Northern 'burbs blog

Letters to Hitchens & Friends

2011-12-17T01:40:00.000-06:00

I liked Christopher Hitchens. As something of a logophile, I enjoyed his use of language. He could turn phrases like few others. He was passionate, widely read and politically interesting.

I was first introduced to Hitchens a number of years back when I caught a dialogue between Hitchens, Dr. Mark D. Roberts, and Hugh Hewitt on the radio*. I started paying attention a bit more when he released his book, "God is not Great." He asked questions and made statements that made me think more about my faith. This, to me, is a good thing. A faith unexamined is a faith easy to have ripped from one's grasp.

Yet fundamentally I have some very serious disagreements with what Hitchens believed and argued when it comes to many (most?) aspects of religion and faith. He was a devout atheist, even "evangelistic" in his zeal to convert the, um, converted. Hitchens' debates and lectures on YouTube are popular, as are his books. His eloquence being what it was, I understand why.

Hitchens was persuasive too. In this, I think, he was most dangerous. Frankly I wish he had marshalled his talents in favor of the faith rather than against it. When he resorted to polemics, he diminished. When he argued, he changed minds. Because of this, I took care when reading his work, or listening to his voice. In many cases, his eloquence covered up some significant flaws in his arguments - but the eloquence alone was sufficient to influence those who didn't pay close attention to the arguments.

As much as I respected Hitchens, I always wished I could have talked with him. Going back through some of his writings of late, I would like to start a new feature here, inspired in part by some of the challenges he gave me in my thinking. It's not the same as debating him live, but he asks some questions which deserve answers - and makes some arguments which deserve refutation.

I'll call this 'Letters to Hitchens & Friends' and address, primarily, arguments of his that seem to be cropping up most frequently amongst those of a non-theistic bent. I think, though, that he would also say others argue against faith, so while titled for Hitchens, it will really be aimed at skeptics in general. It won't be a series in the sense that I'm going to rip out a string of these posts and be done; they will be here and there as I feel most compelled to address a given argument and as I have time to do so.

Will I change minds? Possibly, but just as possibly not. Hitchens himself would not even know who I am. In humility I would absolutely say I may not be correct myself. Yet when more theists are becoming atheists, I would like to outline why it is that I am not following in their stead.

For my non-theist friends: if there is a question you'd like to have answered, you can always post it to the comments. Just realize I will address one question at a time, and while I will try to get to every question, my schedule (as you'd see from looking at my archives) and my own sense of priorities may not permit fast replies.

For my theist friends: if you are struggling with your own answers, you can ask questions too. I do not claim to know all the answers; what I'll be posting are my thoughts & reasons for holding a particular belief, and why I find a specific argument unpersuasive. It is almost certain that others can answer better than I. Just take it as my own thinking out loud in response to questions that challenge my beliefs.

I hope you find this idea interesting. I certainly do, and since it's my blog I'll give it a shot; please join the conversation and add your voice.

God bless -
Ron

*Confession: I generally dislike political talk radio, finding it increasingly unsatisfying in terms of completeness, fairness and kindness. Hewitt is one of the few exceptions, and I listened to his show more for the guests he seemed to attract - like Hitchens, Mark Steyn and James Lileks, all master communicators who bring wit, intelligence and passion through words. Even when I disagreed with them, they were (nay, are) interesting. I highly recommend finding the archives of Hewitt's interviews with Hitchens, such as this one between Hitchens & David Allen White. I am neither atheist nor Catholic, yet found the interchange fascinating.

Values of the Church 4: Selflessness

2011-12-17T00:48:00.000-06:00

Selflessness is hard. Everything in our society screams at us to take care of #1, to procure what we "deserve." Take care of yourself first, it is said, buy this product to make yourself happy. Spout off your opinions, and if others disagree label them intolerant and attack them rather than contend with ideas (the Interwebs may have something to do with this).

Our environment pushes us to selfishness. That's the easy path.

That's not what we're called to in the church. As we get to the evaluation phase of this series, we need to also remember that selflessness is a necessary value of the church.

Paul would describe selflessness of the type required as "submission." (Note: there could be an entire series - taking 8 years if I write it, hardee-har-har - talking about submission vis a vis the role of women in marriage. My concern with the term is more limited - yet general - in scope for the purposes of this series.) It is placing the needs & desires above your own.

Ephesians 5 talks about this. In verse 21:

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Or as he states it in Philippians:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves

Submission is a dirty word (in large part, but not solely, because of the aforementioned debate related to the role of women) in our culture. Yet if we are to call ourselves Christians, "little Christs" we ought to strive to be like Him most of all. He was selfless, not just giving His life (not that I'm diminishing that!) but also in his daily life on Earth.

He submitted to John's baptism, even though John himself said Jesus was the greater.
He submitted to Mary at the wedding in Cana, turning water to wine at her request.
He submitted to the tax collectors in Capernaum.
He submitted to the centurion's request to heal a servant.
He submitted to the Father's will in Gethsemane.

There are more episodes of submitting to others - in healing, in acknowledging the place of leaders, in dining with the outcasts.

We ought to be like this. It is hard, but in church especially we should be looking to benefit & bless others, even before ourselves.

Next up: scripture, then the evaluation.

God bless,

Ron

Values of the Church: Freedom Redux

2011-11-27T00:33:00.000-06:00

Back to the topic of the church, at least of the mega variety. As I continue in this series, I'm going to touch on another aspect of freedom, not quite the same as the one I shared last time.

As I'm laying a foundation for the evaluation portion of the series, namely the values we should bring to the discussion, freedom is third in line behind love and unity. In the first post about freedom, I noted that our freedom in Christ is freedom from sin, and should be exercised humbly, for the good of others - especially the church. In this post, I'm going a bit of a different direction with freedom (exercising some freedom in doing so!) and talking about freedom in our relationship with God.

God created us each uniquely. I am wired to like certain things, to be passionate about certain things, and to connect to certain things. You are wired differently, even if you are wired similarly. That is to say, even if you also like Third Day you may not like The Princess Bride or softball, and so on. Eventually, our interests will diverge. Or, were we to like exactly the same things, to be moved by exactly the same things, the extent to which we are moved, or the importance we put on each thing will be different.

This is not a bad thing. As my wife says, if we're all the same life gets real boring, real quick. We are unique. This should be celebrated. How creative is God to create over 7 billion unique people? Pretty creative. Part of this creativity extends to our own expressions of worship, and our own preferences.

So how does this apply to the discussion? We need to value that insofar as we have freedom to worship God through our own unique tastes, preferences or styles, so do others. If I see a choir, for instance, as being a performance-oriented group and a worship band as being more interactive, I need to understand that others will flip those two perceptions around. If I think having a pastor who wears a suit shows respect for God, I need to also realize that a pastor who wears jeans whilst preaching can be expressing the important truth that, while we look at externals, God cares about who we are behind the apparel. In short, our freedom to worship is not to be kept only to ourselves; we all have the same freedom.

These values all interact with each other, and there are two more to come before we get to the evaluation/critique of the megachurch (and churches in general): selflessness and scripture. So if you are already reading ahead, you may want to hold your fire until we get through those values. But as I'm not one to limit conversation, have at it as you feel led:)

God bless,
Ron

Galya's Tale

2011-11-26T23:36:00.000-06:00

Updated

Values of the Church 3: Freedom!

2011-08-18T00:19:00.000-05:00

Over the past couple of years, in bits and drabs, I've been looking at some topics related to the church, building toward what was originally intended to be a response to the too-common blanket critiques of megachurches. While my end game has changed a bit, I think the values discussion retains merit. Christians can be a little too good at intra-faith bickering, so I want to continue laying the groundwork for the evaluation part of my argument. To that end, having already looked at love and unity we're going to turn our attention to the value of freedom.

What's that? Freedom? Isn't that too "American" a value? Aren't we still slaves to righteousness? (An odd phrasing to say the least, the unspoken implication of the question being that Christians are not "free" because they are bound by all our moral rules.) Doesn't freedom become license, which then becomes grace abuse?

Good questions, glad I asked them for you. Don't let anyone say this blog is not proactively and imaginatively interactive. I would answer all these questions as "yes." Freedom is an American value - but differs from what I'm addressing in that our culture's view of freedom is not of the same type as what I'm going to talk about. And yes, we're to choose to serve righteousness - but the option is to choose to serve sin, meaning that one way or the other we're bound to something. And yes, yes, a million times yes freedom taken too far can easily become license. So let's tread carefully here.

The type of freedom I'm speaking of is deeper than mere social liberty. Freedom as offered by Christ is based on truth. Deceit holds people in bondage; truth sets free. In essence, Christian freedom is the freedom from sin, which permits us to be who and what God intended for us to be. We have the ability, now, to choose to pursue holiness rather than sin.

So how do we use our freedom in a way that applies to this discussion? Looking to scripture as our guide, we note that Peter instructs us to use our freedom as servants of God. That is, with the heart of a servant: humble, seeking to do what gives God glory instead of looking after our own desires. We shouldn't use our freedom as a "cover-up for evil."

So our freedom, in the context of the church, is to be exercised humbly and for good. And quite frankly, for the good of others above ourselves. Ephesians 5 (among other places) has some things to say about that - use your freedom to submit to one another, to think of others more highly than you do yourself. If the church is a community, we should value the freedom we have within that community to do what is good, to do what is beneficial, to do what is selfless.

Next up, another twist on freedom.

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 1/24/2011 Edition

2011-01-24T22:45:00.000-06:00

More fun and frivolity. Or, at least, more links.
***
For fans of "Dead Parrot" and geeks, I refer you to this (warning: some comments have some less than uplifting words)

***
Ever want an interactive tool that shows you how large, and how small, stuff is? Well now your wish has come true.
***
Okay, I love Poe, but I'm not sure if that's the feel I was going for in my last post.

I write like
Edgar Allan Poe

I Write Like by Mémoires, journal software. Analyze your writing!

***
Is your life average too?
***
And finally, my first recipe recommendation: Yum.

God bless,
Ron

Values of the Church 2: Unity Part Three

2011-01-22T11:19:00.000-06:00

Last time I looked at this subject here in the ol' northern 'burbs, I left off with a promise to talk about my view on the "valid" reasons for disunity. Intriguing concept, that, as up until then I'd been promoting the (very biblical) notion that unity is of utmost importance in a church.

So...how do I reconcile the idea that unity is paramount, but disunity may be permissible? Basically, I expand the definition of "disunity." Disruptions, divisiveness, and unloving behavior have no place in the church. And when disunity exists, it must be repented of and relational restoration must be restored.

But what if it's not? What if the divisive person is unrepentant? What if he or she persists in sowing the seeds of discord?

Then "disunity" must happen. The divisive person has to be, for the good of the church and of the divisive person, be removed from the church. The divider must be, ironically, divided from the body.

In Matthew 8:17 Jesus tell us to treat the unrepentant "as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Paul instructs in Titus 3 that we should "warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned." Harsh.

But necessary. If unity is so vital (and it is), then we must be willing to break off the divisive.

We do so, of course, with eye toward our highest value: love. The separation of the sinner (in all cases) is done with the hope they will repent and be restored to relationship. As Mark Driscoll writes in his excellent book Vintage Church, "There is a sense in which you never really let the unrepentant sinner go. Though you don't associate with him, you keep calling him back. He is put out for the purity of the church but is always admonished to come back." Indeed. We separate, but pray, love and admonish in order that one day redemption of unity is attained, and that God is glorified by making whole what was divided.

Next up, freedom, then selflessness. After that, the series moves from the values guiding our discussion into the actual issues surrounding the "megachurch" question itself - the "how" questions.

God bless,
Ron

Amazon.com Widgets

An Overdue Christmas Thought

2011-01-21T16:32:00.002-06:00

It's getting toward late January, I know, but I still wanted to share a lesson God impressed on me this past Christmas.

Christmas is a somewhat strange time for me. I love the season, the lights, the tree, the music (except for the most horrid Christmas songs ever written) and the uptick in church attendance. I'm bored, though, with the commercialism, the kitschy movies, the materialism and the ever present battle over Christmas. The intellectual side of me (yes, I have one) even thinks we fight too hard over this one day when it's not even the date on which Jesus was really born. I like the simplicity and the Christmas message: God incarnate, Immanuel. Anything on top of that is unnecessary.

But I also fight boredom, at times, with the Christmas story. The boredom of which I speak is not about the story: it's endlessly beautiful. Nor is it about the truth of it, which is something I'm happy to ponder and discuss at any time. It's the routine of it. We read the same passages, in the same services, with the same C&E Christians every year. And that's fine insofar as repetition helps us remember. But I find it hard to glean new insights in oft-traversed material.

So the last few years I've tried to make my Christmas devotionals about the more obscure, less talked about passages. This past December, God used that to remind me of the following.

God's story unfolds through people - flawed, imperfect, diverse people.

Start with the aforementioned obscure scripture. In Matthew 1 we find that often ignored, usually skipped, fairly shiny from all the glossing over genealogy of Jesus. To modern readers such lists of names seem like a prelude to the real story, something of minimal importance. It's not something recited by Linus.

But the list is very important, and a crucial part of the story. Every name on the list is part of the story of Jesus. Every person was selected to be part of the lineage of the creator of the universe. That's kind of a big deal, no?

And oh what a list! The names range from the somewhat obscure (Hezron, Ram) to the well-known (David, Solomon, Ruth, Mary, Joseph.) Virgin (Mary) and prostitute (Rahab.) Men & women. Jews and a gentile. Carpenters, widows, kings. Adulterers, the semi-incestuous. A man after God's own heart. The wise king. A remarried widow.

God worked through all of these lives. He redeemed the wrongdoing and set a line of ancestry through imperfect people who needed a savior - all the way to the very savior they needed. It is a family tree which culminates in the very person his predecessors most needed. Suffering, sin, tragedy, success, power - you find all of these in the list - and all of these were used by God to become one of us. The creator, born.

Every name is a person, a life, a story. Every name is someone Jesus loved enough that He would die to pay his or her debt. Every name matters to God so much that Jesus came to earth, that Christmas happened.

Through these names we find a savior. Through the savior, we can find our own names written in a list in the book of life.

Next time you read the genealogy, think for a bit about the names, the stories. Be amazed at how God used the frail to bring the incarnation. And rejoice that you can have your name in such a list too; not a boring list to skip over, but a list of those saved by God.

Merry (late) Christmas

So, How've You Been?

2010-12-24T23:40:00.002-06:00

Been a while, eh? Time flies when work is insane. It doesn't quite seem a year has passed, but passed it has. Some updates as to that last year have been posted at Galya's Tale. And I know I owe Rachel a conclusion to my church series - which is setting blog records for longevity. Plus there's a Christmas themed post or two I'd like to get written...but for now it's time to figure out what to do with the too-many cookies the girls left for Kris Kringle, and to get some sleep. Just didn't want you to think I'd completely forgotten you:)

God bless,
Ron

Impossible Night

2009-12-29T22:30:00.003-06:00

New post up at Galya's Tale.

And, for your post-Christmas musings, this is a devotional I gave at church at our Christmas Eve service with a few edits for the blog format.
***
We hear so often about how Christmas is a silent night, a holy night. I'd like to add another adjective to our thinking of Christmas: impossible night. We have a God who is so big that he plays in the realm of the impossible.

We see this when He demands of us the impossible. Jesus told people to "go and sin no more." (Jn. 5:14, 8:11) Not, go and sin less. Sin no more. Impossible. "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church." (Eph. 5:25) "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) God asks of us the impossible, we fail, we sin - we separate from God because we can't do the impossible.

But God can. All things, it says in Matthew 19 when speaking of salvation (something impossible for us to achieve on our own), are possible with God.

The Bible starts with this very thing: In the beginning God created. God was there when time began and created. How? By the impossible task of creation through speaking. I can't get my daughters to turn off the lights in their room with my words, but God said, "let there be light." AND THERE WAS LIGHT! Not just a 50w bulb here; there was LIGHT. From His voice! The Psalmist says God breathed out stars and gathers the waters of the seas into jars. (Ps. 33:6-7) And this is just the start. God is so big he deals in the realm of the impossible.

And so it's no surprise that Christmas is an impossible night. Let's turn to John 1, starting in verse 10:

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Impossibly, God the creator entered into His creation at Christmas (well, technically, at Jesus' conception.) The world was made through him (Jesus), and He became flesh and made his dwelling among us. As our pastor, Jason, reminded us this morning [12/20 sermon], God did not just drop in for a visit. He was born into our world. He became one of us. God became a man: impossible. He was born to a virgin. Impossible. He came that we might be saved. Impossible.

Impossible for man, but with God all things are possible. Angels appeared to shepherds. Angels appeared to Mary & Joseph. Sages from far away read Jesus' birth in the stars. The creator God of the universe who is big enough to breathe out stars became a baby, wrapped in laid in the humblest of mangers. Proclaimed by angels, worshipped by shepherds and foreigners - Jesus entered His creation, became Immanuel: God with us. He made it possible for us to become born again, something which again is impossible - without God. A little baby displayed the glory of God. The smallest of infants demonstrated, through His impossible birth and through the bigness of who this baby was, the immensity of God's grace, His mercy, His love.

This is why Christmas is a reason to worship, to celebrate, to be in awe of this GREAT BIG GOD who came for us who deals in the (what is for us) impossible in impossible ways – that’s the message of Christmas and it’s what we rejoice in at Christmas.

Update on Galyna

2009-11-17T21:40:00.001-06:00

Galyna update posted too...

Values of the Church 2: Unity Part Two

2009-11-17T21:15:00.002-06:00

In the last post we started looking at what unity is (and isn't.) Unity is a high value, extremely important to Jesus. Unity is to be concerned with mission and purpose. Unity is not, though, uniformity or unanimity. God created us as individuals. So while unity is a value of the community of Jesus followers we call the church, it is not necessary that unity be expressed through a robotic uniformity, or expressed without some level of disagreement about particulars. As my wife says, "if we're all the same, why do I need you?"

We can find some sense of clarity about unity when we look at marriage. In the marriage relationship we give of ourselves for the greater good of the marriage -- but we never lose our distinctive identities. The picture this presents demonstrates a unity between two individuals which is instructive for those of us in the church.

In both the church and a marriage unity keeps things on the right track. A marriage of unity grows deeper and stronger. On the other hand, disunity stalls or reverses growth. I can't grow closer to my wife if I'm walking a different direction from her.

Why is disunity such a problem? Frankly, it's because disunity is always a matter of flipping the Kingdom upside down. The church - as with all our relationships - is to be characterized by humility and looking to the betterment of others above yourself. In disunity we find instead pride, arrogance, self-concern. People don't humbly serve others by trying to force their way. Disunity brings about the exact opposite of what we're looking for.

In marriage, this manifests itself in selfishness, adultery, secrets, mistrust and/or anger. When spouses have competing goals and purposes for the marriage, the relationship cannot move forward. This is one reason that Paul instructs us to "be careful of marrying those who don't follow Jesus. Relational disunity causes pain, and relational unity is so very difficult when you don't share that common mission and purpose. When we're talking about marriage, we're talking the most intimate of human relationships - ideally. Disunity disrupts the ideal and breaks it.

In the church, disunity manifests itself in judgmentalism, gossip, slander, disobedience and/or deceit. We look at others and judge them not as spiritual as us. We disobey our leaders when we don't like the way they lead. We gossip about and slander those in the church when we don't see eye to eye. And we try to deceive the world that this is all okay.

There are so very few valid reasons to separate fellowship with other believers, or to fight amongst ourselves, and yet we do this all. the. time. And this disunity is so very wrong. It ruins our witness, breaks our relationships and makes it impossible to follow Christ. Yes, I said it is impossible. I didn't say it merely "made the mission more difficult." As soon as we turn our eyes off what we're here for (i.e., Jesus) then are no longer following Him. And you can't keep your eyes where they need to be while simultaneously disrupting the unity of the church.

Next time in this space, God willing, will be the third part of the unity topic where we touch on those "few valid reasons" for disunity. As a tease, disunity is never the goal, but when it arises over valid things it is to be used for restoration to unity. When it arises over the small things, it needs a good stamping out.

