with those who wanted to take a different path to the celestial city.

I think that as Christians, we all know the true path, but we are in danger of following the crowd down the moved maze to the cheese food. It is time to return to the deli, smell the real cheese, and skip the path in the maze.

Gossip-The Devil's Powerful Tool

Every Christian knows that God is truth. We claim that as a basis for why we believe the Bible. God cannot lie. Most of us recognize that Jesus, in John 8, says that the Devil is the father of lies.

With that background, comes this story which says that people tend to believe gossip even when they are confronted with the facts that contradict it. If you find that hard to believe--look around. Too often the Christian church operates on this same principle. Christian gossip is disgusting, and yet it is probably the number one problem (read, sin) in our churches today. Spreading gossip is condemned in the Bible. The Greek word for gossip is psithurismos, so named because it sounds the same as the sound of a snake.

So, the next time someone passes on hearsay, or rumor to you, make the sound of a snake and walk away. Start speaking in your Father's native tongue.

Oops, the liberal got it right

I generally enjoy reading the Al Mohler blog, but today I believe that he goofed. Here is a blog entry concerning religious views of political candidates. He quotes Michael Kinsley, a liberal columnist, that we should know the religious views of candidates. Specifically, Kinsley, with Mohler's approval, wants to know what a candidate's church teaches about issues that will affect others; abortion, euthanasia, gambling and the like come to my mind.

So far so good. THEN, Mohler parts ways with Kinsley when Kinsley suggests that he wants to know what a candidate's church teaches on worldview issues that don't directly affect others. For example, if a church teaches that you are to be true to your spouse, that teaching doesn't make adultery a crime for others. Mohler thinks that makes the teaching off limits. He says,

[kinsley should] think carefully about the distinction between doctrines that relate directly to public policy and those that do not.

What? Are there really aspects of our beliefs that don't relate to all of life. Can we separate out what we believe is right from how we would prefer to see others live? If I am elected President and hold evangelical beliefs, that will shape all of my decisions. I won't be likely to surround myself with advisors that are obvious adulterers. I won't invite female preachers to say the prayer at state dinners. In short, I will be an evangelical. And, without saying what my beliefs are on some of these issues, I will offend people just by being a person of faith.

Do we really think that people around us aren't offended by our beliefs, even if we don't push those beliefs on them? Of course they are. It galls them to think that people who are "holier than thou" are in the neighborhood.

Rememeber, if you believe it, it will be a part of who you are in public, as well as inside the walls of your church, or you are a hypocrite. Kinsley got it right.

I Can't Believe I Didn't Notice Earlier

I know, I know, I make a big deal of post-modernity. That seems fair to me, since it is the worldview most prevalent around me every day. So, as one who is "aware," I am surprised when a sign of the times becomes obvious that I should have seen earlier.

One of my laments is that today everyone is treated the same. All kids who participate get a trophy. Everyone is a winner. Teachers feel that pressure in school. Every parent expects his or her child to get an A.


I always preached to parents to give it up. "When your child becomes an adult," I always said, "they won't get that kind of treatment. Let them learn reality now!" How many times have I told parents and kids that? Well, yesterday, at about 5:47 PM, I found out that I was wrong. Yep, there in the Publix parking lot was the proof that even adults are now getting trophys.

I saw a young soldier driving his car. He had a black beret pulled down in a way that said, "I have a beret and I am cool." Then it hit me. ALL soldiers get berets. No more do only green berets, Rangers and other elite groups wear berets. Now EVERYONE in the Army can cruise the Publix lot with the "cool" beret.

I can't believe I didn't notice earlier. I guess the good news is that even though I didn't catch on right away, I'll still get my trophy.

The Vick Irony

What caused Michael Vick to plead guilty? I believe it was the overwhelming public disdain for his actions. After all, he killed dogs. It is ironic, that he could have driven the same co-conspirators to an abortion clinic without the slightest outcry. Welcome to the fallen world, if you make it out of the womb!

The Yankee paradigm, Kevin Millar and post-modernity

I had the time of my life last night watching the Baltimore Orioles trash the Yankees 12-0. I don't like the Yankees much, so it was a great thing to watch as the score mounted higher and higher throughout the game.

Watching the game got me thinking. The Yankees have, from a purely objective view, the best team in baseball. They are loaded with high-priced talent in most all positions. Their younger starts are among the best in the new talent line up. So, why don't they win?

I think it is because they are the paradigm for the post-modern world. They don't concern themselves with relational chemistry. Just sign stars and let them play. They are a cookie cutter production, with little thought for the relationships that do or don't develop between players. You can replace anybody with another body that hits with a higher average, or has a better arm throwing from the outfield. Life in general is becoming like that. A certified teacher is the same as any other certified teacher. Let's not consider whether or not there is passion in the act, let's just look at qualifications.