God bless -
Ron

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 11-17-2009 Edition

2009-11-17T20:20:00.003-06:00

More recent randomness, just because I can.

Really, who just doesn't appreciate a good cloud now and then? I prefer mine spinning but there are other cool pix on this site.
...
Ever had one of these days?

...
Can they kill off spam too?
...
Just another reason to avoid Twitter.
...
That's so sad.
...
Come one, come all - if you're local, come watch the Northern 'burbs' blogger's eldest daughter in Santa Claus, a community theater play. Don't find yourself regretting missing the launch of a wonderful new career!
...
Finally, some people have too much time on their hands, but you know I'd do this if I had too much time on my hands.

Values of the Church 2: Unity

2009-09-23T16:43:00.000-05:00

The last post in this series introduced to our discussion the notion of values. We all have values, and we use those values when making decisions. Some value money and possessions, then decide to work hard to obtain same. Some value family, others value solitude. You can tell the values of someone by the decisions he or she makes. Regardless of what one says, what one values is what guides most decision making.

So in looking at the church, we've looked at what the church is, and what the church is to do. Now we're looking at the values which inform the remainder of our conversation about the "how" questions of the church. The first value is love: we need to do all things with love for our brothers and sisters in the family of God. Today we are moving on to unity.

Unity is, according to the dictionary (dot com version) "the state of being one; oneness". Scripturally speaking, unity is being "of one mind" regarding our mission. Unity was so important to Jesus that it was on His prayer list even when He was mere hours from crucifixion. He taught that "a house divided will not stand." A lack of unity is nearly as damaging to the church as a lack of love. Unity is a very high value, and when we discard it we always (not sometimes, not occassionally - always) harm the church.

In the essence of clarity, sometimes we better understand what something is by contrasting it to what something is not. There are two things which unity is not, although these are often confused with unity.

The first thing unity is not is unanimity. We do not ever have to agree on all aspects of life, or even faith, to be part of the church. People will have different views on some of the methods and forms used within a church to spread the Gospel. We all bring different experiences, wisdom, knowledge and talent to the table, and this is a good thing. For many, if the church is not unanimous in a given pursuit, that is proof that the Spirit is not in the work, and therefore it should not be pursued. This is a false ideal, and a very real danger as an idol. There are myriad reasons why not everyone may fully agree with a given decision, many of which are valid. Holding up the movement of the church in the name of "seeking unanimity" is something against which we should stand firm guard.

The second thing unity isn't is uniformity. God is a creative God who made us individuals for a reason. When we demand other Christians worship the same way, singing the same songs, praying the same prayers, reading the same books by the same Christian gurus...this is a denial of what God created us to be. We have different gifts, personalities and circumstances. God gave them to us for the use of the church, not to be stifled by the church. To see what happens when we raise uniformity to a value, look no further than the example of the Pharisees who sought to judge Jesus because he did not follow their rules.

In unity we need to be all behind the mission of the church. We all need to know and understand why God has instituted the church on earth, and we all need to be passionate about doing the things Jesus commanded His church to do (i.e., love God, love people and make disciples.) But we all, being unified in our direction and passion, are made unique individuals who are gifted to best take part in different ways. As long as the main things of mission and purpose are the main things, a lack of uniformity and unanimity in the small things is actually a way to celebrate God's created diversity.

The next post, probably as long as this one, will continue the discussion on unity, touching on why disunity is such a problem. After that we'll touch briefly on the hills to die on, or where disunity can be permissible. (Foreshadowing - disunity can be okay in a few circumstances, and with a distinct purpose of restoration to unity.)

Until then -

God bless!

Ron

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 9-22-2009 Edition

2009-09-22T15:49:00.004-05:00

Okay, some randomness is called for as I get back to this blogging thing.
***
Guess I need to update my blogroll. I have a number of friends on the Web, from Leah in India to college buddy Keith in Ohio. Also, a bunch of folks from church: Rachel, Dustin, Mandy, Allison, Andrew, Adam and Shannon. I'm partial to that last one, as it's my wife's blog of nature observations and meditations. You'll notice she shares my family trait of infrequent blogging.
***
Long-time readers know I'm agnostic on AGW. The biggest problem I have is the general hypocrisy of those who live high on the energy hog while calling for others to sacrifice. I won't mention names. But I appreciate Julia Stiles' advocacy. (If you want to know my other reasons for remaining agnostic on AGW, ask in the comments. I don't want to get into it here.)
***
Ukraine's Got Talent? Yes, yes it does. Way powerful.
***
Last but not least, new post up at Galya's Tale.

God bless,
Ron

We Interrupt This Blog...

2009-08-24T01:04:00.003-05:00

...for an update to another blog! Just posted a note about Galyna's surgery over at Galya's Tale. During the next couple of days I should have some time to continue the church series, as well as (perhaps) pontificate about a couple of other things rolling around my noggin of late.

Galyna Update

2009-07-02T17:00:00.001-05:00

I've posted the latest on Galyna over at Galya's Tale. Stop over if you want to see what's going on with the latest addition to our clan.

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 6/17/2009 Edition

2009-06-17T14:25:00.004-05:00

Heh. Haven't been here in three months. Since someone (cough)Rachel(cough) missed me, I'll try to do better. While I'm working on the unity part of the current/long-running/slowly-developing series, here are some items I found noteworthy on the 'net, or in the blogosphere of late.
***
I think I've been fairly clear and consistent in my concern for life. I'm unashamedly for speaking out on behalf of those with no voice of their own (yet): the unborn. This doesn't mean I'm at all unsympathetic to women facing difficult circumstances. This story, for instance, is easy to understand from the woman's point of view. My concern is there's precious little regarding the child's point of view. Related to the topic, albeit with a bit more skewer to the tone: this post.
***
Fun!
***
They don't really think this is the solution do they?
***
Speaking of sports solutions, I don't really see the problem with inter-league baseball, but I do like the idea offered up here. I think it'd be fun to watch pitchers hit here in an AL park.
***
Interesting concept. Not sure I'd want to put my fund management prowess out there, but then again I don't manage a fund. In this economy, not planning to start doing so either.
***
I would have expected this to have happened in Wisconsin, not NJ.
***
Behold the power of technology?
***
Have a great week...I'll get to the unity stuff soon, I promise. I just won't tell you what "soon" means:)

God bless -
Ron

Values of the Church

2009-03-11T14:35:00.004-05:00

I've looked at the "who" and the "why" questions related to church. The answers to these questions are the foundation that sets us up to start talking about the "how" and "what" questions. How do we do church? How are we to behave? What are we to do?

I think these are where we start getting controversial. It's generally accepted that the Church is made up of those who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior (although there are disputes about exactly what that means), and it's commonly held that we are commanded to make disciples. What gets tricky is how we go about doing this.

Since these can be treacherous waters, I'll lay out the foundational values which will guide my thinking. The first, and greatest, of these values is - of course - love. I'll talk about this one today.

In the Gospels, Jesus tells us the greatest commandments sum up all of the law. That is, if we follow these two commandments, we are obeying the law. The commandments? Love God, love people. Jesus says in this passage that, "[a]ll the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Wait, you might say. Don't these commandments apply to everyone, not specifically the church? Great question; glad you asked. Yes! These commandments apply to everyone. However, the church is a subset of "everyone." If everyone is to follow these commandments, then certainly the Church must.

In fact, the church is to be known for love, especially for each other. What this tells me is that most of the discussions we have about church fail immediately when they descend to a non-loving way of communicating. Regardless of our feelings on the best way to "do church" we must never, ever lose sight of the fact that we are to love our fellow believers. This precludes such things as ad hominem attacks, rumor, gossip, slander, hate and deceit from ever entering our discourse.

So when talking about how to do church, value #1 is to do so in a loving manner. And "doing church" is also to be done in a loving manner. If a church is doing something that is not loving, that church is doing something it ought not do.

Above all else, love.

There are other values to which I'll move next. Unity, freedom and selflessness are the ones that come to mind. Any values you think should drive the discussion? Chime in (lovingly!) in the comments below.

God bless,
Ron

God is Great, God is Good...

2009-02-25T12:06:00.004-06:00

"God is great,
God is good,
let us thank Him for our food,
by His hand we must be fed,
give us Lord our daily bread.
Amen."
Author unknown

Over the course of our relationship, my wife and I have attended a few Steven Curtis Chapman concerts. At each he talked about how it is important to know that God is great and God is good.

The simple prayer above, variations of which are myriad, starts with two very profound statements, rightly pointed out by Chapman. We often conflate the two, but really they are distinct.

God is great. God is powerful, mighty, able to save. God is above our complete understanding, and had to reveal Himself so that we could even have a partial (albeit sufficient!) understanding.

God is good. He loves, He is gracious, He works even the bad things out for good. He is holy, just and righteous; God is purely and definitively good.

Being great is one thing. But if God were not also good, we would serve a tyrant who would oppress His creation. It is good that God is, well, good, but if He were not also great His best intentions wouldn't be able to overcome the evil in the world. Were God not both good and great we'd be faced with a God who's a monster, or a God who's impotent in the face of evil.

In scripture this past week I've seen both attributes described within a few pages. Starting in Job, we see God's greatness. In Job 40-41, as in other places in this ode to God's greatness and sovereignty, God challenges Job by explicitly reminding Job of how far above Job God really is. (As an aside, I like seeing how people react when faced with the reality of God. In this case, Job responds appropriately in chapter 42, that is with humility.)

Turning a few pages over, in Psalm 16, we read, "I said to the LORD, "You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing." This is a psalm of rejoicing and steadfastness because God is good: faithful, providing, with us. (Aside here: David responds to God's goodness with joy, peace, praise and assurance. Again, a model response.)

God is great and sovereign, and we are in no position to judge Him. We can question Him for understanding; David did this in the Psalms. But we are not able to judge Him. But we need not judge Him, because He is good. He is good, He is great - and this leads to Him being trustworthy.

We can trust Him because He is good and able to do things to work things for good. You can't trust someone who doesn't have your best in mind (i.e., who isn't good) or who, despite wanting to, can't help (i.e., who isn't great.)

Let this be an encouragement in this time of financial strife, political discord and myriad other social ills. We have someone to whom we can go, someone who is both good enough to, and able to, bring good from even the direst circumstances.

God bless,
Ron

Preach It Bro'

2009-02-24T15:25:00.003-06:00

I'm a PK, a pastor's kid. It's an ... interesting thing, with an interesting set of pressures. I wouldn't change it for the world, but it wasn't an easy thing to deal with at times.

For this reason I have a great deal of empathy and care for the families of pastors. Few things in church life break my heart, or are harder to deal with, than when a pastor's family has to go through some form of turmoil, whatever that may be. On the board at our church I've found discussion and decisions regarding our pastoral staff the most difficult to deal with objectively. I always picture the staff member's kids or spouse.

In general, I think that churches need to pay better attention to the pastor's family. Don't put unrealistic expectations on the kids, don't demand so much of your pastor he has no time for his family, don't expect the pastor's wife to be his ministry assistant or Sunday School attendant and pay him enough to keep his family well.

These are some of my soap box items on which I'll gladly expound for any interested. Maybe I'll even write about them more here someday. But I want to step off my soap box and point you, today, to another PK.

Nathan Stewart attends Anchor Point Community Church in lovely Duluth. He recently shared his experience in his first sermon at Anchor Point, and I think I am none too biased to say it is a very powerful story. It is powerful to me not because of my relationship to him - Nathan is my younger brother - but because it is a redemption story; it's a tale of a life that should not be turning into a life that so very much is. Set aside 45 minutes and take a listen here.

The Mission

2009-02-10T21:02:00.003-06:00

Last time I talked about what the church is. There's a difference between the big-C universal body of believers in Christ, to use the common analogy, and the little-c local church. There is a difference between the two, which I'll get to, but as a general rule the local church has the same mission and purpose of the Church writ large.

But what is that mission? This question divides churches almost as often as does the question of what carpet to install in the sanctuary, or what color to paint the kindergarten room. It's an important one, and in answering the "mega" question, needs to be addressed. The Church's/church's mission is the foundation on what the rest of the series will tackle.

A mission, or purpose, is what gives an organization its reason to exist. It answers the "why" much as my first post answered the "who." It is often cast in terms of vision (i.e., what we see ourselves becoming) or mission statements. Many businesses use such statements to focus employee efforts, and set themselves apart in the minds of the community or marketplace. Teams will work long hours to define the "why" question for organizations of all stripes.

For the church, though, the mission has been defined for us. Jesus Himself gave it to us when He returned to Heaven. The mission of the church, quite simply, is to make disciples. This Great Commission is what Jesus left us on earth to do.

English translations often make the Great Commission look like we have a multi-part mission: go, make disciples, baptize, teach. This is slightly misleading, though, as the focus of the Greek is specifically on "going, and making disciples."* The real sense of the Great Commission is, to paraphrase, "go and make disciples by baptizing and teaching." It isn't to "go, make disciples, baptize and teach." It's a minor distinction, but it's important because there are some who believe the mission of the chuch can be subdivided into four categories, and we are fulfilling it if we are only teaching (or being taught.) Or if we are baptizing those who come to us, but we don't "go" to reach others. That is, some act as though the Great Commission isn't about leaving our comfort zones and reaching out to people who have yet to become disciples.

There are those who may argue that the mission of the church can be expanded to include helping the poor, or to corporate worship. One might say the church is for fellowship and communal learning or growth. And these are certainly good things, things which churches should do. But they are not the mission of the Church. If all church was meant for was fellowship, say, God would call us to Heaven as soon as we believed in Jesus. We could have all the fellowship we need there.

No, we are left here as representatives of God's kingdom explicitly to go and make disciples. Everything else (baptizing, teaching, fellowship, service, giving) is a part of disciple making. They are the "how" and the "what" - but not the "why." This does not make these things unimportant. That would be like saying the mission of the baseball team is to score runs, but practice and strategy don't matter. The "how" and "what" are vital questions, and to those we turn next.

The mission of the church, the "why" we are here: because Jesus gave us the job of going forth to make disciples. That is why the Church, and why churches, exist.

God bless,
Ron

*Yes, I realize the Greek is such that some say the only verb is "make disciples." I think the Wallace quote on the post I linked to addresses that sufficiently that I hold the two-verb view. More here.

What is This Church Thing?

2009-01-27T13:38:00.002-06:00

Having been properly chastised (thanks Rachel!) for creating this series sans flow, I humbly move forward with my thoughts on church. This is the start of my view of ecclesiology. There are others, and if you have differing views please chime in with a comment.

Having taken on the task of going through the question of megachurches, I find myself needing to start back a bit before getting to the specifics of all things mega. Before getting into the size of a church, I need to cover my view of what the Church is, what it is tasked to do and how we should "do church." This should lead to an inevitably clear view of how I see megachurches before I even get to the question, but that's fine. Really, the mega-question as I posed it is about how we should "do church" and what a Christian church really should be and do.

So let's start at the very beginning. (A very good place to start!) (Or so I've heard.) The beginnings of the Church, in my mind, are found in Matthew where Jesus tells Simon that he (Simon) will be called Peter, and will be the one on whom His (Jesus') Church is built. The Church is the movement that began when Jesus gave Peter a mission.

(Sidebar: Interestingly, the mission wasn't given to Peter until later on. When Jesus first tells Peter that Peter's going to be the one on whom the Church would be built, He didn't start laying out the tasks and vision. In fact, the first thing Jesus says after breaking the news is "not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." This is counter to what the mission of the church would end up being, but the time for the mission wasn't right. There's a lesson in leadership here: give people a vision for what they'll do, and then prepare them for it. Jesus laid out a vision for His Church, then spent the last days of His life instructing the Apostles for how to fulfill that vision. After the preparation time, before He was to return to Heaven, Jesus finally gave them their mission statement. I think those of us in leadership roles, whatever they may be, can learn from this example: vision, preparation, mission. Mix up the order you can end up with confusion.)

Zoom ahead a while, and we see the beginning of the movement that Jesus said was coming. In Acts 2 we see the first church sermon, as it were, on the day of Pentecost. And the first church started with Peter and the Apostles seeing "about three thousand ... added to their number that day." The Church was, and is, those who respond to the Gospel, accepting "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of [their] sins." (Acts 2:38.)

Paul, in many places but notably in I Corinthians 12 identifies the Church as the "body of Christ" of which all those who were baptized by one spirit into relationship with each other. The Church is also described as the bride of Christ, and a priesthood. There are other biblical (and some extra-biblical, or non-biblical) metaphors used to describe the church as well.

What it boils down to, to me, is that the Church is made up of anyone who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior regardless of culture, gender, race, age or social status. This definition is probably too broad for many fundamentalists (or my fellow evangelicals) as I do not lay forth a specific set of criteria on which to judge whether someone fully accepts "the minimum" standards required to be called Christian. It's probably too limiting to others who may think that Jesus need not be Lord and/or Savior to be relevant to one's life. I realize this. I could try to define the core beliefs necessary to call oneself a Christian and remain true to the name, but that is out of the scope of this topic. Suffice it to say, I would draw the line to the right of center, so to speak, in light of passages like Acts 4:12 and Matthew 7:14-23. But I'm not getting into soteriology here.

So if the Church is, in essence, all believers, why so many churches? I'll end this post on the distinction between the (big-C) Church and a (little-c) church, and will flesh this out in following posts regarding how we "do church." There is the Church, the universal "body of Christ" made up of all those who believe in and follow Jesus. A church, on the other hand, is a localized or regional sub-set of the overall Church. We can't gather all Christians worldwide into one place, so naturally we meet in smaller groups based on some set of criteria: geography, doctrine, methods, modes, styles, personalities, denominational affiliations, relationships, preferences, etc. And these criteria, unfortunately, do more to divide us than they should. Hence the series. So these differences that break up the Church into many churches will be paid much attention in coming posts. And note, not all differences are bad or divisive. Some are good and appropriate. We just need to act better when handling the differences.

This post, as usual, is long enough. Next time up? What is the Church's mission. After that comes the discussion how that mission should be handled when so many of us have different ideas of how to do church, culminating in the mega-part of this topic.

God bless,
Ron

Back to it?

2009-01-26T15:27:00.000-06:00

Okay, so my off-again, off-again series on the mega-church question is back on. At least for the near future, though part of me wants to do this so I can get back to posting infrequently about other things!

I introduced the question back in '07* as I was getting irritated (yes, level-headed me gets irritated at times) by the way some Christians were piling on churches. Forget unity and the wisdom of handling disagreements private, we Christians are seemingly better at attacking each other than we are at loving each other. Which considering how we should be known is kinda sad.

So that was the motivation. Since that time, I've done more thinking and talking about what makes up a church, and the purposes of the local church. Much of that was driven by some things heard as an elder at my church. It's been revealing hearing from some their views on church. We don't talk much about our ecclesiology, and that is to our detriment I think. When we're not reminded of our purpose, we tend to drift. And little is more important than unity when things like vision and purpose are involved. (Please note: I will NOT talk about specifics from my church as I'm not abusing my position there for blog fodder; the things I'll talk about may be of interest to other attenders, but my point is to the American Evangelical church writ large, not my church specifically. The place to work through our own particular brand of issues - and all churches have them - is within our church.)

I guess that means some of what I'll go into over the next few posts may not be exactly what I'd planned when I first floated the idea of talking through church. It also means I'm open to comments or questions about church in general, not so much just about mega churches.

As a refresher, here are the first few posts from last spring's launch of the series. I'll be back soon with the first actual question and (my shot at an) answer to get us started.

The Mega-Why?
A Megachurch Question - Part New
The Mega Question

God bless,
Ron

*Four posts in over a year, and little actual discussion of the question. I'm thinking this might be the longest running, yet least fruitful blog series ever. Oops!

Blogging for Choices

2009-01-22T10:22:00.004-06:00

Interesting. Today is something called "Blog for Choice" day. Last year's was so "successful" that even a 'net savvy person and multiple-blog reader like me didn't hear of it until this year. Being a giving guy, I'd like to help them out and add one more post to this year's flurry, one that will raise the profile of this "cause" by the at least 3-4 people who visit the Northern 'Burbs Blog.

The question posed by Blog for Choice:
What is your top pro-choice hope for President-elect Obama (he'll be President Obama by the time Blog for Choice Day rolls around!) and/or the new Congress.

My top pro-choice hope is that this nation's leadership will provide for millions of unborn children the opportunity to make choices by letting them live instead of snuffing out their lives before they get to make any choices at all.

That is, I'd like them to call the "pro-choice" movement on its rhetorical bluff and point to the fact that this "choice" to abort is about stealing the right to make choices from the unborn. An aborted baby can never choose anything.

No society permits all choices. You can't legally choose to steal or sell meth in this country to cite two examples. Choice is only a virtue when the thing chosen is virtuous. Abortion isn't virtuous. We need to stop the canard that only pro-abortion folks care about choice.

I care about choice too, but I care about good choices and providing the environment for people to make their own choices (up until those choices are immoral, or when the choices impact others negatively - like abortion does.) When we take someone's life before that person even has a chance to make his or her first choice...well that is about as anti-choice as you can get.

On this anniversary of one of the worst decisions ever made, let's remember that we should be standing against oppression of which abortion is the worst sort. In taking away the life of the unborn, we're also taking away choice.

Trippin' 'Round the Sphere: 1/15/09 Edition

2009-01-15T11:02:00.000-06:00

Yes, I'm bringing back the most sought-after and heavily requested feature of this blog!

But before I do that, I'll post this.

Not to cross-promote too heavily, I have a new post up at Galya's Tale.
***
Also in the "cross-promotion" business, the church has done a site redesign. Let me know what you think.
***
My wife is applying for a new job. If you are, please withdraw your applications forthwith as this is really her dream job. Seriously.
***
What is wrong with people? Oh yeah...this.
***
On the other hand...yeay.
***
Other families who did the Ukrainian adoption thing: the Jones-Kressins, some other 'Sotans with a great blog name, the Lambeths and a story about Katya. We don't know any of these families, but their stories were fun to read while we were doing the adoption thing. Oh, and I can't forget Bob and Gail - it was their daughter that put us in touch with Angelina through a shared visit to Donetsk Christian University two years ago.
***

TTFN -

Ron

MinnPost Link!

2008-12-24T12:09:00.002-06:00

Thanks to Justin at MinnPost.com's Blog Cabin for the link to Galya's Tale. If you want the synopsis of my other blog's purpose and story, read his column here. If you want the detail, go to Galya's Tale itself.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-24T08:52:00.002-06:00

For you and yours, I wish you a very Merry Christmas. As much as we are focusing on our newly-extended family, this time of year is about remembering and celebrating another child and why he was born. Enjoy the season, the family and the traditions. But remember first the real reason of Christmas.

God bless,
Ron

New Blog!

2008-11-18T13:33:00.001-06:00

Okay, this will be a temp blog, but I started a new one called Galya's Tale. It's named in honor of a little girl we're working to adopt from Ukraine.

We leave tomorrow for Kiev, with much to do, and many things hanging in the balance. We'll use Galya's Tale as a way to keep the interested informed.

'til next time,

Ron

Randomness

2008-08-18T16:35:00.001-05:00

Yeah, back for my (apparently) every other/third/fourth month blog entry. Random thoughts of recent note, and I don't pretend you'll care about them:

I can't take gymnastics (or figure skating, or diving, or any "judged" sport) terribly seriously when scoring is so subjective.
***
This Phelps guy - he's not bad. Despite the "creating history" thing, though, my daughters are much more interested in the gymnastics. They're also convinced that they'll both be in the Olympics someday, despite not having taken more than a community ed gymnastics "class" or two. If I ever find someone stealing the innocence and faith of those two...
***
Continuing the sports theme, go Twins! Keep getting ignored by the national media despite being in first place this late in the season! Whoo-hoo! (And no, I don't think they win the division; too many bullpen problems, even with a Chicago team that's not exactly unbeatable. The World Series does not go through the AL Central this year.)
***
Can Evangelicals please stop thinking that just because someone> is passionate about social justice issues that he/she is NOT an unbeliever? And just because he may associate with people of different beliefs that there's something wrong with him? Remember: They will know us by our love. I don't recall an 11th commandment that they'll know us by our fidelity to a 20th Century pseudo-political Evangelical interpretation of scripture which leads to an inordinate amount of time being spent arguing against gay marriage rather than loving people and sharing the Gospel.

Just saying.

(Note to self: you were writing a series on this. Get back to it. Also, obligatory defense of my beliefs on the subject of gay marriage/abortion/etc...not found here as they are irrelevant to my argument. But they are consistently orthodox.)
***
That said, Senator Obama may have lost my vote a long time ago. I just can't get past this comment that says that babies are a punishment. I know what he (says he) meant by that comment, but it betrays an absolutely abhorrent philosophy that bothers me in a couple of ways. First of all, children are not punishment. We need to stop devaluing life. Now.

And I don't care what excuses the statement; in this scenario he's talking about his own (hypothetical) grandchildren being a punishment! No matter the context, it just doesn't sit at all well that someone vying to be the "leader of the free world" would even think something so horrific. Then he inserts his own children into the example? Ugh. It's been months since he said this, and it still disturbs me.

Second, this comment points to a philosophy of responsibility-avoidance that has become epidemic among leadership in this country. When our leaders don't exhibit pesonal responsibility, why should the rest of us? We need leaders who don't look for ways to get out of trouble; we need leaders who talk about (and are examples on how to) avoid getting into trouble in the first place.
***
That doesn't mean I'm a Senator McCain fan. Maybe I'm too young to remember, but have we always had such a dearth of good political candidates? In my mind, the last "great" politician was President Reagan. I'm not sure if we've even had a great senator or congress-person in my lifetime. Any nominees? (And I respect Senator McCain as a great American and soldier. Doesn't mean I think he's been an extraordinary Senator.)
***
Facebook is somewhat addictive. But I have more than 100 friends now, which is nice. Much better than the, what, 3-4 I have on MySpace?
***
Finally, I don't get to movies in the theaters as much as I used to, but I have been able to see a couple this year. Indiana Jones IV wasn't bad, but the first and third installment of the series were much better. Likewise, The Mummy 3 was a mild disappointment. I think the franchise just isn't the same without Rachel Weisz as Evelyn. I'm just waiting, though, for a good movie that's (a) not a sequel, (b) not part of a series and (c) is an original of high quality.

Except this movie will somehow violate both (a) and (b) and still somehow be (c). That's how much faith I have in Pixar. That's the one company for which I'd move to California to work, site unseen. (My wife would, of course, require the salary work out too. But that's why I married her. She's practical, and reminds me not to do stupid things like uproot the family on a whim.)

Praise Him in the Storm

2008-05-28T16:43:00.003-05:00

As long-time readers know, I have an affinity for the hobby of storm chasing, or at the least storm spotting. I am a certified Skywarn spotter and, although married to someone who thinks I'm nuts, find violent weather to be fascinating.

Please note I said "fascinating" and not "good." There is something awe-inspiring about the power of the whirlwind. And sometimes there is beauty; but all too often, there is death, destruction or pain. I don't want to be a spotter to have an excuse to go out in the rain. I choose to be a spotter because trained spotters can help alert people to get to cover safely when dangerous weather approaches. It's something all the spotters I know take seriously, although for many there is an element of weather geekdom or a thrill/rush in chasing something so unpredictable and powerful.

I say all this to set up this past weekend's events in my city. I live in Coon Rapids, a suburb on the north side of Minneapolis. This past weekend, my family and I went up north to the in-laws' lake home to spend time with my wife's clan. It was highly relaxing and enjoyable up until Sunday evening, when as we were getting ready to have dinner we caught on the news that a tornado had touched down in Coon Rapids. Stories mentioned "Highway 10 and Hanson Boulevard" or "Coon Rapids High School" - both locations within a mile or two of our house. We called a number of friends and family who lived nearby, but nobody answered their phones (many were also out of town.) We didn't know whether to come home and see if our house was still standing, or stay where we were and hope for the best. We chose the latter, and as more stories came out we learned that the tornado likely crossed our city about a mile or so north of us. We also found out another tornado touched down in Hugo, a 'burb of St. Paul, and that one child had died when he was sucked out of his house. It put a damper on the feelings of relief when we returned to find our home intact, and not so much as a hailstone dent in the siding. Dangerous weather in crowded cities can cause tragedy that nobody, not even those of us fascinated by twisters, ever wants to see.

Monday night the tragedy came even closer to home when we found out the little boy who died was the son of Gerard and Christy Prindle, a couple who play in the same community band as my wife. I found this out when I saw the band's director interviewed on the news talking about the story. I haven't met the Prindles, and my wife doesn't know them well at all - but the proximity and familiarity made the story hit harder.

I'm glad there were spotters watching the storms Sunday; warnings were early and many had taken shelter. It could have been worse; but it was bad enough. Why were some homes unscathed and others obliterated? Why did many survive yet the youngest die? Why does God allow such things?

As with the 35W bridge collapse, or recent earthquakes or cyclones, we won't know the reason this side of eternity. I trust God knows best, but that's easier for me to say than for those who've been more directly impacted to hear. All we can and should do at this time is show compassion and provide help and comfort as best we are able. At times like these I can't provide answers, and I can only speculate how I'd handle something like this happening in my own family. I would hope I could praise God even in the storm, but until it happens I don't know. I selfishly hope to never find out. I just can't not think about it at a time like this.

Remember we live in a fallen world; pray for those who suffer. Offer help when you can. And listen for what God may be whispering in the storm.

God bless,
Ron

Presumptions of Science

2008-05-16T15:37:00.002-05:00

I am taking a break in my series (ha! a break he says; more like a sabbatical) to post on a couple of articles I read recently that have me thinking. They both point to an arrogance, I think, in the hyper-rationalistic, hyper-naturalistic worldview that claims that nature is all there is; that science is the only way to explain things, and science can not only remove the need for a God, but can remove God altogether. It's not enough to say, "here's an alternate explanation to God." Many are instead saying, "this explanation is it, and God can't possibly play a part."

This strikes of hubris, a wee bit. It also points to a blindness in that particular worldview that keeps the holders thereof from seeing the problems in their own philosophy.

The first article is this article from FoxNews which discusses a book attempts to answer "the question 'Does science make belief in God obsolete?'" Full disclosure: I haven't yet read the book. I may not ever read it. That said, there is something disconcerting in the self-confident assertions that "Science has failed to find natural evidence of God. Natural evidence is all there is. No God. Case closed." Or references to another book entitled "God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist."

The logical flaws here are gaping. Science, by definition, only speaks in regards to the natural world. God is by definition super-natural, or above nature (unless one is a pantheist.) Science cannot possibly, by its own limitations and the reach of traditional scientific methodologies, say anything whatsoever about God's existence. Science can put forth explanations, yet any explanation put forth by any scientist is built on assumptions - some of which could potentially be invalid. To say that because "science has failed to find natural evidence of God" (a claim disputed by some scientists, although I can conceded the point and still win this line of reasoning) doesn't mean that there is therefore no God. God could quite skillfully avoid detection were He to want to, and His visibility, or lack thereof, to the proponents of such a philosophy says nothing whatever about whether He exists or not.

And don't even get me started on how science, something which by definition can't speak to things outside the natural realm, can show that God does not exist. I can buy that adherents to scientific/naturalistic worldviews don't believe that God exists; I can't at all buy that they've proven their belief in God's non-existence through science any more than I can prove my belief in God's existence via science.

The second column, written by David Brooks of the NY Times, talks about how neural science is leading to a new debate about who, or what, God is. (And yes, I know I am quoting both the NY Times and Fox News in the same blog post. I expect this will cause both liberals and conservatives to then be up in arms with me.)

To me Brooks' column was more interesting than the Fox News one. The Fox article demonstrates the misplaced hubris of the fundamentalist naturalists. That's easy pickings, not really advancing anything new, and a standard covering of a philosophy that won't lead anywhere. By contrast, the Brooks column stands out to me as an actual challenge. In an over-simplified summary, scientists studying cognition and neural development are observing that certain areas of the brain "light up" during times of "religious experience." The naturalistic interpretation is that our brains, therefore, are inventing our encounters with God, or that our brains can connect with something bigger than ourselves; they can transcend ourselves and that explains how so many things are commonly held across cultures and time.

The challenge, Brooks seems to say, is that those like me, who believe in a personal God & that truth is found in scripture, are going to have a harder time defending those beliefs in light of this neural research. If the brain's behavior makes us feel close to God, the question seems to be, how can we be so confident God is there as we believe Him to be? How do we know our brain isn't messing with us? Similar arguments have been broached by those of a deterministic bent, who deny us freewill on the grounds that naturalistic determinism (chemical/physical interactions, etc...) cause us to think, say or do what we think, say or do. That is, we don't choose, we're nothing more than computers programmed by a non-intelligent natural environment; we can't help it.

This challenge isn't so difficult as one might presume. My soul, if I have one, would be (like God) super-natural, and therefore outside of the realm of scientific observation. Neural scientists, then, would only be seeing part of the picture and drawing conclusions based on incomplete information. My view, if I may offer it here on my own blog, is that we have brain and soul, and they interact in what I would call the mind. The soul is supernatural, the brain is natural, and the mind is the interface betwixt the two. (I may be stretching definitions here, but this model makes sense to me.) Materialists will never see the soul. Science will never see it in the lab. But that doesn't mean it's not there. What we are seeing when we measure the brain may well be the effects of the soul, via the mind, directing the brain what to say, to think or to do. What we see as active neurons may not be our brain making us feel close to God. What we see as active neurons may very well be our souls being close to God, and letting our brains know about it.

Of course, I can't prove this any more than I can prove the opposite. But that's my point. Science needs to remain humble. For all the certainty the militant materialists can muster, the challenges they pose are no real threat.

Please note, too, that I am not at all opposed to science or scientists. I married one, and I have a background in both computer science (formal training and career) and meteorology (my hobby). I just think it best to keep the bold proclamations about things outside the realm of science to a minimum. When the tool isn't equipped to address the problem at hand, it's best not to trust your solution to that tool. Find a more appropriate one. Say philosophy. And use it with humility.

God bless,
Ron

The Mega-Why?

2008-04-18T16:37:00.000-05:00

Last time I introduced a little bit what I was going after in this series. And yes, I know it's going on a long time. Before I get too much further into it, I wanted to clarify why it is this question has some hold on me.

As some of you know, I am now, for better or worse, and elder at my local church. I have learned much, met many new folks, seen attendance rise (not my fault), heard squabbles, shared joy, and been encouraged by many "God sightings." Frankly, when I accepted the election to serve I didn't know completely what I was getting into; but I wasn't caught off guard either. It's been a joy, a challenge and a humbling privilege. I found out how much I didn't know, and in how many new places I could serve. Hopefully I'm holding my own, but we'll see as time goes on. The biggest challenge for me has been balancing this role with my roles of father and husband.

We have also hired, as of just under two years ago, a new Sr. Pastor. Great guy, good preacher, good leader. But, as part of the process we started hearing questions. Will we be another Eagle Brook. Will we be another Willow Creek. Do we want to grow that big?

The concern seems to be from two perspectives. One is a uncertainty about how big a church should be. My quick answer to that is, "as big as God makes it." He brings the growth, after all, through the people in a given congregation. It's a Sunday School answer of sorts, but it's true.

The other concern is that the large churches asked about, besides being huge in numbers, tend to be thought of as "seeker driven" churches. And there are a lot of people who are concerned about being seeker-driven in our churches. It is that concern I want to address in this series. First, is there necessarily a correlation between size and being "seeker driven"? Second, if there is, is there a problem with being "seeker driven"? Mixed with this will be a look at what church is, and who it is for. These are questions we've been wrestling with at Grace Church for the better part of a year or two. We'll see if I can distill that into a blog series, even one as long-running (ha!) as this one is turning out to be.

God bless,
Ron

He is Risen!

2008-03-23T19:14:00.002-05:00

He is risen indeed!

May your Easter be blessed, and the risen Son of the Living God be your source of Life forever and ever.

Amen.

A Megachurch Question - Part New

2008-03-20T17:36:00.004-05:00

A while back (oops! a loooong time back) I raised a question about the megachurch "movement" in America, and whether the criticism of megachurches is valid. I'd like to get back to that today as a way of...I think this is called blogging, but that would imply a more frequent rate of posting. At any rate, I'm going to kick this series off.

Willow Creek. Saddleback. Lakewood. North Point. What do most people think of when asked about this list? For some these are the names of famous churches. For others, these are the churches associated with a famous pastor. Some are associated with books written by staff members or pastors. For most of us, these are all examples of what is called the megachurch.

By some definitions, a megachurch is any church with a regular attendance of at least 2,000 people in worship services in a given week. Many, like Willow Creek, are independent of a denomination. Modern American media services and mythology also associate megachurches with the Republican party, or the "Religious Right." Hence some megachurches are seen suspiciously by folks on the left side of the political spectrum. As to those criticisms, most are often leveled at conservative Christianity as a whole, and so are not specific to megachurches. As a whole, I'm not going to look deeply at those criticisms because (a) I agree with criticism of a church that delves too deeply into politics, and (b) they are not specific to any particular form of church organization. Small churches can be too political, as can liberal/mainline churches. As I'll touch on later in this series, churches are not political tools. When any local church steps outside its purpose it's bound to encounter problems.

What I really want to touch on in this series is why conservatives, or evangelicals depending on one's classification, so often have problems with megachurches. There are two general principles at play that I'd like to explore in this little conversation. The first is that Christians are to judge their own. We should be discerning and diligent not to let either doctrine or purpose slide. The second, though, is that we should show love and grace in matters that aren't critical. Where do we draw the lines in the megachurch question.

I'll admit this topic isn't burning across Evangelicaldom, but it is of interest to me and so I'm going to think out loud about it. I hope it's interesting, and please do feel free to chime in as you see fit. As always, politeness and civility, grace and charity in commentary.

God bless!
Ron

Happy New Year!

2008-01-01T21:49:00.000-06:00

So far 2008 is off to a rousing start in the northern 'burbs of the Twin Cities. Plenty of snow, lots of family gatherings and some ice skating with the NBB daughters last evening. Good times.

The NBB wife is planning another trip to India, I'm hoping to travel again to Ukraine, and we together (shhh....) are considering adopting a special little girl. Details, due to the law of the country we're hoping to adopt from, are quiet now, but it is something you'll probably be reading about as soon as we can lock a few more things down. Regardless, much is going to be happening 'round here in '08. And those are just the not-quite-standard things.

So...while I don't make New Year resolutions, really, and since I've already said I need to write here more often (and...um, haven't...) I won't promise daily updates. But there is much going on that I need to share. This is one of my outlets. And feel free to nag me if you don't see as much as you're expecting:-)

I hope your 2008 is blessed!

Ron

Wow! I Remembered I Have a Blog!

2007-10-26T21:29:00.000-05:00

For those of you wondering, and inquiring, yes, I do still plan some things here at the blog. To wit, I have things in progress to update y'all on:

The Mega-Church Question

A mission trip I took to Donetsk, Ukraine this past summer

Life in general

Various tidbits from the news, including resolution of a thought I was working waaaay back in the days after the bridge collapsed

Some DVD reviews

Thoughts on politics, the environment and the war in Iraq

The story of a little girl that may soon become more prominent 'round here

I haven't left the blogosphere, but life and work and church have conspired to keep me away more than I'd have liked.

Hope all remains well - and until soon,

God bless!

Ron

Why?

2007-08-07T22:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I broached the subject of "why." As I noted, some people are focusing on the "why did the bridge fall?" question in the pursuit of political gain (and, for full disclosure, I doubt very much that particular malady will be isolated to one party or ideology; to date, though, most of that I've seen has been from the political left. Also, I've seen as vociferous condemnation of said behavior from the left as I have from the right. Nobody should stand for politicization of such an event, regardless of affiliation. But I digress.) Others are focusing on another "why" question: why would a God who is both loving and powerful not stop the bridge from falling? Why did people die, or get hurt, when God could have - nay, should have, stopped it?

This "why" question pops up in nearly any circumstance where people suffer. It is the question at the center of a philosophical study called theocidy. C.S. Lewis wrote on this in his book The Problem of Pain. Many a thinker has attempted answers, and I have nothing new and case-proving to add to the ongoing argument.