In Scripture, personality plays a big role in how God directs his kingdom work. In the post-modern world, it is irrelevant. Personal interviews, for example, have given way to online resumes that are computer searched for key words. If the best person for the job omits a "key word" that the computer is looking for--sorry!

Consider the Red Sox. They were world champions in 2004. Kevin Millar was a spark plug on that team. He was friends with everyone, and he is credited with the phrase, "cowboy up," which was a catalyst in the chemistry that developed on the team. He was let go at the end of the next season. The Red Sox are still good, but without the "bunch of idiots" chemistry, they lack the drive they exhibited in 2o04.

God uses relationships in the body to make us more together than we are individually. The world looks at resumes, God looks at living, breathing, thinking, personal beings. And, thank you, Kevin Millar, for your personality.

So, away with computer searching through resumes, eharmony.com and one certified teacher equals any other certified teacher. Bring back chemistry. Without it, marriages, churches and even baseball teams don't have a chance.

Political Correctness & the "Dumb" Gene

The concept of scientific evidence has morphed significantly over the years. For example, the report that "scientific evidence" shows that Jesus didn't really walk of water--it was probably, possibly, perhaps--ice, is an example of speculation labeled as "evidence." But, I don't want to talk about that report. I want to suggest that it is time for a scientific study to seek evidence of a link between those who are politically correct and the "dumb" gene.

My hypothesis is simple--only people who are really dumb will always stick to the politically correct path. They can't help it--they are just not capable of thinking. Put another way, I hypothesize that people who are dumb, when placed in positions of responsibility and authority, simply take the "pc" way on everything they must decide.

I offer this "evidence" to support my hypothesis. The technology folks have co-opted the term "evangelist" from Christianity. Any person who lives in the IT world will notice the fact that you can't read blogs or articles on the web without references to the term "evangelist" as a promoter of some process, product or technology. Adobe, for example, has a blatant site which is simply called "adobeEvangelists."

Soooo, when a major, major company established a position for a technology promoter, the decision makers entitled the position, "Innovation Evangelist." It makes sense. Everyone in IT knows what an evangelist is--a promoter. After all, the Greek word from which we get evangelist really means the one who brings good news.

But, someone in the company complained that they were offended by the use of the word evangelist which must be connected to Christianity. Here's where the dumb gene comes in. The person dealing with this complaint decided to drop the term, "evangelist." Yep, no reference to the fact that evangelist is a properly used term for promoter. No mention of the fact that use of the term is common place. Just a roll over to the complaint. No thinking involved. Hence, the evidence that the dumb gene is related to political correctness.

I certainly hope that no one in that company slips into other offensive language. No stating that someone was "converted" from their erroneous view on technology. No suggesting that the new IT platform is so good that folks in the field are "worshiping" the ground where their computers sit.

Now I realize that this "evidence", in the old days, would not be enough to convert my hypothesis into a theory. But these are not the old days. If Florida State University can publish the "walk on ice theory" as a theory, then right here before God and everybody (oops, I mean before nature and everybody) I wish to theorize that the tendency to adopt politically correct solutions is directly related to possession of the dumb gene.

Death by Democratization--Chapter 1313

Yet another blow for distinctions has been struck. Barristers, who used to be visibly distinct from Solicitors in the English legal system, will no longer wear their wigs in civil cases. The egalitarians have won again!

Even though the courts stress that the change is being made to save money and do away with a tradition that is "uncomfortable and smelly" to some, the NY Times revels in the real reason; the wigs were elitist. They marked out the Barristers from the Solicitors, who used to be a kind of every day lawyer who handed litigation over to the specialist--the wigged Barrister. (Not surprisingly, the wigs are kept for criminal trials where defendants report a certain comfort level from knowing that they have the real thing, a trial bulldog!)

Our society is dying by democratization. Pay scales look only at how long you've worked, not how well. Nurses and receptionists all wear scrubs. (Fill in your favorite example here.) On the ecclesiastical side, gone are the days where Reformed preachers dressed in academic regalia to indicate that they were specialists in handling God's word. All we are left with is the ecclesiastical robe, which means what?

So, keep giving all the kids trophys from the earliest ages. Let no one get below an A- on his report card, and don't worry about the qualifications of the one coming at you with a scalpel. You may be angry at him later for botching the job, but at least you won't resent him for being elitist.

The Pope is in Trouble for What?

So here's the deal. In a letter to Bishops, found here, the Pope reinstated a pre-Vatican II form of the Mass, which includes a prayer that Jews everywhere would be converted. So, now he is is trouble for being narrow minded. I don't get it. It seems to me that much of the Apostle Paul's work was--yep--conversion of the Jews. His discussion of the topic takes up the entire 9th through 11th chapters of Romans. I thought that we were to be about the conversion of all those who don't claim Christ as Savior.

Maybe those who just can't take it when someone stands for something ought to look around. The "stand for nothing" denominations are dying. The Roman church is growing. Even the post-moderns want a link with history.

The nerve of that guy, praying for conversions!