But I do think some things bear repeating. First, God is indeed loving. To assume otherwise based on the existence of evil, or the happenings of tragedy, is to assume what logic does not allow. A loving God is not obligated to eliminate all evil to retain the attribute of being loving (or, more precisely, the personification of love itself.) A parent is no less loving, for instance, when he or she allows a child to suffer the consequences of an action. Yes, the analogy is imperfect; I do NOT think the bridge fell because a particular driver or passenger on the bridge had done a particular wrong thing. However, we live in a world that is fallen and imperfect because we (collectively) sin. The consequences of collective sin are no less real than the consequences of individual sin. Accidents happen, bridges fall, fires burn and violence thrives. I don't blame anyone's sin for the bridge falling, but bad things happen because sin is in the world. The bridge falling was not a curse against Minneapolis, Minnesota, the U.S.A., or any other entity as far as I know. In general, bad things happen because we (I!) have done things wrong.

But God is loving in that He does counter evil, He does provide mercy, and He does grant grace. If God weren't loving, it could be argued, more would have died when the bridge collapsed (had the world even lasted this long; without a loving God it could be conceived that humanity would have been allowed to destroy ourselves centuries ago.) The idea that logic necessitates a loving God would by definition eliminate all evil is fallacious. Since we lack omniscience, it could be equally valid that since the results of evil could always be worse, a loving God must be helping mitigate some of the results of evil.

A second point is that often people use this problem of suffering and evil as a way to justify disbelief. Not all people who ask "why" are trying to avoid God. Many ask the question trying to understand. But there are a number of people who use the question to hide their doubt behind some modicum of respectability. "Oh, I can't believe in that type of God; he/she wouldn't exist!" they say. The problem is that the question in no way has anything valid to say about whether God exists, or what kind of being God might be. Rather, this is (in my opinion) a rather presumptuous idea that says more about the questioner than about God. Asking the question as a way to justify disbelief sets the questioner above God. He or she is in essence saying that "since I don't like this God, I can determine God doesn't exist." Or, to put it another way, I wouldn't behave like that if I were God, as I define "loving" to be a certain thing, and since I wouldn't behave like that, it's obvious there's no God."

Except, God's existence is completely independent, and unreliant upon, our preferences. I certainly don't claim to understand God's methods or workings. His thoughts are far beyond my own, as is His scope of vision. And truth be told, in my limited perspective, there are often times I don't like the way God works. That doesn't mean He isn't working or loving; it merely means I am limited and imperfect while He sees things I don't. I have no right to tell God, "to heck with you, I think that was an awful thing to do. Allowing that [insert tragedy here] to happen proves you're not there."

Like it or not, because we live in a fallen world (a condition for which I am as responsible as everyone/anyone) bad things happen. Because God is loving, things aren't worse than they are. He has no obligation to remove all pain and suffering to retain the title of "loving." Nor does our dislike of the way He works or of the things He sometimes allows to happen have anything to say about whether God is. There may be other arguments that provide stronger evidence against God. Logically speaking, the "why" question, this problem of evil, can do nothing one way or another to tell us whether God exists of if He is loving.

There is nothing wrong with asking "why God allowed this" in order to try and understand. There is, though, something illogical and wrong about using the question as a shield to justify running away from God.

This has been a rather downer post, I know. I'm aware some people will misinterpret what I wrote as saying I blame so-and-so for doing such-and-such which caused the bridge to fall. Or that I'm saying people who ask this question are all illogical atheists. I hope I'm clear enough so you know that's not what I intend. All I'm trying to say is that God can be loving and still tolerate the existence of evil and suffering (and, even further, not constantly intervene to remove all consequences of it.) And, I'm saying that the question of God's existence or love are independent of, and unprovable by, the question of evil.

Tomorrow I'll finish this mini-series on something more positive. I'll focus on the flip side of the "why" question. Why do I trust that God is loving despite the presence of evil, and why might we someday be able to see more clearly that indeed He was working even during the collapse.

God bless,
Ron

Why the Bridge?

2007-08-06T21:02:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure how much I can post on the 35W bridge collapse. I still have too many vivid memories of driving over the thing, having grown up in South Minny and using that route hundreds, if not thousands, of times in my life. It still feels odd that it's not there anymore.

I certainly still feel for the missing, the injured, and the families of the dead from the collapse. And I'm certainly still proud of those who risked their own safety to help others. Many prayers, I know, are going out for each of them.

What I detest, though, and what is making me sick of the story are the pathetic people who are trying to make political hay out of this incident while there are bodies to recover, hurts to heal and lives to repair. For instance: KAR (as well as many others in the MOB) point out the lunacy of local columnist Nick Coleman's column of last week (WARNING: language/style may be offensive to some.) We are trying to help people, and we are probably 18 plus months away from firm answers regarding causation. Yet he (and many others) are reflexively blaming others. Sick. Sad. Pathetic. Makes me blood boil, it does. Now isn't the time, and that isn't the tone. The "why" questions will be answered in due course. Respect the hurt and dead. Leave the grandstanding for another time.

But there is one "why" question that we can look at, and it is the why question we hear in any time of disaster, tragedy, violence or suffering. Why, we hear, if there is a God, do these things happen? This is, to me, the acceptable "why" at this time. It demonstrates a human need to understand and especially to understand God.

To that question I will turn tomorrow. I need to cool down.

Words Aren't Enough

2007-08-02T08:21:00.000-05:00

By now you've seen the stories. A major interstate freeway bridge collapsed in Minneapolis last night, during rush hour, and right before a Twins game. Traffic was heavy, and there have been reports of dozens of injuries and at least 4-9 deaths (depending on which news organization is reporting the numbers.) It is too early to speculate on the cause of the fall, but that's not stopping people from guessing. My own seven year old daughter, this morning, offered that the collapse was probably because the bridge was old and lots of cars have driven on it.

That's not something I want her dwelling on the next time we drive over a bridge.

It'll be a cliche you hear from Minneapolitans over the next days: "I drive across that bridge all the time!" I myself have driven it countless times, most recently about three weeks ago. While I don't get downtown as often as I used to, you can't live in this town long without crossing the bridge at some point.

Until yesterday.

We started receiving phone calls last night around 6:30. Family and friends from around the country had seen the news and wanted to make sure we were okay. We are. But at least dozens of families aren't so fortunate. Our prayers today go out to the rescue workers, the emergency crews and the families of those hurt or killed.

For those unfamiliar with the area, the 35W bridge crossed the Mississippi river just outside downtown Minneapolis. Heading south, the next exit past the river drops people into downtown, and is a major point of entry to the city for such things as the Twins game. There are two locks on the river nearby, and another residential-traffic bridge a few hundred feet away. The University of Minnesota is also nearby, and the residential area surrounding the bridge's north side is primarily made up of college students. There was construction on the bridge, for resurfacing the roadway, but not on the steel infrastructure. Couple this construction with rush-hour/Twins traffic, and you had a lot of cars on the bridge going slowly at the time.

The bridge was just shy of 40 years old, and was designed to last 70 years. Something went wrong. That's an obvious understatement. There are already despicable people trying to pin blame for this on one person or another when the truth is we won't know what happened for (in all likelihood) months at the earliest. There is time to figure out the hows and whys. Right now we should be focused on finding the people beneath the rubble and supporting the families affected.

By all accounts, Minneapolis and the surrounding communities reacted well. Acts of heroism were abundant as people risked their safety to help others out of vehicles and out of the river. Praise God for such stuff. I'm proud of the city, in a muted way, and wasn't at all surprised such people live here. But I'm saddened by the tragedy. At some point, we'll know what happened and in true Minnesota form, we'll fix it. Until then, what we'll do is pray and give blood and donate to the Red Cross and help our neighbors as best we can.

For those who've contacted us, again we're safe. And thanks for your concern. Now let's focus that on those who need it: the injured, the families of the dead, and the workers risking safety to recover them all.

God bless,
Ron

So Sorry...

2007-07-23T10:09:00.000-05:00

I know a (few) of you overly-faithful friends have checked of late. Yes, I am still here, and yes I know I owe you the following:

An update on the church series. I will be doing this soon. I'm in the midst of one big project consuming much of my time, and I'll be freed up from that in the next week or so.

Also, an update on my trip to Ukraine. Much good from that, and it'll even have pictures!

And, finally, an update on the script writing exercise. I finished. But. I never got back to the page to post my word count, so per Script Frenzy's Web page, I never finished. C'est la vie. At least I was able to complete the work, and that is its own satisfaction. Of course, it's a different script than I started on, and needs work, but it is complete and in less than a month.

If only I were so diligent here!

More soon -

God bless,
Ron

Disciplined Writing

2007-06-01T17:09:00.001-05:00

Hey! The dearth of content probably makes you think I'm not very disciplined as a writer. Well, yes and no. I write a lot, just not always (or often!) on the blog.

But I do wish I was more disciplined about what/where/when I write. So, I'm taking on a challenge to help me focus, for one month, on a single writing project I've wanted to complete for a long time.

It's Script Frenzy time. From the folks who bring you National Novel Writing Month comes a way to motivate the aspiring screen-/playwrite to actually get something down on paper. Or, in bits, as it were.

You'll be able to measure my "progress" here, assuming the link works for people who aren't me.

Join the fun and we can suffer/rejoice together at the end of June.

God bless,
Ron

I'm still here...

2007-05-28T22:47:00.000-05:00

...but life's been hectic. I PROMISE a post or two this week.

Or maybe that's more of a threat:)

I hope your Memorial Day was meaningful.

God bless,
Ron

Time to Vote!

2007-05-01T16:36:00.000-05:00

Okay, it's not really a presidential election season, although it's starting to feel like one. No, this is more important: it's the Blogger's Choice Awards!. Since I'm not nominated (thanks!) I feel no problem encouraging y'all to head over and vote for my favorite New Zealander, Catez from Allthings2all. You can vote for her here!

But why should you vote for Catez, you might ask? Well, in the humble opinion of your humble narrator, she has one of the most readable voices in our little sub-sphere of Christian bloggers. She's long been one of my favorites, and I think that she's well deserving of the honor. Long-story short, she does good work and is good people. So, vote as often as the rules allow.

(And feel free to poke around the site for other worthy blogs too!)

...
And yes, I know I owe you further posts on my church series. I'm getting there, I promise.

God bless,
Ron

The Mega Question

2007-04-15T21:48:00.000-05:00

Okay, to set this up, I've had a lot on my mind of late regarding church structure and organization. Some of this is natural; I'm now an elder and need to concern myself with such things more than I did as a layperson. Some of this is more to do, though, with the general antipathy with which many Evangelicals hold the modern megachurch.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll define a megachurch as one that draws more than 1,000 people to services on a given Sunday, although I know that other definitions exist. It'll even suffice to say "a really big church" compared to the more "average" Christian church of less than 200 attendees. (I'm hedging because I can't recall the actual average church size nowadays, but I *believe* it's actually less than 100. But don't quote me.)

Before I state my actual view on the megachurch phenomenon, I'm interested in yours. Therefore, if you would be so kind, please let me know in the comments (or via email) what you think about megachurches. Are they generally speaking a good thing or a bad thing? What does the Bible say, if anything, about the size/structure of a Willow Creek, a Saddleback or a Eagle Brook? What is the Biblically-proscribed model for churches? Let's get even more basic: what is the purpose of the church? And how can size/structure help/hinder that purpose?

I'm hoping this can be a fun discussion, because frankly I've seen this discussion be not so much fun lately. But either way, I'm interested in how this turns out.

God bless!
Ron

If a Blogswarm Was Announced but Nobody Read it...

2007-04-09T16:57:00.000-05:00

Is a blogswarm like this effective if, say, a fairly broad-reading blogger doesn't hear about it until reading about it at KAR after the fact?

I kinda feel sorry for people who think we're actually headed for a theocracy. Not a single Christian I've ever met wants one of those. I'd think living in fear of something nobody of consequence is proposing would have to take a year or two off someone's life.

Truth be told, though, what the originating post calls out are issues about which people in a democracy (or, in our case, a democratic republic) can banter about and discuss in hopes of persuading more people to adopt one position or another. And on purely secular grounds, in many cases, although religious grounds are often used in discussions on each topic named. A country could quite easily adopt each position against which these folks are arguing and still not be a true theocracy, or vice versa. Ironic.

Techy Stuff

2007-04-04T16:45:00.000-05:00

I'm tweaking some things on the site, and need some assistance. For some reason, I can't get the Haloscan comments to work on both the main page and the individual post's page. Therefore, I end up with two sets of comments, at times, for each post: one Haloscan, one Blogger. Ideas?

And yes, I'm sure it's something stupid I overlooked. My geek's license will soon be revoked I'm sure.

Also, thanks to Catez's blog I found some rather cool toys, like the boxes at right for my blogrolls. I think it neatens things up nicely. I also found the tracking tool for seeing how many folks are checking out the ol' NBB from her. Thanks Catez!

Go away for a while there are all sorts of new toys to add to the blog. I may add more things over the near future as I try and figure out how I want things to look. Your patience and input are much appreciated!

God bless,
Ron

Russian in the Northern Burbs

2007-04-03T16:20:00.000-05:00

So I'm teaching myself Russian. Interesting language, that. It doesn't conform readily to American English, or at least as readily as I'd prefer, but it sounds rather cool. Plus I'm heading to Ukraine this summer, and it'd be fun to be able to interact with folks who don't speak English well. Ironically, we're going, in part, to help teach English. It's fun watching movies like The Hunt for Red October and The Bourne Supremacy and pick out those words I've learned from the Russian dialogue. I hope to be roughly conversational by the point we leave for Ukraine. (And if any of you know good Russian resources, or interesting movies that have Russian speech, let me know!)

I'm hoping to soon order food at our local Ukrainian deli using my robust (er, passable? pathetic?) Russian skills.

I love other languages too. I was (at one point) semi-fluent in Spanish, although have not practiced it sufficiently to remain so. I find myself having to think through things much more than I used to, and have forgotten more vocabulary than I realized I ever knew. On our honeymoon, we would watch movies in the hotel, and I'd actually correct the Spanish subtitles. I don't think I could do that now, but I do love hearing Spanish.

I'd also like to learn Quenya, which sounds like a geek-goal, but - nah, who am I kidding? It is a geek goal.

(Sidebar: my wife says I'm a geek, which differs from being a nerd in that geeks get things done. I can live with that.)

Learning other languages, though, takes some effort. I'm fortunate enough to have been blessed with a bent towards all things grammar-oriented (although admittedly I break a few rules on this blog from time to time) so some concepts come to me fairly quickly. But it's still work. If all I got out of it was the momentary satisfaction of recognizing when a Russian submariner in a film says "извините" it wouldn't be worth the work. And if I just like the way it sounds, I can buy Russian music and just listen. Sometimes it doesn't seem worth the effort.

Then I read Dr. Witherington's reminder that we Christians should really be at the forefront of understanding not just those with whom we share geographic space, but those across the globe. Jesus died for all people, not just those here.

That's one of the reasons my wife traveled twice to India, to minister to the least of these. It's why I'm going to Ukraine to teach English, and to encourage children living in an orphanage. It's why I love working in a job where I interact with people from many, many cultures.

I am NOT anti-American, but I find myself wondering why I consider myself primarily an American so often. I am as patriotic as they come, but first and foremost I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God. The U.S. will one day be but a memory, while God's kingdom will remain forever.

Learning other languages and striving to understand (and relate to!) people around the globe build a discipline of thought that forces me to look outside my culture. Going on a missions trip, as Dr. Witherington recommends, is another way to build that discipline. Asking questions of, and interacting with, people from other cultures and nations in the blogosphere is another. I learn much from my non-American brothers and sisters (to cite two of many examples available) with blogs. God doesn't care which nation you're from; He wants your heart and mind and soul regardless of skin color, culture or nation. I should value nothing less. And if learning Russian helps me value another group of people more, it's an investment well spent.

God bless!
Ron

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 4/2/07 Edition

2007-04-02T14:14:00.000-05:00

Miss a year, there's catching up to do. So, while I was out (and since I've been back):

Amy and Greg are adding to their humble family. Congratulations!

Kristin and Ryan also added to their clan. Welcome Noah!

Jeremy posted wonderful stuff on inerrancy and infallibility (read the comments too) as well as an interesting post on environmental efficiency vis a vis the primary 2000 presidential candidates. (Personally, I think it's better to promote stewardship because it's the right thing to do rather than to push global warming as "the issue." First because the spokespeople for the movement aren't exactly all credible enough to sway the skeptics. Second, it gives short-shrift to other important environmental issues. Third, if global warming becomes the equivalent of the 1970's-esque "pending ice age!" scare the environmental science community risks wolf-crying reputation in the future. If we act like we should, these things would take care of themselves. No reason to dilute the good stewardship message by staking our claims to one issue that may end up being either irreversible or non-existent. That enough speechifying?)

Mark Lee rates the final four fight songs here. I couldn't get a comment in for some reason, but I'd rank 'em OSU, Flordia, UCLA and Georgetown.

Catez did a redesign of her site. Looks good! I'm sure it'd sound good, too, what with the New Zealand accent, but...she doesn't have any sound on the blog.

I started looking for a spare $600 million.

Always the voice of the Twins for me. Rest in peace Herb.

God bless!

Memes, Glorious Memes

2007-03-31T22:34:00.000-05:00

Okay, I took a break and came back to...a meme in the first week!

Sheesh.

But I like this one. HT to Catez.

Read my VisualDNA™ Get your own VisualDNA™

Back in the saddle again

2007-03-29T19:15:00.000-05:00

For the past (nearly a) year I've been on a hiatus. I often found myself encountering things which would be great blog fodder, but just as often would talk myself out of jumping on board just then. I'd let the moment slide, and relax in the refreshing bliss that is not blogging.

But I missed it. So, I came back, and have a new sense of refreshment about writing here again. The problem is, I missed an entire election cycle, and I've blogged on the environment before, so my best material isn't quite timely.

Then again, my best material may not be worth rehashing.

So, I'll start gently. First, thanks to St. Paul et al for getting me back into the MOB so quickly. It's just kinda cool to be a MOBster. I had the shirt from last year, and wanted to wear it again.

Second, I'll avoid giving you movie reviews of all the movies on DVD I've watched of late, like The Prestige (3 of 4 whatevers - I need a rating marker. Stars and thumbs-up are too cliche), The Illusionist (2.5 of 4 whatevers - Paul Giamatti was quite good, but the ending wasn't surprising) or Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2.5 of 4 whatevers - the middle act of a trilogy wasn't satisfying at the end.) I do think this will be a wonderful summer for movies, though, which means next winter I'll have much DVD watching to do. That's the price you pay for having kids, which means double the price of movies due to babysitter fees.

I will, though, let you know some of the things that happened over the past year. First, I changed jobs. I'm still a project manager in the IT realm, but now for a different company in a different industry. For reasons I won't say which firm, or which industry. Plus, I don't really blog about work, so it's of no mind.

I also was elected to be an elder at my church. Humbling, that, and tough. I have a whole new appreciation for the position. Editorial aside: please pray for your church's leaders. They need it.

My wife went to India for another visit to minister to the Dalits again. And I am planning a short-term mission trip to the Ukraine this summer. The biggest downside to that is missing two weeks of softball, but that's probably not the best reason for skipping the opportunity God set before me.

I'd say more, but Blogger2 is mis-formatting all my links and causing much re-work. My laziness, and need to get the girls all storied up for bedtime, mean I need to call it a night. Suffice it to say, I'm glad to be back. And sometime soon I promise to be more interesting:)

God bless,
Ron

I wanna be, I wanna be like Mike...

2007-03-26T22:30:00.000-05:00

Okay, it's official. I'll be blogging again. The retirement was short lived. I found I missed this little hobby/outlet/catharsis and decided I'll give it a go once more. There will be some changes, though, as (a) I don't like the blogger template, and (b) I'm not sure if I like Blogger enough to stick with it long-term. We'll see. But, expect at the very least some changes to the look/feel of the blog in the next month or so. As well as semi-regular posting as I attempt to work myself back into a schedule.

Now...to see if people actually notice and come back:)

God bless,
Ron

This is a test.

2007-03-23T23:18:00.000-05:00

I'm seeing if anyone still comes here...not saying there might not be an announcement in the near future about a Jordan-esque un-retirement. I'll just leave you in suspense and see what happens:)

If you stop by...say hi in the comments.

I Consider Myself, the Luckiest Blogger on the Face of the Earth...

2006-05-30T13:23:00.000-05:00

Well, no, I don't. That's partly because I don't believe in luck, and partly because even if I did I never had the fortune to step into a high-traffic-generating issue that brought down a news anchor. But that's okay. I found a niche, and was blessed enough to meet some people who were kind enough to engage in some fascinating discussions with me.

By now, the astute among you will have noted my use of the past tense. That is because this will be the final blog post at the NBB. For numerous reasons, many of which coalesced this past weekend, I am "retiring" from active blogging.

And no, there is nothing wrong with me or my family that is driving this decision. It has more to do with some (positive!) things coming up in my own life that will take up the time I was spending here, and some new goals I have. Not to mention the fact that I just feel it's time to move on. (Many Christians will know the feeling - you just "know" when God is telling you to do, or to stop, something. I have that feeling now.)

So, while I hope that you have enjoyed what you've found here (even if you've disagreed with it) I also hope you won't miss me too terribly much. I'll still read a lot of blogs, and will comment from time to time. There's just something else to which I need turn my attention.

For now and always,

God bless!

How to Find the Northern 'Burbs - 5/25

2006-05-25T16:20:00.000-05:00

More folks meandered here via search engines. These are some of the more interesting paths they took.

what disasters can happen in minnesota Well, we do have a few

What do you believe mans’ relationship to animals is or should be? Timely considering Tuesday's post. I think the relationship depends on the animal in question. For instance, I think our relation to cows should be eater-food. (You can read my posts on the environment to find a less tongue-in-cheek answer.)

northwords oogie boogie I must not live far enough north. These words aren't used around here.

serving the lord for woman Huh. Wasn't exactly my motivation for serving God, but I guess different folks have different expectations.

flood lord will provide national guard helicopter Does the Lord pay $700 for hammers to fix those choppers too, or is that just a U.S. government thing?

teaching in northern canada Well, Canada is the only thing further north than Minnesota...but there's

"70's style clothing" That was the bane of my childhood. It's also why we let our girls pick their clothes, within reason - when they look back at their kidhood pix, they can't blame us for their fashion choices.

You can also find the Northern 'Burbs Blog at this Christian Carnival - along with many other Christian-themed posts. Head on over!

God bless!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 5/24/06 Edition

2006-05-24T21:24:00.000-05:00

Want to know what makes me tick? Apparently my DNA:

Genuine Analyst

Seems somewhat accurate, although not 100% so. And I never knew my DNA was so...colorful. Or pill-shaped.

Anyway, some text behind the picture (which you can scroll-over the various colors to find out what they mean.)

Your attention to detail, confidence, sense of order, and focus on functionality combine to make you an ANALYST.

You are very curious about how things work, delving into the mechanics behind things.

You find beauty and wonder mainly in concrete, functional, earthly things.

You are very aware of your own abilities, and you believe that you will find the best way of doing things.

Accordingly, problems do not intimidate you, as you believe in yourself.

You trust yourself to find solutions within the boundaries of your knowledge.

You don't spend a lot of time imagining how things could be different—you're well-grounded in the here-and-now.

You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people's notions of style.

Generally, you believe that you control your life, and that external forces only play a limited role in determining what happens to you.

Your outgoing personality, your preference for order, and your cautious appreciation of others makes you GENUINE.

You aren't afraid to occasionally be the center of attention. You are comfortable and confident in social situations.

When other people are upset, you are able to think about the situation rationally, without getting too caught up in their feelings.

At times you find it difficult to understand where other people are coming from, and wish they could just see things the way you do.

You are a strongly principled person who believes in right and wrong. This helps you make decisions easily when it comes to moral issues – you don't have to waste time hedging on important values.

In your experience, people tend to get what they deserve. Because of this, you work hard and try to follow your principles in your day-to-day life, knowing that you will be rewarded for your efforts.

(HT: Jennifer.)
...
As you may have noticed, I don't blog about where I work, or provide personal information about other people (other than linking to their blogs, or relating things I've seen them post in their blogs already.) Therefore, I should have no problem endorsing the Online Integrity principles. Sad that we have to come up with such things, but then again I didn't have to create a comments policy and start moderating comments up until this week either.

The quibble I have with, though, is the idea of anonymity. Sure, if you want to remain anonymous, that's your right. However, I do not allow, nor will I allow, anonymous comments here. I don't publish material (or at least I try not to) not in the public domain, and I do try to shelter even my family from much of the blog content. But I admire people who are strong enough in their beliefs that they'll sign their names to them, consequences be durned.
...
Hey, the season finale is tonight! For all you fans out there, here's a Lost quiz to get you through the summer.
...
Are you a crunchy con? Guess I should read the book to find out, but if this is an accurate description, I'm fairly close to the overall philosophy. Interesting comments too...
...
In light of the politics series I'm working through, here is an article kinda covering why many conservatives aren't content to "live and let live" when it comes to the social-moral issues of the day (i.e. gay marriage) - we don't get the same courtesy in return.

And RE: yesterday's post, this declaration fits my philosophy pretty well. I'm reading more about the group that compiled it to see if there is more to know, but the statement itself is very good.
...
I know I'm a bit older than the target audience, but I set up a myspace account. Not a great deal there, but the reference there has brought a few people to this blog. Just an idea for getting the word out to people who may not know about your blog. Now if I could just get sane people asking me to be on their friends lists instead of the folks I've been getting...
...
God bless!

Comment Moderation

2006-05-24T16:31:00.000-05:00

I have now enabled comment moderation. Just an FYI, since most of you are responsible commenters. Appears one person can't live with him/herself not getting enough attention, and I don't particularly feel like providing a platform for the chronically immature.

Have a good day!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part X)

2006-05-23T22:10:00.000-05:00

For those who haven't been following closely, I'm in the midst (near the end?) of a series on how my faith informs my politics. The last post in the series touched on how I see the issue of poverty. Today 'd like to move on to the next topic near and dear to my heart, the environment.

For those of you new to the Northern 'burbs, I did a series (yes, I like the series format, mostly due to my tendency to carry on so) on the environment vis a vis the stewardship issue last year. I won't repeat everything in that series here, but if you're interested, those posts are, in order, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. (Now you see why I don't want to post everything here again.)

In general, I find the Bible tells me a few things about environmental politics, few of which mention the specific issues that face us today. There is no talk of global warming, mercury emissions, nuclear power, or runoff. Again I look to general principles that can be applied consistently, and thus is an environmental outlook formed.

The first thing we need to remember is that environmental concerns are not the most important thing. As noted earlier in the series, God comes first. And in reality, other priorities take precedence too. The right to life for instance is more important, since if you don't have the right to life, clean water is meaningless. Likewise, meeting the needs of the poor, and addressing poverty, also come before nature. This last point isn't only Biblical, but also practical; environmentalism is a rich country's luxury. The poor have to worry about food and shelter. It is only when basic needs are met consistently that one has the time and energy to spend on environmental worries. End poverty and the environment becomes easier to protect.

This is not to say the environment isn't important. As noted in my series of last year, we have an obligation towards stewardship. And as long as we keep things in proper perspective, taking care of the environment is absolutely an appropriate area of concern. For some ways to get involved in the politics of nature, see the original series.

I don't want to leave it there, though, as there are a couple of things I didn't talk much about last year that are important. First, Christians need to be sure that the decisions we make vis a vis the environment, as with all decisions, are informed and rational. It is easy to get caught up in emotion, especially since much of nature can be very beautiful. I love hiking in the Rockies, or canoeing through the BWCA - and I'm certainly fond of animals. I can see how easy it is to fall for arguments based on aesthetics, but political decisions are best made when they make use of available facts instead of emotional pleas.

Going along with this, we need to remember that the government doesn't have sole responsibility in caring for the environment. A community's recycling program is ineffective if residents don't participate. Considering fuel economy and high-efficiency appliances/building materials can save money down the road which can be used to help others. While other things may be more important, the environment is important to God, and He won't look kindly on those who destroy it.

Finally, we need to be sure of our motivations in determining which environmental causes to support, and how to do so. For instance, I am skeptical about humanity's influence in the global warming debate. I think the cyclicity of weather is much more important, the variables involved in modeling future temperatures too many and unpredictable (I mean, we can't really even predict accurately one month out, let alone a century), and our CO2 emissions' influence is unproven. It's also hard to believe the many current global warming adherents who in the 1970's were clamoring about an impending ice age. That being said, I am still motivated by a desire to care for the environment to seek improvements in air quality and reductions in air pollutants. We shouldn't let disagreements with certain environmental viewpoints lead us to disregard concern for the natural world. Just because I don't like PETA's methods in arguing for vegatarianism doesn't mean I should relish cruelty to animals in farming. And just because I don't think much of global warming evidence doesn't mean I should not be a proponent of hybrid cars and cleaner burning energy sources.

Keep your priorities right, and remember God wants us to care for the earth. All of creation is important to God, and we cannot give environmental concerns short shrift. Just use common sense and know that God comes first, people second. Neither of those priorities implies that the environment should be abused; in fact they demand the opposite since loving God means we obey His commands regarding stewardship, and loving people means we want to help people live in the cleanest, healthiest world possible.

God bless!
...
BTW, this is post #300 at the Northern 'burbs. Thanks to all who've kept me interested in this little hobby this long!

Comment Policy

2006-05-23T09:25:00.000-05:00

Since an unfortunate troll who needs prayer more than attention has followed me from another blog, I am explicitly clarifying my commenting policy. I guess it had to happen, although I'm sorry for it.

This blog is not run by the U.S. or any State/Local government. As such, I feel no compulsion to operate according to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. That being said, I will allow for comments that are interesting, civil, provocative, cantankerous or even offensive (well, to others...as noted earlier, I'm not an easy person to offend.) What I will not allow are the following:

Swearing that is not necessary for the comment's purpose

Racially, religiously, or sexually offensive material

Spam

Ad-hominem, or insulting, attacks on other people

If I see any such comments made (and I reserve the right to add other items to the list) I will delete them and, if I'm in the right mood, ban the author from making comments to this blog. If I start seeing too many comments that need to be removed, I'll enable comment moderation.

It's sad that some folks have decided that free speech doesn't mean debate, it means insulting/slandering/debasing others. We should all accept that free speech means disagreement. It doesn't mean boorish behavior.

If you ever see something on this blog that strikes you as offensive, please let me know. I strive above all else to keep the discussion respectful.

Thanks, and God bless!

Bizzy

2006-05-17T17:14:00.000-05:00

Just to let you know, I'm taking a blog break for the rest of the week due to life circumstances. Nothing bad at all, just things a'goin' on. Thought I should alert you in case you felt like checking back every day wondering why you were wasting your time. I'll be back Monday!

God bless!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part IX)

2006-05-15T22:45:00.000-05:00

The next topic in this (interminable/fast-paced) series is poverty. It seems that separating politics and money is as hard as separating anything else from money. And the politics of poverty is always contentious. In general terms, conservatives want the private sector to take on alleviating poverty via charities, while liberals are more apt to seek government-led approaches. (Of course most people prefer a mix, just slanted one way or another.) There are, of course, pros and cons to each. The government, in theory if not always in practice, has more resources available and can help more people. Charities, usually, can be more efficient in distribution and local charities know their "clientele" better than distant beuracrats.

Part of the problem, though, is that instead of using rational analysis in deciding the optimal approach to reducing poverty (it won't ever go away completely) people let emotions get in the way. I know I do. The love of money is indeed the root of all evil. This love leads to one of two reactions: we want to tell others how to spend their money (i.e. tax everyone more) or we want to hoard our own money and not spend it (lower taxes, don't give to charity.) In both cases, the Biblical approach is being missed. While the secular arguments can be debated ad nauseum I'm going to focus on what I see as the Biblical approach to poverty, and its place in politics.

First of all, a society that treats the poor...um, poorly (sorry), is a society earning the judgment of God. The prophet Amos lists maltreatment of the poor by the comfortable as a great transgression. No political policy should ever exacerbate poverty.

Second, helping the poor is something all Christians should do; it's not just a matter of avoiding making the problem worse, we have to actively do something to help. This even goes back to the ancient Israelites, who were commanded by God to to provide an opportunity for the poor to have some portion of the harvest. Jesus demonstrated to the rich young ruler that giving to the poor was a way to show whom the rich young man was serving (either Jesus or money.) Jesus also said that helping those in need would be something that separates the righteous from the unrighteous.

Third, scripture doesn't say that the responsibility for caring for the poor is a government obligation. This is perhaps the most controversial statement. Well, okay, God did tell the Israelites to leave gleanings for the poor, but unless you think the U.S. should be a theocracy along those lines the analogy doesn't quite work. We are not to abdicate our responsibility to the poor by passing it off on the government, or on those "rich" folks we like to talk about taxing. No, our responsibilities are personal and very clear.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm against government assistance for the poor. As noted above, there are some things that the state can do better than I can do due to larger size and reach. But I believe strongly that the need for governmental intervention should be minimal; the private sector, led by Christians, should do the heavy lifting. So, from this I tend to support policies that increase governmental efficiency (thereby leaving more money for the poor), tax deductions for charitable giving (which encourages charitable giving), and reduce corruption (a problem especially in some third world nations that keeps people poor while leaders live in luxury.)

Government is a blunt tool, not always so good for enforcing morality (not that we should give up the fight for a moral society, using politics when necessary.) Laws that redistribute wealth are as bad as hate speech laws - they mask symptoms, and the canny will always find a way around them. Better to speak to the hearts of others and convince them that giving is the right thing to do.

God bless!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - My Daughter's Birthday Edition

2006-05-11T22:26:00.000-05:00

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 5/11/06 Edition

Christian Carnival is up at Something Epic. Go. Read. Think. (And next week, contribute!)
...
Speaking of thinking, Ed says ceasing to do so makes living without Jesus easy. That's not really a good thing.
...
USA Today had a recent article apropos to my current series. Why not campaign from the pulpit? Read it there, perhaps we'll discuss it here...
...
If the reasons he does this are prioritized as in the headline, this engineer has it right.
...
My eldest daughters' sixth birthday is today! (Hence the break from the series as blogging time is minimal.) Jeff's was a few days ago. Best wishes to both!
...
Chad The Elder warns guys like me (i.e. those who have daughters) about, well...guys. I've long known my most important job as father, besides teaching them about God, is teaching them about the ways of boys and men.
...
There is some good news regarding air quality. And apparently there's another environmental stewardship declaration. I'm not for 'em or against 'em, but it does seem they're a-poppin' out rapidly lately.
...
Okay, when did ER jump the shark? The show is getting worse each episode. And it seems a bit preachier than it used to be back when, you know, it was about like, doctors in a hospital and inetersting patients and stuff.
God bless!

How to Find the Northern 'Burbs - 5/11

2006-05-11T22:23:00.000-05:00

A good number of people of late have arrived here via searches for things like "euthanasia" or "Dalits" - which are things that I've posted on lately, and make sense. A couple of searches, though, befuddle me.

god position to sex: This blog is NOT the Kama Sutra blog.

submission and authority submission is higher than our work how has submission or rebellion in your work affected us : Not really odd, just the longest search string I've ever seen

This Guy Falls Down Christian who is proud to fall: I'm assuming this is someone looking for Mark Lee's blog, but I think it's a bit of "not getting the point" to think Christians are "proud" to fall...

the lord nick bubs: Nick Bubs is not a title for the Lord I remember from the Bible

married guy sex blog: I repeat, this it NOT the Kama Sutra blog.

Tune in next week when searches will include "Kama Sutra blog" and "Nick Bubs falls down in submission to higher authority position."

God bless!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part VIII)

2006-05-10T20:48:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I left off with the questions of how I justify using religiously-motivated reasons to engage politically, and what politically activities are acceptable.

The first question is often asked in one of two ways: "Who are you to try and push your morality on me?" or "Why can't you just leave your church thoughts in the parking lot and vote on purely secular grounds?" Actually, in the abortion and euthanasia discussion (and in most political discussions) I also have secular reasons for my political views. But I find the questions themselves to be broader in nature, and therefore want to address them.

The first form, regarding "pushing your morality on others" type queries, is a question born of, IMO, a lack of self-awareness. The fact of the matter is, EVERYONE who acts politically is trying to "push his/her morality" on those who disagree. Pro-choicers push their moral view of abortion on the unborn children who are aborted, on fathers who may want to keep the child, and on families that may want to adopt a child. Not to mention pro-lifers who are thereby forced to live in a society that espouses moral values with which they disagree. People pushing for tax/spend policies that emphasize education over military expenditures try to force their views on people pushing for fiscal policies that emphasize national security over other issues. Every time you vote, or advocate, on behalf of a cause you are trying to get your views sanctioned and/or enforced by society: ergo, you are trying to force your views on those who disagree with them. To say Christians can't have this right the same as anyone else is a form of bigotry.

The second question, the "why can't you leave your faith out of it" type, is born more of ignorance of human nature. Faith is a part of one's worldview. You act according to your worldview, and all your political views are formed from your worldview. You can't separate what you believe from who you are. To pretend otherwise is intellectually ignorant or dishonest. Everyone's faith (or lack thereof) informs their views on moral, social and political matters. It may not be overt or conscious, and in many cases faith isn't the only factor in forming those views. But it plays a part. Asking someone to disregard that crucial aspect in defining their political views is to ask them to be someone they're not.

Besides, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment kinda guarantees the right of folks to exercise their religion as they please, including using it to inform their political activities.

Which brings up a point I find frustrating at times: there are some people out there who actually believe the tenet of church/state separation applies to everyone, and that religion should be kept inside a house or church. Once you leave the house and are "in public" you have to shut down the God-thoughts. Such foolishness needs to be stopped. The Constitution says NOTHING about limiting the free expression of religion in the public sphere by individuals. The only place such expressions may be limited is when the expression is offered by a government agent on behalf of a government institution. Ergo, teachers in government-run schools can't lead the class in prayer, but teachers in private schools can. The mayor can't, in her capacity as mayor, call a press conference to preach to the state, but a pastor can use the capital grounds to hold a revival rally (assuming he keeps to the regulations and is given no more/less rights than other private persons.) (As an aside, I think it generally more beneficial to keep the state out of the church's business than vice versa; and it seems somewhat odd to me that the state can tell the church what not to preach - like political advocacy - legally. Not that I think church services should be political in nature, but that's on scriptural grounds, not legal ones. Seems odd that the church has to be completely removed from the state, but the state still gets to dictate limits to what a church can do. 'S all I'm saying. Back to the topic at hand...)

This segues into the second question I was going to discuss. What types of political activity is appropriate, from a Biblical perspective. As I noted earlier in the series, activity needs to be legal in order to submit to authorities. That makes it much easier in this country than in some others, where speeking the wrong thing can get you arrested or killed. The only time we are allowed, scripturally, to violate the law is when to obey the law would directly violate God's law. So, this leaves us with prayer, protesting, running for office, voting for candidates that share our views, writing advocacy pieces (in blogs, papers, books, etc.), supporting advocacy groups or politicians financially and/or trying to persuade your elected officials through personal contact of some sort.

What is not allowed are things like killing doctors who perform abortion. That is abhorent. Making threats against the health or safety of those who don't share your views, bribery, and trespassing is also verboten. Figuring out what is right and wrong isn't difficult; if it violates law, don't do it unless you can build a very, very solid case that to refrain from doing it would violate God's commandments. And then, take whatever consequences are coming from the government. Notice, the Apostles used the legal system to their advantage where possible (e.g. Paul appealing to Caesar) but they only disobeyed Rome when to obey meant disobedience to God. And they also accepted the imprisonments and executions to which they were sentenced.

Taxes were oppressive in that time (living in Minnesota, they only seem oppressive now) but Jesus said to pay them. Withholding taxes from corrupt government didn't meet the threshold for acceptable political involvement. It isn't worth time wasted in jail, or paying money in fines better used doing good for people, to break the law without a very, very good reason. It helps to know the Bible too - that way you can discern what constitutes a very, very good reason.

And as I mentioned here we need to keep our activities and speech respectful, truthful and loving. Even if we have the best of motives, hateful speech, disrespectful actions or deceitful practices are all inappropriate. They also hurt the causes we support more than help them. Keep it passionate, sure, but keep it civil and honest.

The next post in the series will move on to another issue. 'Til then,

God bless!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part VII): Life

2006-05-09T22:15:00.000-05:00

Okay, here's where the proverbial rubber meets the proverbial road. I'll start talking issues with the one that I prioritize highest: life (for the reasons mentioned yesterday - without life, other rights mean diddly. Dead people can't exercise their right to free speech.) It's also one of the few issues for which I find the most compelling evidence is on the pro-life side, both biblically and secularly. This being a Christian-themed series, though, I'll focus on the Biblical for now. (Though I'm always, also, more than happy to discuss the scientific and legal arguments surrounding life-rights questions.)

First of all, life rights issues in politics encompass two main areas of debate (as I see it): abortion and euthanasia. Some people would add the death penalty and war, but I consider those separate from these two, and I'll discuss that a bit later in the series. For some history, I've addressed these issueshere, here and here.

So, tackling these two issues as much as one as possible, the process I worked through to come to my political views worked something like this. As noted earlier in the series, my primary driver is to align with God on the issue, and then decide how best to engage in the politics surrounding it. So obviously prayer for wisdom plays a part. But then I also look to scripture, from whence comes God's wisdom, to see what God says. And honestly, He says nothing directly about abortion under that name. Ditto euthanasia as we know it. The terms "abortion" and "euthanasia" aren't to be found in any translation I've seen (though I'll concede that I've not read every translation all the way through.) Some might argue that this silence means we can come to our own conclusions about the morality of abortion, and our attitudes towards it, without worrying about scripture at all. The problem is, God doesn't allow for this. If we expand our reading away from a narrow view of looking for specific words, and instead look to scripture with an eye towards principles that show us how God feels about life and treatment of other people, we can come away with some pretty compelling evidence that abortion and euthanasia are not Biblically approved (ergo are not in line with God's will.)

What are these principles? And how do they demonstrate abortion and euthanasia are not acceptable to God?

First of all, God made us in His image (Gen.1:27.) Any human being has God's fingerprints all over Him/Her, regardless of stature, station or status. Human life is precious because we are created in the image of God Himself. It doesn't matter the stage of life we are passing through, be it fetal or senior citizen; we are all special enough in His eyes that He sent His Son to die for us.

Second, God doesn't just grant us personhood at birth. Multiple times scripture talks about how "God knows us" in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16, Luke 1:15 for starters - there are more.) Some argue that this only applied to certain "special" people, like prophets and apostles. But this argument falls flat; God is no respecter of persons in that way, and He wouldn't devalue the average Joe by saying, "sure, I knew Jeremiah in the womb, but for you I waited until you were born to start loving you."

Third, we are to protect the weak and vulnerable (Acts 20:35, I Thes. 5:14.) And none are more vulnerable than the unborn, the sick or the elderly (the group most talked about, aside from terminally ill children, in the euthanasia debate.) This, by the way, counters the idea that men can't speak to abortion issues. " Following that logic, the rich shouldn't advocate for the poor, the healthy shouldn't speak up to help the sick, and gays shouldn't argue that divorce harms the institution of marriage.

Fourth, suffering is no reason to harm others (2 Sam. 1:1-16) or to seek death (I Cor.3:16-17.) There is a purpose for suffering, and we miss out on that when we take a life to end that suffering, be it a woman's emotional suffering in pregnancy or an invalid's suffering from illness. God doesn't provide, in scripture, for suicide or killing to end personal suffering. God sanctioned killing for purposes of justice, self-defense and war only. While many places in the Bible talk about how "it would have been better if so-and-so hadn't been born" the next step isn't taken to end that person's life (Job 3, Matt. 26-24.) Suffering is not pleasant; nobody likes it. But there's no biblical backing for ending suffering through mercy killings or taking the life of another.

Finally, God is sovereign over life and death (Eccl. 8:8.) We have no right to usurp His authority, and doing so is sin. I will make the distinction that I am talking, in reference to abortion and euthanasia, about individual actions. Societal actions (justice, war) are separate issues, and separate biblical principles apply.

There are additional texts and arguments, as well as more details on these ones that I've brought up. A couple of places that provide such info are here and here.

So if I accept these principles as true, it should seem obvious I believe that abortion is wrong, euthanasia is wrong, and that the victims of both are almost always vulnerable in some way (some euthanasia victims actually aren't vulnerable, and make their own choice - but I see now scriptural backing for that choice.) So, being compelled to speak on behalf of the vulnerable, I feel compelled to speak out, and act against, abortion. And as I said yesterday, life issues are of primary concern because if someone else can take your life, be it at a very early developmental stage (i.e. fetal) or a very late developmental stage (i.e. octegenarian), the other rights mean little.

This brings up two questions: what right do I have to base political arguments on scripture (i.e. the church/state separation question), and what are the political activities that are valid for use? As this post is getting long, I'll talk about those tomorrow. I'll also concede that the principles I've laid out here aren't convincing to someone who doesn't have a high view of scripture, or who doesn't accept it as authoritative/inerrant. Fortunately, God gave us other tools and "secular" arguments to use. But for Christians, building a worldview needs to rely first on scripture. If you can't trust scripture enough to use its authority in all aspects of your life, then I don't think you can say you trust it at all; pick and choose faith is a foundation of sand, and political views built on such are liable to fall when tested. Best to trust the wisdom of God, and not the folly of our own preferences.

God bless!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part VI)

2006-05-08T15:38:00.000-05:00

Friday I more or less wrapped up the theory I take with me to politics, and now will start getting into more how I apply that theory to my political involvement. The next part of this series, therefore, will talk more about specific issues and political organizations. You've been warned.

As I noted in that last post, we need to prioritize our time/energy/support for political causes as none of us have infinite resources to spend backing everything with which we may agree. Of course I have to do this too. As noted in earlier parts of this series, my priorities, as a Christian, need to align with God first, then with the interests, gifts, talents, resources and abilities He's given me.

So how do I prioritize, as an example of how this theory plays out in "real life"? I start where God did in Genesis 1: Life. We have enumerated rights guaranteed by the Constitution (and, according to the Declaration of Independence, were granted by God Himself, ergo not up for debate - but that's a different matter.) However, not one of these rights means anything (anything!) if we can be deprived of life by others. What good is it to be able to speak or pray freely if I'm not even given the chance to live to enjoy those rights? It all starts with life. Without it, the remaining causes and rights mean nothing.

Without going into particulars (I'll post on life/death questions later in more detail), I will say that killing is not always wrong - but in matters of politics, I gravitate towards the life-supporting and life-affirming side of issues.

Following life, I prioritize issues of poverty (as God is very clear about helping the poor and vulnerable.) Next are social morality and environmental concerns, as stewardship matters, followed by matters of international affairs, economics and fiscal policy. Don't get me wrong; I'm not in favor of wasteful spending or "big government." I just don't find my strengths in that arena, and think others are better suited to argue there.

There are other issues that can probably come into play, and many "sub-issues" in each of these that would drop (or rise) in my priority list were I to detail out every tiny things. Each of us has different priorities, but Biblically speaking I see life, morality and poverty as more important than stewardship, economics and foreign policy. This doesn't mean I see the latter group as unimportant; indeed, they are all very important. But God has given others a much better platform, and greater talent, to argue for those items with passion.

Once I've decided which issues to support (and this is an ongoing process as it seems that new causes, issues and debates pop up perpetually), I get involved to the extent my resources allow. First and foremost, this means prayer. I'll concede here that I need desperately to get more consistent with praying for leaders, and over issues. I think that's an area many of us slip to the back burner in favor of day-to-day matters. But in our political activities, prayer for discernment and for self control is important. And not just for us, but for those with whom we disagree.

Starting next time, I'll start talking more about given issues, just to let you see how this process works out in my life. I'd be curious as to how you prioritize and act in your lives too. Feel free to post a comment or send an email.

God bless!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part V)

2006-05-05T20:04:00.000-05:00

Okay, so far in this series, I've talked about how we need to place God first, submit to authorities, and engage in politics with love, truth and respect. So far so good, and on paper there's little there with which to quibble. It's easy to pay lip service to these things, and truth be told violating any of these principles can often enough be rationalized so that we can believe we're still following them even when we've long ago ceased to do so. But I'm not going to set where those lines are; that's between each individual and God. I'll let it rest that I've seen too many people ignore the lines altogether, and blatant violations are easy for anyone to notice if they care to pay attention.

If we know, then, the general principles for engaging in politics, and we have some interest in doing so, are there other considerations to make before we dive in? Well, there are a few. In practical terms, learning before doing, and observing before critiquing are good things to do. At the very least it minimizes the chances you'll make a fool of yourself by taking on topics or activities that you're not quite ready for. I've learned many a hard lesson that way, and if my advice is worth anything, I'd offer the counsel that entering a political debate woefully uninformed strengthens your opponent even when, in reality, your position is ultimately a better option.

But Biblically there are some additional steps to take too. First is to seek wisdom and God's will, second is to set priorities, and third is to figure out your gifts.

In all things we are to glorify God, and politics is no different. That means, though, that we need to make sure we're also aligning with God's will. Doing our own thing contrary to God's will, no matter how well intentioned we are, does little to glorify Him. That sets us up as allegedly better arbiters of our time and energy, diminishing God as we raise ourselves up. We need instead to seek God's will, and ask that He'd give the wisdom to do what He wants us to do in the area of politics.

We all have limited time, energy, money and talents, although some of us have fewer limits than others. We also have varying demands that compete for those resources. Devoting 100% of our non-sleep hours to politics leaves nothing for family, church, friends, rest or anything else. Devoting zero time to politics leaves us at risk of having our views unheard (and for some people, this is acceptable, and I don't want to make it sound like we have a duty to be politically active; God calls some of us to ministries elsewhere.) We need to prioritize. As I said in the first post, God is necessarily first. After that, we need to make sure that our political involvement is placed in proper perspective and priority, not inappropriately superseding our responsibilities elsewhere. Jesus' priority was prayer. That's not a bad place to start in setting ours.

God gave each of us different gifts of talents and abilities. If we don't know what those are, we will not likely make best use of our time. Just as knowing our gifts is necessary to make best use of our time serving in the church, knowing our abilities and talents is necessary to make best use of our time and energy in politics. Someone with good organizational skills is better suited to running a campaign than someone without, and one with good people skills is a better candidate than someone who is a jerk. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and we have them for a reason. We can accomplish much more by matching our gifts to our work, as much in politics as in the church or the family.

Engaging in politics is like engaging in any other aspect of life. We need to seek God's will before jumping in, finding wisdom to set priorities and choose the right role to play. We do not do ourselves favors by letting our political involvement screw up our priorities so we miss out on other aspects of life. Nor do we bring glory to God by choosing our own way instead of listening to where He wants us to focus. We may have strong views on an issue or cause, yet do that cause better by focusing our attention elsewhere so that those more capable can see to the defense of the cause. Seek God and use the gifts He's given to be most effective, and use wisdom to find the place where we can be of best use - to God and to our political views.

God bless!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 5/3/06 Edition

2006-05-03T16:43:00.000-05:00

Excuse my break yesterday. We had company out yesterday evening. The series returns tomorrow. In the meantime...

Christian Carnival is up at Daddypundit. Early favorites include Jeremy Pierce's piece on ID and a post on Biblical Inerrancy (and how you may as well head to the pub w/out it) at The No Kool Aid Zone.

And speaking of the Carnival, there is new info regarding the mailing list. Check it out if you want to be/remain in the loop.
...
I'm pretty sure Kristin and I serve the same God, which is why I agree wholeheartedly with her on this post. Love of money and bling ain't where our hearts should be at. (Did I just completely violate seventeen grammar rules in one sentence?)
...
I'm don't read Jonah Goldberg often, so missed this, but STR quotes him making a very astute point.
...
A few random sports opinions:

The new Vikings uniforms aren't as nice as the last batch. But at least they didn't mess w/the helmet. I'm still not buying any.

I'm not in favor of giving money to billionaires. They want stadiums, they can pay for them.

The U is a different story. That's a public institution, and while people may disagree with funding a stadium over, say, a bio-tech research building, at least the U has a case for public funding.

Dude, that Vikings draft was not impressive. I hope I'm eating my words in three years, but so far I think the new regime isn't an improvement. Then again, I haven't been impressed by much that organization has done in years, on or off the field.

Now, off to enjoy the nice weather. Hopefully it stays nice this weekend so our softball league isn't rained out two weeks in a row.

God bless!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part IV)

2006-05-01T22:12:00.000-05:00

Friday I talked about how Christians can engage in the political process in this country, even to the point of expressing disagreement with government officials - and that this does not conflict with the Biblical injunction to submit to authority. Today I want to start talking a little about what that means for Christians, and after that I'll be talking about more personal things, like why I hold certain political views.

Christians are to be salt and light to a world bereft of both. This goes for politics as well as life in general. Rare is the politician nowadays who fully discloses both pros and cons of policy and makes impassioned pleas backed by facts and analysis. Rather common is the official who fails to disclose information that strengthens an opponents point. Name calling and innuendo take the place of reasoned, respectful discussion. And interest groups and celebrities are pitted against each other in order to draw the most attention possible from a media interested in conflict.

Of course most people have favorite politicians, and are less likely to see such flaws in their own favored leaders. But I think few would deny this is a problem that is far too extensive. The reason it looks so common, though, is that there are too few (although there are some) who stand in stark contrast to base politics: there is little salt and light in politics, too much of the "everyone's doing it." And unfortunately, some who share the faith can't be told apart from the rest because they play the game the same way.

What does it look like to be salt and light in politics? It all starts with love and truth. God leaves us no outs - we are to love our neighbor and our enemies both. There is no in between. Political allies and political opponents both need to be treated with love. And when you love someone, you don't smear their name, you don't make misleading accusations, and you don't dishonor their reputation. It means helping those in need, even if those in need have different approaches to policy than you. And it means you engage in politics out of concern for others rather than for your own glory or enrichment.

Christians also need to be truthful, speaking truth in love, and refraining from deceit. Practically speaking, this means honestly addressing weaknesses in one's own position instead of covering them up. It also means acknowledging the strengths of opponents' ideas, and honest disagreement when you can't be convinced. Christians need to treat people fairly, which is impossible if you're not dealing honestly and truthfully. Being truthful also requires you be accountable and responsible, owning up to mistakes and spreading credit to those who help you out. Seek out answers from all sides (or as many of the major ones as practical) instead of reacting, knee-jerk like.

Finally, Christians engaging in political activities need to treat everyone with respect. This goes along with loving others, of course, but it needs to be called out specifically. The Bible tells us to give respect and honor to people to whom respect and honor are due. Notice it doesn't say "give respect and honor to people you think have earned it." No, respect and honor go to the position of authority as much as the character of the person holding that position. In my own life, this means that I try to use honorifics and titles when speaking of a leader (e.g. President Bush, President Clinton) instead of just using his or her last name - a recent social phenomenon that would have been unquestionably viewed as disrespectful in years past. Some people refer to this as respecting the office, not the officeholder, and there is some truth to that.

Regardless of the views others have, Christians are called to conform to a high standard. This standard is greater than that demanded by the world. When we don't live up to that standard (and I'll be the first to admit I fall far short far too often; God's working on me too) we don't look any different from anyone else. Nothing about us is attractive to a world looking for a difference maker, the ultimate one of whom is Jesus Christ. We are obligated to love, honor, and respect people in all aspects of life including politics. Our responsibilities do not end only with those who agree with us; they carry over to all people with whom we interact. How refreshing it would be if everyone's political activities reflected love, truth and respect both to friend and foe alike.

God bless!
Ron

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part III)

2006-04-28T18:03:00.000-05:00

I closed yesterday's post by noting that while we are to submit to authorities, we do have some freedom to engage in the political realm (including critiques of the government) that early Christians did not have. This is because of a non-scriptural document: The U.S. Constitution.

Now, why, you may ask, after relying on scripture to make the point that we are to submit to authority am I turning to The Constitution to make the point that we can, scripturally, speak out against our government? Great question. I'm glad I asked.

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In other words, the government of the United States is granting citizens the freedom to be politically active, even to the point of criticizing leaders, or demanding that wrongs be righted.

This is a freedom those in "Bible times" never had granted to them by their government. But it is because of this right, enshrined in our nation's guiding document, that submission to authorities in America today allows for behavior not allowed under other forms of government (say, colonial Britain or ancient Rome.) Things that are illegal in other nations, present and past, are not illegal here, hence do not fall under the purview of the "submit to authorities" rule.

Does this Constitutional right outweigh the Biblical injunction to submit to authorities though? Another good question. It doesn't outweigh scripture. But because our government allows for certain forms of protest and political involvement as guaranteed by the Constitution, scripture does not prohibit behavior here that would qualify as "not submitting to authority" in other places.

This may seem rather technical, and I'd say that's true. But scriptural support for this position is found in the examples of Paul and Daniel. Both these men submitted to authorities considered unjust by our standards. Yet each also worked within the system they had to request better treatment and their rights. Neither bucked authority, and both submitted to it. But while submitting, they pursued the avenues of debate and behavior that was legally allowed. Daniel worked through the guard to find a way to obey both man and God. He also worked within the system to get his friends into positions of influence. He didn't complain about his situation, he worked within it, thereby honoring both his earthly authority and God (the one who established that earthly authority.) The only time Daniel disobeyed man's law was when it directly contradicted God's law - but Daniel accepted authority's right to punish him for disobeying the law of the land. Submission to God came first, but he didn't rebel against unfair punishment.

Paul likewise advised submission, but also leveraged his legal rights in regards to being tried by Caesar for crimes he allegedly committed. He did submit to Roman authority, but insisted that authority be used in the proper, legal manner as proscribed in Roman law.

In each case, these men stayed true to the idea of submitting to government. They also, though, took advantage of legal means to better their situations where possible. That is the key. We as Christians do not have the right to break laws. Paul and Daniel worked within the system, and accepted the risks of being treated unjustly, rather than stand against authority.

So, we can engage in lawful protest, lawful criticism (though as with all things, we need to remember to speak in love even when critiquing our leaders; they were put in their position for God's purposes) and lawful debate about things political. We can't break the law, though, unless that law directly contradicts one of God's laws, and even then we should be ready to face the earthly consequences of those actions. We're blessed here to be able to offer up defenses and hope on the mercy of the court in such cases, but where said mercy doesn't materialize, we need to accept authority's rule.

Next time I'll start to get a bit more practical. Since we know that scripture allows us to engage in politics (as that's legal in this country), how does that work itself out?

Have a good weekend, and God bless!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part II)

2006-04-27T15:10:00.000-05:00

In Tuesday's post I started talking about politics and scripture, noting that my primary read on the texts speaking to our role in politics start from two key priorities: God's work takes priority over politics (though hopefully the two can coincide), and we are to submit to authorities placed over us - even if they're not so nice to Christians.

The first point should be obvious. Jesus was about His "Father's business" instead of about instigating rebellion against Rome. The second point is more contentious. We often think we have the right to break unjust laws, but scripture doesn't really allow that in all circumstances. As I noted Tuesday, the only time we're "allowed" to disobey laws are when they directly contradict a scriptural command.

The Bible contains many examples of people of faith who submitted to authorities despite injustice. Joseph submitted to the authority of Potiphar and the Pharaoh despite being unjustly sold into slavery. Daniel submitted to the Babylonians (and Medes and Persians) who kept the Israelites in bondage. Paul submitted to the authority of Rome, and encouraged others to do the same. And above all, Jesus submitted to Rome's authority to crucify Him despite His complete innocence.

There is a reason for this demand. God Himself has set up governments for His purposes. Submitting to them is therefore submitting to God (again, noting that any government requiring citizens to act/speak/think contrary to God's direct revelation must be disobeyed due to the precedence of God's will over mankind's - although as noted in this text, Peter and John didn't say they shouldn't suffer consequences; they indicated that the authorities had the right to judge whether they should have obeyed God or man, but Peter and John were going to obey God despite the authorities' judgment.) Jesus was actually submitting to His Father when submitting to Pilate, the one to whom God granted authority for a purpose.

Now, of course, the argument can be made that those were different times. That is true: it was much more dangerous to rebel openly back then, at least compared to modern America. However, there is nothing in scripture to indicate that submission is no longer required when people are freer than in 1st century Rome.

The difference between then and now, though, that does matter is the form of government we have. In our democratic republic, we have a government that itself grants the right to "buck authority" to some extent. In other words, we're freer to counsel against one government action or another than were the original disciples. This brings me to my final point about political involvement, which is something of a corrolary to our responsibility to submit to authority. When it is not against the law to do so, we are certainly able to use the processes outlined by our authorities to address and demand resolution of our grievances.

As this post is already getting long, I'll go into more detail tomorrow. But as a preview, I'll just say that Paul and Daniel, while submitting to unjust authorities, certainly were not shy about using legal options available to them to request better treatment. And in America, so long as one obeys applicable laws (remember: lawbreaking is NEVER scripturally condoned unless lawkeeping directly violates God's word) we are free, both scripturally and legally, to attempt to influence authorities and question their judgment. In short, we can submit in such a way that we can fight injustice and oppression in ways people couldn't in the past.

God bless!

How to Find the Northern 'Burbs - 4/26

2006-04-26T16:08:00.000-05:00

Well, apparently people are still using search engines to find their way to this blog. Here are the latest that leave me scratching my head. I'm not sure how these maps lead to the Northern 'burbs...

free instructions for making bible flannelgraphs Yessir, I'm a secret Betty Lukens pirate.

+"global warming" +"does it really exist" Actually, I'll refer this to Alice who has a post on the topic. I tend towards the "maybe, but not likely due to man-made causes" camp.

the bible paul save hell "trade places" Proof positive search engines don't require coherent sentences.

celibacy quiz Of all the quizzes I've done, this isn't one of 'em.

biblical roll of the husband I have too large a roll, but I'm trying to lose it. Or did you mean role?

big bubs Again, I'm trying to skinny up here. Give me some time!

teaching in northern canada Actually, the Sunday School/Awana clubs I teach are a bit south of there...

who started euthanasia The same guy who let the dogs out?

what does nbb mean It means I'm too lazy to always type out "Northern 'burbs blog."

And blatantly ripping off the idea from Ed, you can also find the NBB via this week's Christian Carnival at Brain Cramps for God. Plus lots more good stuff there.

God bless!

My Politics: Faith's Place Therein (Part I)

2006-04-25T20:58:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I kicked off another series (hey, it's what I do.) This series, as yet still lacking an agenda, is going to be about politics. As I said then, I find politics fascinating. And I really love this country. I can worship as I please, speak as I please, blog as I please, travel as I please. We have more blessings than any nation in history. There is much to commend the U.S.A. and part of that is directly attributable to many wonderful politicians (although ultimately all blessings are from God of course.) However, there is also much about the U.S.A. that does not make me proud, and again politics plays a part there.

I can't think of much in life that's not affected by politics. In this way, politics are much like faith. A person's faith, in the form of one's worldview, informs everything that one does. This includes politics. Faith (or a lack thereof) guides what one believes about politics, and how one should engage in political activity or dialogue. I would even go so far as to say that one can't separate one's worldview or faith from any aspect of one's life. We may think we can compartmenatlize like that, but in reality we can't. The classic example is our last president. President Clinton's defenders in the Monica Lewinsky days said he could separate his personal life from his professional life. That lie was quickly shown for what it was. His personal lie to his wife became a public, political lie to the nation. The personal became the political.

So if our faith informs our politics, and I'm talking about my politics, I need to start with my faith and what it says about politics. Some of this will be a bit surprising or controversial to some. So be it. I appreciate any questions or discussion.

So what does my faith say about politics? First, it says that politics should not be my highest priority, regardless of my interest in it. Jesus commanded us to make disciples and help the poor. He told us to leave the work of government to the government and to focus on the things of God. God is to be our priority above all things, including politics.

My faith also tells me that submission to authorities is demanded in all circumstances save one: when the politicians try to mandate I act contrary to scripture, I must obey God above government. However, even here I need to accept that there will be earthly consequences to my choice. Many a disciple went to his death (or her death as persecution against Christians increased over time) for obeying God over a conflicting law. The key is that in these cases, disciples died for disobeying man, not God. They submitted to their government in all things until told to disobey God.

This leads to some interesting conclusions, one of which relates to the very founding of this country. Scripture is filled with directions given to people living under persecution, yet not one of these directions is to overthrow or rebel against the government. In fact, the Word is clear that whatever our circumstances, we are to submit and be good witnesses. Even slaves were not commanded to seek freedom first (though that's not a bad thing to seek), but rather to instead use their position to serve God: that is what's paramount.

Which brings me to the American Revolution. Honestly, I see no justification for the American Revolution in scripture. Now, before you light the torches, let me say I'm glad that the U.S.A. exists. And I don't doubt the intentions of the Founding Fathers. But I think that starting a war that killed many people was a violation of scriptures like Romans 13. In a Roman empire that was much more unjust and oppressive than 1776 Britain, Jesus did not call for overthrow. Nor did Paul or Peter or any other NT authors. They called for submission to authority unless submission meant disobedience to God. And when such occassions arise, we're not to rebel, we're to simply obey God and let the civil chips fall where they may.

Now, this may lead you to think I'm all about meek submission even when my "rights" are being violated. To an extent, this is the case, but it is not the complete picture. I believe that where the government allows for an opportunity to offer a defense in the legal system, Christians should have no problem taking advantage of it, ala Paul working within the Roman legal system. The twist here comes from the structure of our nation, where I am (in theory) part of the governing authorities as an elector in a democratic republic. Some forms of protest in this country are, in fact, not rebellion but designed-in components of democracy. To the question of how my faith leads me to behave in a democracy (beyond submission to authorities and prioritizing the things of God above politics) will be the subject of the next post. Following that will be a post or two on the church/state question, after which I think I'll turn towards more specifics along the lines of why I'm an independent, political affiliations, and perhaps a Christian perspective on an issue or two. If there's anything else you'd like me to address - even if only to provide fodder for mockery - let me know.

God bless!
...
By the way, for a little fun, here's a worldview quiz for you. I found it interesting the quiz didn't label me a funadmentalist!

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

Cultural Creative

75%

Postmodernist

56%

Fundamentalist

50%

Romanticist

50%

Existentialist

31%

Modernist

Materialist

Idealist

What is Your World View? (updated)
created with QuizFarm.com

Bloggin' Political

2006-04-24T17:21:00.000-05:00

Well, a few of you have asked for it. So the rest of you are stuck with it, I guess.

I've had an interest in politics since high school. I've found competing theories and political wrangling to be fascinating. At times I've even thought it would be fun to run for office, and then I remember I have a family who I wouldn't want to put through that and the idea passes on.

But of late politics has seemed to get less interesting. Perhaps it's becaue there really aren't any surprises out there. We once had great politicians. Now we have archetypes. At least this is how I see things, and I'll admit I'm only going on 20-some years of experience. Perhaps it's always been this way, and it was only my relative inexperience that led me to believe things are less interesting today than even 10 years ago.

I am a politicial independent. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats and Independence Party candidates (and even one Green party candidate a while back), although I will admit I've voted for Republicans and Democrats much more often than I have for members of other parties. I've also voted Republican more often than Democratic, although certainly not overwhelmingly so. My philosophy is to look for the preferred candidate for a position, not for a political party.

This has led to some interesting conversations with some of my conservative brethren/sisterthren (is that a word?) who feel obligated to vote straight Republican tickets. These are always cordial, of course, but sometimes I just get this feeling I'm considered an odd duck.

But there's much more to this than what I'd like to post here today, so I'm doing another series, this one on politics. I'll cover personal political views, but also hopefully touch on what I see as the Biblical approach to dealing with politics. It will be less structured than some of my other series (ha - like those are structured!) as I'm pretty much working agenda-less for this one. I hope it's interesting, but if not, well...I guess I'll hear about that too.

As always, I thank you for comments and emails. However, since politics (more than most other topics sans sports and religion) can get people riled up, I'd ask that you please remember your civility. And please call me on it if I fail to respond in kind.

God bless!

Ron

Meme-ories...

2006-04-21T13:55:00.000-05:00

Ed "tagged" me (what since I have an "R" in my name) with this meme, and since I have such profound respect for him, I'll do my best to do the question justice.

Name 10 of life's simple pleasures:

Hearing "Daddy!" screamed joyfully by two little girls when I get home from anywhere

Hearing my wife say she loves me

Prayer

Sunny, warm days in Minnesota

Crisp, cold days in Minnesota

The feel of a well-hit golf shot - Or so I hear

Turning a double-play

A hammock, some lemonade, and Herb Carneal on the radio

Some time to read

Seeing my family snuggled up asleep at night, knowing we were blessed with another full day

How to Find the Northern 'Burbs - 4/20

2006-04-20T14:53:00.000-05:00

You'd think finding the northern suburbs of a major metropolitan area would be easy. And for most people you'd be right. Finding a blog written by someone living in said suburbs, though, is somewhat easier. After all, instead of typing the URL of this blog into the address bar of your favorite browser, you can type these phrases into a search engine and get here:

barber bug fever: I'm not sure what a barber bug is, but during my recent illness I probably hallucinated a few...

wives in bikinis: I'm hoping someone wasn't looking for pictures...or guessing I had more than one wife!

blindness sucks: I imagine it would.

case of involuntary euthanasia: Involuntary euthanasia? Isn't that also called, um...homicide?

marriage sex blog: Am I the Dr. Ruth of the northern 'burbs?

position of sex: Okay, now I'm getting weirded out, to borrow a passe colloquialism. Apparently the 'burbs are adding a red light district I didn't know about.

teaching in northern canada blog: Northern Twin Cities, Northern Canada...po-tay-to, po-tah-to. We both like our hockey and fishing. And it can get cold out, at least according to people too wimpy to enjoy the wonder of below zero temps.

I've also received a few searches regarding Jay Leno's Jaywalking segment, which a few days ago covered Biblical topics. Like the original (which I blogged about here) it showed that there are at least a few Americans who need a Bible refresher course.

Not to steal an idea from Ed, but you can also find the NBB via this week's Christian Carnival, which can coincidentally be found at Ed's blog. Much more there too...read and enjoy!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 4/19/06 Edition

2006-04-19T10:25:00.000-05:00

Since I'm soon to start a short series on politics, figured I'd give you an early look at where I stand:

Want to know your affiliation? Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz.
...
I'm also kinda quirky, but not terribly so. Perhaps that's the borderline libertarian in me?

Your Quirk Factor: 55%

You're a pretty quirky person, but you're just normal enough to hide it.
Congratulations - you've fooled other people into thinking you're just like them!

How Quirky Are You?

(HT: Blogotional.)
...
Review time...

I'm working through The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam and the Crusades and so far it's an interesting read. I didn't know this much about the history of Islam/Jihad/Crusades, although I did know that the Crusades were not quite the Christian evil so popularly "understood" today. I'd concur with Challies' review and recommend the book. My rating is 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Speaking of books, I just finished The Da Vinci Code during my week of strep throat. Perhaps it was the fever, but I was mildly disappointed with the writing. I can see how, if people accept this fictional work as factual (at least insofar as history is concerned, if not the plot) that it presents an interesting theory. But the writing was pedestrian, and the "thriller" genre has been done better. That said, the book was not bad if you can get past the historical inaccuracies. I'm looking forward to renting the movie. My rating is 3 out of 5 stars.

We also took the girls to see Ice Age: The Meltdown. The girls loved seeing their first "movie in a theater" and Ice Age wasn't a bad route to go. The first Ice Age was a wonderful movie. This one slightly less so. There were some funny moments, and for kids there's not much difference between the two Ice Ages. For adults, though, the laugh quotient wasn't quite as high, and the story wasn't nearly as interesting. The animation was, as with Ice Age I, very good. Rating? 3.5 stars out of 5.
...
Ten years for Lileks? Muy congrats. I didn't even know what a blog was four years ago, and he's had something akin to one going for a decade. I think the term is "early adopter."
...
Interesting maps of religion in America. (HT: Blogotional.)
...
Stand to Reason has some interesting presentations on The Da Vinci Code, and some other Bible reliability topics. Check 'em out!

God bless!

Free the Dalits: So What Can I Do?

2006-04-18T21:03:00.000-05:00

I hope this series on the Dalits has been educational. I think most people in this country have at least heard of the "untouchables" of India, but in my own experience there is little in the way of full understanding of what Dalits go through. This series has barely touched the surface in so many ways. I have, though, outlined the basics of the Dalit situation. As way of review, this is where we've been:

Series Intro

Introduction: Who are the Dalits?

Background: Caste system

Background: History lessons

The Nowadays: Modern life

The Future: Hope

The Practical: Resources (Today)

Knowledge is good, but if you can't apply it, knowledge isn't really useful. I would like, therefore, to end this series by pointing to some resources where you can (a) learn more, and (b) contribute if you feel God leading you to do so. I'm not going to get preachy here (a risk you take when reading the blog of a pastor's kid), and I know that the past 18 months or so have seen multiple tragedies that have taken your time and attention. Katrina, tsunamis, earthquakes and war; there are many places to direct your time and attention, and I wouldn't presume to tell you where your priorities should lie in giving.

But I do want to ask that you consider doing something for the Dalits. There are more Dalits than Iraq war victims, than southern-U.S. hurricane victims, than tsunami victims (and many Dalits were victims of the tsunami too.) The problem isn't as well known - hence this series - but it is ongoing. We can't forget the chronic problems of this world for the acute flare-ups and "tragedies of the month."

As I mentioned yesterday, there is hope for Dalit freedom. That hope lies most strongly in a few places: education, end of caste, and in a faith that tells the Dalits God loves them.

You can help provide education for Dalit children through Gospel for Asia and The Dalit Freedom Network. By teaching children English, these organizations help provide hope for the next generation of Dalits.

You can help end caste by praying, and if so led, by supporting those who are speaking out against caste. Caedmon's Call, for instance, are speaking out against caste, and using their music as a platform from which to speak against oppression. Write letters to government representatives encouraging them to come out against oppression in all forms, such as happened at the U.N. at Durban a few years back. Seek out and get involved with groups that work to end human rights violations.

And you can help Dalits find the God who loves them. These are a people who've been told for centuries that God hates them, that they're not worthy to enter the temple. Many Dalits have therefore left Hinduism for Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. Consider supporting organizations like AICC, OM India, and Gospel for Asia who are trying to show people the love of God. God has a heart for the poor and downtrodden. Organizations like this are trying to demonstrate that love (not preach it - demonstrate it) to people who've not before heard that God loves them.

And you can help the Dalits in person. Find a church taking people to India on relief or mission trips. Find Indian citizens who've moved to your neighborhood and befriend them. Learn what you can, and God will lead you to places your unique gifts can help. My wife is already wanting to return to India to work with the Dalits. It's truly something that I cannot recommend highly enough. The change in her life has been wonderful - and she was already pretty wonderful to begin with.

I closed yesterday's post with two stories involving wells, one from scripture one from India. As Jesus said, at the well talking to the Samaritan woman, the harvest is ripe. There are millions of Dalits seeking the God who loves them, rejecting the gods who want nothing to do with them. Jesus loves the Dalits so much He died for them. What better message to bring to a downtrodden people? Jesus loves the Dalits so much He told us to feed the poor and help the oppressed. How can we love them any less?

Thanks for your consideration and patience through this series.

God bless!
...
To learn more:

Dr. Ambedkar was a leading proponent of Dalit rights, who left Hinduism for Buddhism to reject caste.

Mohandas Gandhi has both defenders and critics of his participation in Dalit rights movement.

Article on caste history

Recent article on controversy regarding moving the "reservation" system (akin to affirmative action here) into private businesses.

An article on Dalit theology

Free the Dalits: Hope

2006-04-17T22:10:00.000-05:00

Apologies for being gone last week. My takeaway is that childhood diseases, like strep throat, should not be allowed in adults. That's all I'm saying. But, I'm back upright, and can even speak a little again. So, back to my series on the Dalits. To refresh your memory, this is what we've covered to date:

Series Intro

Introduction: Who are the Dalits?

Background: Caste system

Background: History lessons

The Nowadays: Modern life

The Future: Hope (Today)

The Practical: Resources (Tomorrow)

Hope? There's hope? After all, I've already pointed out that, historically even many Christians and Muslims haven't shown much interest in abolishing caste. And despite the recent example of a Dalit ascending to India's presidency, the number of Dalits provided the opportunity to succeed, let alone thrive, remains abysmal. Fifty-some years after caste has been deemed illegal, the government still practices discrimination against Dalits - even in light of serious tragedy.

But hope there is. Dr. Joseph D'souza is the president of the All India Christian Council, and the Dalit Freedom Network. In his book, Dalit Freedom: Now and Forever, he outlines an agenda for moving Dalits into freedom. The steps he outlines are these:

Work with Dalit leadership in support of Dalit freedom. Dalits and their leaders are stepping up and demanding freedom; they can't, though, go it alone.

Provide English language education for Dalit children. English is the means by which Indians can find better jobs, ergo better lives.

Work with Dalit leadership to find an alternate spiritual ideology for Dalits, one that does not include oppression. Hinduism's ties to caste are leading large numbers of Dalits to leave that faith for others.

Address human rights violations against Dalits. Raising this with the U.N. is one means of doing this, raising awareness with the world another.

Affirm and redeem Dalit culture. Dalits shouldn't have to lose their culture to avoid oppression.

Utilize affirmative action programs to "catch up" Dalits. If used well, and not as a means of guilt-assuaging welfare, such systems can help provide opportunities as the next generation of Dalits becomes educated.

These are all worthy goals, and there is much we can do to help accomplish them. I'll discuss that tomorrow; indeed, we can do quite a bit, collectively, to provide hope for Dalits seeking true freedom.

Back in the first post in this series I talked about the story of the well. Dalits in many villages are not allowed to drink from the same well as upper caste members, or they must destroy any cups they use when drinking from public water sources so that upper caste members won't risk pollution by using a cup used by a Dalit. As Jennifer noted in her comment, this brings to mind another story of a well, and it is that story that I think brings the most hope for the Dalit people.

At that well, Jesus talks with a woman of ill reputation, an outcast from the chosen people of Israel, a Samaritan. He tells her that the savior has come, not just for the Jews, but also for her and her people. He tells His disciples that the harvest is ripe - and this as the Samaritans come to the well to hear this Jesus speak. Because they came to the well and heard Jesus, they believed and received the greatest freedom of all. It is this hope that I think is the greatest the Dalits (and all of us, really) have. The hope of freedom and salvation through Jesus Christ.

While we work to allow the Dalits to come freely to the well to drink water, a goal towards which we absolutely must strive, we should remember to offer them the living water from that other well. Therein lies the hope of us all.

Tomorrow I'll talk about ways you can help Dalits today take steps towards freedom and equality with all Indians, as well as resources for more information.

Until then, God bless.

This blog...

2006-04-10T23:31:00.000-05:00

...has taken ill. Apparently the good virus that waylaid the family for five days at a time has gotten around to me (making me wonder what it was that I had the first time.)

So,blogging may not be frequent over the next few days. Apologies.

And God bless:)

Free the Dalits: The Here and Now

2006-04-10T11:52:00.000-05:00

I'm at about the 2/3 mark in this series on the Dalits of India, so time for a checkpoint. So far, I've covered the following agenda points:

Series Intro

Introduction: Who are the Dalits?

Background: Caste system

Background: History lessons

The Nowadays: Modern life

The Future: Hope

The Practical: Resources

This brings us to today, both literally and figuratively. I think the documentation of caste-related abuse of Dalits is fairly consistent historically: the Dalits have been mistreated for ages, held down by a system that makes distinctions based on race and class, and that is abetted by prevelant Hindu teaching.

But as I've pointed out, in 1950, the Indian constitution was ratified, and that document outlaws discrimination. As Americans know from our post-slavery days, abolishing the remnants of oppression can take time, but isn't the situation in India much better now than 50-some years ago?

Yes. And no.

In some respects, treatment of the Dalits has improved over the past half-century. There has been a Dalit president for instance. And the literacy rate for Dalits is growing in absolute terms. The United Nations has noted, if not enthusiastically enjoined the conversation about, the Dalit plight at the 2001 Durban World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Urban areas tend to show much less discrimination against Dalits than in times past, and the reservation system acts to guarantee Dalits some amount of representation in education and certain professions - akin to affirmative action here in America.

However, when you look beyond the surface, Dalits are still very much an oppressed people - especially in rural India, where the vast majority of Dalits live. Even some of the items to which I linked above, which point out advances for Dalits, highlight problems. While Dalit literacy is rising in real terms, the gap between Dalit literacy rates and the rates of non-Dalits is growing; that is, the upper castes' gains in literacy are much higher than those of the Dalits. The reservation system has opened some doors, but only applies to the public sector. (Interestingly, there are many Indians now arguing against the reservation system due to the inherent unfairness of judging people based on caste rather than on merit. Same argument conservatives here use against affirmative action.)

But it's not just literacy or economic opportunity. Stories like this are too easy to find,and these just from the past year or so:

Four Dalit women were fined and beaten for entering a Hindu temple.

Dalit victims of violence are often unable to register complaints against their attackers.

Discrimination against Dalits affected by the 2005 tsunami was prevelant, with government support.

A group of Dalit women were allegedly paraded through town naked due to their husbands' violation of a local custom. While alleged, such stories are common (see here and here for more of mistreatment of Dalit women.)

In short, while some advances have been made towards equality for Dalits, much is yet to be done. Very much. And unfortunately, this isn't just an Indian problem, it's also a Christian church problem. A large number of Dalits have left Hinduism for Christianity. This is a good thing, but such conversions don't solve problems for all Dalits. Especially since the church isn't exactly running away from caste. This is a huge area of concern for me since, as the linked article says, Christianity is egalitarian. We shouldn't be engaged in divisive practices that discriminate.

But this same church is also a source of hope for the Dalits. To that I turn tomorrow.

God bless!

Free the Dalits: History of Caste

2006-04-06T16:49:00.000-05:00

Before I get to today's topic, I want to make a general observation about my fly-by on the Dalits and Caste. I am trying to get across some basic information, but as this is a blog I'm constrained a bit. Therefore my posts are necessarily going to skim the surface; Caste and the culture of India are incredibly complex, and the interplay between the myriad jatis and their associated dharmas is much beyond the scope of this series. I'd encourage you to visit some of the resources to which I link to learn more.

So far in this series, I've introduced the Dalits and talked "a little" about the caste system in India. Today I want to address the history of caste in India, or the "where it came from" question.

The area we consider to be northern India was settled earlier than 2,300 B.C. by a group of people known as the Harappans. The Harappa civilization was relatively advanced, and from this group the roots of Hinduism first formed. This civilization lasted until, for some reason I haven't yet found, it began fading out in about 1,700 B.C. This left a vacuum into which a group known as the Aryans moved in circa 1,500 B.C. These Aryans were cattle farmers, and came into India from the northwest looking for new territory on which to raise their cattle¹. The Aryans, by most accounts, formalized the initial caste structure as a way to control the indiginous peoples, and to separate the native Indians from the conquering Aryans².

The initial caste structure was not as rigid as it would later become. There were three main caste groups at first, and as the Aryans moved southwards and conquered additional peoples, the two lowest groups (the Shudras and out-castes - now Dalits) were brought into the caste system³. The Aryans used caste to strengthen their power, and keep the native Indians (Dravidians) under their thumb. The Aryans, too had lighter skin color, which made higher caste members physically identifiable⁴. Race was a differentiating factor in caste.

Over the next millenia or two, India dealt with wars and changes of control, seeing Greek and Pandyan rulers, as well as Indian rulers. In the 3rd - 5th centuries A.D., the Gupta dynasty emerged, and it was at this time that the caste notions of purity and the diminished role of women were developed⁵.

Since that time, the caste system has remained fairly stable for a couple of reasons. First, the Hindu notion of karma served to act as a control by teaching caste members that their lot in life was determined in earlier lives. If they obeyed their dharma in the current life, they could be reincarnated as a higher caste member. Second, the higher caste members controlled the military, the leadership and management of the company, as well as the educational insitutions. They were able to maintain control by enforcing discrimination and strict control of power. Religious teachings of Hinduism were used to successful effect by higher castes who used the myriad gods of Hinduism and caste divisions to keep the castes separated and unable to unite against those in power.

This is not to say there weren't attempts to change the caste system. Various attempts were made by individuals and groups, especially from other faiths, to break the cycle of oppression of lower castes. Buddha and Mahavira (founder of Jainism) fought caste in the 6th century B.C., for instance⁶. However, even the majority of those in other faiths (like Christianity and Islam) did not rebel against caste. Many Christians and Muslims, even those who converted from Hinduism, embraced the structure of caste. And while the British did reduce some of the more egregious problems of caste (such as, sometimes and not universally, sati), they did not eliminate caste altogether.

So for the better part of two millenia, caste remained fairly stable. Then, in the first half of the 20th century, during India's last decades before independence, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a Dalit activist, became a driving force in the fight for equal rights for Dalits. Despite persecution, he was able to rise to a position of prominence, and in large part because of his work the Indian constitution included legal protections for the Dalits; legally, persecution was no longer permitted. Realistically, though, caste discrimination has remained in place, and even among those Dalits who've managed to rise above their station have faced persecution. In recent years, more Dalits have started leaving Hinduism as the priests of the faith have retained the historical teachings that the Dalits are not even worthy of the gods' attention.

As with all things history, this summary leaves gaps, and there are some discontinuities I've found in my readings. Some historians tend to discount the impact of Aryans, saying caste was already in place ca. 1,500 B.C. Others have emphasized (or criticized) the role of Mahatma Gandhi in fighting for Dalit rights. But for the most part, what I've outlined above is described most consistently. At the least, hopefully this puts some context around the caste system: a division of people, millenia old and stable for at least two thousand years, heavily influenced by religion, and based in part on race and gender.

...
Footnotes:
1 - Culture Shock! India - Gitanjali Kolanad, 2001 (ch. 1). Note: There is some dispute over both the nature of Aryan culture and the migration of Aryans into India itself.
2 - http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/religionet/er/hinduism/HORGS.HTM
3 - ibid
4 - Culture Shock! India - Gitanjali Kolanad, 2001 (ch. 2)
5 - Culture Shock! India - Gitanjali Kolanad, 2001 (ch. 1)
6 - Culture Shock! India - Gitanjali Kolanad, 2001 (ch. 2)

Since my wife's a Terrapin*...

2006-04-05T15:02:00.000-05:00

...Yes!

Especially wonderful as the title required defeating Duke^#.

*Not that terrapin. This terrapin. And don't mock the turtle. My high school's sports teams played as the Teddies.

Free the Dalits: Caste

2006-04-05T14:28:00.000-05:00

I'll be up front: this is a loooong post. You've been warned.

So far I've given a brief introduction to the Dalits. But what is it that holds the Dalits back, and keeps them oppressed? Caste. That is what we're talking about today.

Racism, sexism and classism are all anathema to the modern American mind. At least in polite society we say the politically correct things, even if such agreement is not universal. We're all assumed to be "created equal" regardless of income, job, race or sex. And it's easy to feel that our experiences and philosophies are common worldwide. In fact, this phenomenon is so common and natural that it leads to the majority of inter-cultural conflicts; we assume others should perceive/act/believe as we do, and encounter problems when they don't. An example of a cultural perspective that turns our view of equality is found in the caste system of India.

The Dalits' oppression is directly related to the Indian caste system. In order to understand their plight, we need to have a basic understanding of caste, and how it affects life in India (and some other countries, most notably Pakistan.) So what is a caste? And how does it affect the Dalits?

A caste (etymology: Portuguese for "a race of men") is a division of society to which one belongs. They are also called varnas. Indian culture, entwined with the prevalent Hindu faith, has four castes to which people belong¹:

The Brahmins are the top class. Members of this class are the priests and religious leaders.

The Kshatriya are the next class, and are political leaders and warriors.

The Vaishya are the third class. Members of this caste are the tradesmen, merchants, farmers and craftsmen.

The lowest caste is the Shudra, who are laborers and servants to the higher castes.

Each caste is further broken down into sub-castes, called "jatis" (the Hindu term for a sub-caste.) Within the caste, jatis are arranged hierarchically to the net effect of hundreds, if not thousands, of societally distinct social groups. Jatis are defined along specific job lines, so that one jati would cover bakers and another shepherds, both of which would fall under the Vaishya caste.

The caste and jati into which one is born is, with rare exception, the caste and jati in which one lives his/her entire life. There is little movement across castes. There are also strict restrictions on inter-marrying across castes, which has the effect of controlling caste membership; marriage is limited to the same social strata.

The concept of dharma is big in the caste structure. Dharma², or virtue, refers to the virtues and proper behaviors for a given caste. The dharma for the Brahmins is different from the dharma for the Vaishyas. Caste distinctions also cover things like where one sits at celebrations and banquets to your ability to get into school.

Castes also have differing standards for purity and cleanliness. The top class, for instance, is considered highly pure. To maintain this purity, Brahmins emphasize virginity and fidelity for brides, for example. They also have elaborate purification/cleansing ceremonies to follow if "polluted" by contact from a lower caste member. This is a source of turmoil for Dalits who have been abused for accidentally touching, or even allowing their shadow to fall upon, a Brahmin (thereby "polluting" the Brahmin.) Further down the caste hierarchy, though, standards for purity are relaxed. Virginity and fidelity aren't necessarily requirements for women in the Shudra caste, for instance³.

You may notice that I've so far not mentioned where the Dalits fit into this caste structure. That is because they technically don't. They are considered beneath the lowest caste, the Shudras, and not worthy of being in a caste. This restricts the Dalits to the lowest jobs, such as cleaning bathrooms and sewers. They cannot worship in higher caste temples, and getting ahead through education is rare since most are too poor to be able to attend school. Even Dalit children are often entering the workforce in order to help the family survive. The Dalits are segregated within villages to their own "ghettos" (my wife and her party had to travel through the village they visited to a walled-off section housing the Dalits, entering through a gate.) The caste system acts as a buffer between the elites and the downtrodden, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Out of roughly 1 billion Indians, roughly 20-25% are Dalits. That's a lot of oppression, with rare success stories.

There is some good news to report about the caste system. It was made illegal in 1950, with a Dalit chairing the committee that drafted India's constitution in 1950⁴ (although this obviously hasn't stopped abuse of Dalits or discrimination against them.) The UN has noticed, and awareness is rising that the caste system has enabled violations of human rights. And within major urban centers, Dalit persecution has in fact reduced. However, these are baby steps towards equality, and a couple hundred million people are still being held down, especially in poor rural areas.

Tomorrow I'll talk about how we got to this point, and the history of caste in India. But this should at least provide an idea of what the caste system is, and how it defines life in India. Despite being illegal, classism in the form of caste is alive and well in India. Caste's racist and sexist aspects come into play tomorrow.

God bless!
...
Footnotes:
1 - Information in the discussion, including examples, taken from the University of Wyoming's Religious Studies page written by Paul Flesher.
2 - For fans of the TV show Lost, this understanding may (or may not) provide a clue into the mystery that is the Dharma Initiative
3 - http://countrystudies.us/india/89.htm
4 - http://countrystudies.us/india/109.htm

Free the Dalits: Who are they?

2006-04-04T14:33:00.000-05:00

So I'm writing a series on the Dalits of India. As I mentioned yesterday I have a heart for these people as I've come to "know" them through both my wife's trip to India and my own studies. I also love the Indians with whom I work on a daily basis, be there here in the States or back in India. They are universally a gracious and hard working group of people, and I'm privileged to work with them.

But to understand the plight of the Dalits, I should first introduce them. The Dalits are the people group often known as "untouchables." They are the lowest in Indian cultural hierarchy, as a group, and the most vulnerable to abuses such as:

Slavery or bonded servanthood.

Punitive punishment and abuse for trying to worship.

Unequal treatment before the law.

Sexism and illiteracy.

The Dalits are one of the largest oppressed people groups, IMO, on earth. It is estimated that Dalits make up 20-25% of India's population, which at just over 1 billion people would number the Dalits at more than 200 million¹.

They usually work in the dirtiest jobs, and have the fewest opportunities for advancement. Dalit children often have to work, and are far less educated than other Indian children.

In short, the Dalits are the downtrodden, the "least of these" of whom Jesus speaks.

But of course this isn't the whole story. Society can keep a group down; we did it in this country for many years, and still deal somewhat with the residue of slavery. But society can't control everything. There have been many Dalits who have risen above their station to become key figures in Indian history. B. R. Ambedkar chaired the committee that drafted the Indian constitution. Kocheril Raman Narayanan was a president in India. Chandra Prasad has become the first Dalit news columnist in a major English language Indian newspaper. While these are the exceptions (and there are more; but out of 200+ million, even a million such examples would be fewer than 1% of the total) they are proof that when given a chance anyone can flourish. It is my prayer that someday all Dalits are given that chance.

God bless!
...
Footnotes:
1 - I've seen estimates from 160M (from the early 1990s) to 260M Dalits in India. 200+ million seems an appropriate number for the purpose of this series.

Free The Dalits: Introduction

2006-04-03T13:05:00.000-05:00

God made every man forward and free (sub kooch ho sak-ee day*) /
Rich man, poor man, every man free (sub kooch ho sak-ee day) /
Politically, socially, everybody free (sub kooch ho sak-ee day)
Dalit Hymn - Caedmon's Call
Why, you may wonder, am I writing a series on the Dalits of India? I am not of Indian descent, nor have I traveled there. The stresses of war are creating serious hardships in Iraq, and life in Darfur is a highly visible problem; why not address these problems?

There are a few reasons for my interest in the Dalit people. One, my wife has recently returned from working with some Dalits in India, and has first-hand accounts of that trip that I find compelling to address. Many of my co-workers are from India. And the situations in places like Iraq and Darfur are being well-addressed by other bloggers. Most of all, I find I need to do more to help, if I can, a quarter of a billion (yes, "B" billion) people who face a life more dangerous and oppressive than I do.

I'll be honest, though, and concede I'm not an expert. There are many who know more about the Dalits than I do. I am writing this series based on my own learning to date, but there are still gaps remaining. To some extent, then, this series is as much me blogging aloud about something I'm still trying to understand as it is me trying to raise awareness of the Dalits' plight. Please, if you have any understanding in these areas I would welcome your comments.

There are (as of now) six coming parts to this series:

Introduction: Who are the Dalits?

Background: Caste system

Background: History lessons

The Nowadays: Modern life

The Future: Hope

The Practical: Resources

If there is something else you would like to see addressed, please let me know via the comments or email me.

Before I go, though, I'll share the brief story of the well. Christian music group Caedmon's Call went to India a while back. That trip led to their project "Share the Well." The title of the CD alludes to a situation described in this Christian Music Planet article. The story goes like this:

In one city in India, [Caedmon's Call's Cliff] Young says, there is a public well where the residents go to draw drinking water. But only some are allowed to do so. The rest must wait by the well and hope that someone will take pity on them and draw water to pour into their buckets. No one does. In fact, many of those not allowed to collect water are brutally beaten for even being so close to the well. If, somehow, they do get water, they must drink from clay cups so the vessels may be smashed immediately after. That way, there is no possibility that anyone else may drink after them and become tainted.

The Dalits are often beaten for things like trying to get water from a public well. For walking to close to members of a higher caste. For having the misfortune of being born to the wrong parents.

They are a people who need our help, who need our prayers, and most of all who need to know they are loved. I pray this series will in some small way help fill some of those needs.

God bless!
...
*Sub kooch ho sak-ee dey: Punjabi for "Anything is possible with God"

Coming Soon to a Blog Near You...

2006-03-31T22:14:00.000-06:00

Okay, yes, I haven't been posting much lately. No excuses, but for those of you still checking in frequently, I thought I'd preview what's coming up. Just so's you know I haven't left this little experiment in writing.

(BTW, Praise you in the Storm is on the radio now. Have Casting Crowns ever put out a bad song? Methinks no...)

I haven't done a series for a while, and since I'm afraid Ed will revoke his title of master of the series genre" if I don't get to another one, look for a series starting next week. This one will be on the Dalits of India.

Following that, I will (finally? unfortunately?) get to an oft-hinted-at series on politics, just to get it out of my system. I do have a very strong interest in politics, and love good (civil!) political discourse; I just don't feel that should be the primary purpose of this blog. Especially since I think that section of the 'sphere is already well filled.

I'm also planning a series on mercy and grace, something Catez thought would be interesting. I tend to agree, so that's a coming attraction. (Speaking of Catez, continue to pray, please for this dear sister.)

Finally, I have some more ideas about tweaking this site a bit, especially in regards to making the left sidebar useful. Suggestions are welcome.

Gotta go prepare for my fantasy baseball draft tomorrow. Have a great weekend!

God bless!

For one Shining Moment...

2006-03-29T14:10:00.000-06:00

...I caught the Ecosystem in a good point in the data collection cycle and was no longer a mere Marauding Marsupial.

Alas, my infrequent posting of late seems to have dropped me to my rightful place.

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 3/29/06 Edition

2006-03-29T13:17:00.000-06:00

Catez posts beautifully on beauty, including a personal testimony of this interesting topic. It's a must-read.
...
Speaking of must-reads, Ed's series on the church is quite good. Unfortunately, I can say "been there" (or worse, "am there") while going through it.
...
Dr. Ronald Nash has gone on to glory. Please pray for the family of this brilliant man of God.
...
I'd like to think there's a rational reason for the government to sell off national forests and start allowing obtrusive advertising in areas heretofore verboten to raise money for schools (um...yeah, that's where the $ will go...suuuuure) but I don't see it yet. Can't we, you know, cut some non-essentials from the budget first?
...
I'm not a huge Jay Mohr fan, though I'm not antipathic towards him. And while I don't necessarily agree that we need to let our kids learn humiliation first-hand, I wholeheartedly agree that the way we try to overprotect our kids is shameful. No winners, no losers - no home runs? I hesitate to pop-psychologize (made-up phrase I'm sure) an entire generation, but methinks the boomers in control of too many things are just sore from losing in their own lives and try to remedy their childhood problems retroactively through their children. Part of being a parent is teaching our kids how the world works - and how to handle winning and losing appropriately is part of that. And we also need to be grown up enough to remember that we are not failures when our kids lose in a baseball game. Let them play, help them learn. Over-protection leads to huge problems when the kids leave the roost.
...
I've got to get me one of these. (HT: Rebecca Writes.)
...
Finally saw Walk the Line this past weekend. I can't say whether this film deserved to be an Academy nominee, not having seen many (read: 1) other 2005 movies, and certainly none of the other Best Pic honorees. But it was a pretty durn good film, which is surprising considering my lack of fascination with Johnny Cash's music. Interesting life that man led, if but half the movie is true. And Reese Witherspoon was outstanding. Here ends the...um, third movie blurb in the history of the NBB.
...
Spring is finally here! On the calendar, anyway. Plus, baseball (I'm still leading my division in the Beginner's Luck Baseball League - go Sox!) is around the corner. Which means softball/golf season is nigh upon us! So, of course we have our eldest daughter in ice skating lessons. Only in Minnesota.

God bless!

How to Find the Northern 'Burbs - 3/28

2006-03-28T11:18:00.000-06:00

I am finding that people stumble into this hear neck o'the sphere from searches that I find...surprising. Or enlightening. Some of the latest:

"color of bread twisters" - I was trying to keep the great sport of bread twisting alive and well, but we don't really care about the color of the twisting equipment.

"non biblical references" - Is this someone's way of telling me to incorporate more scripture into my blog?

"my husband does not love me" - I reallllly hope this wasn't a search my wife did.

"figure skater teach hockey twin cities" - Sounds rather Cutting Edge to me. Could explain this though.

"blog trying to get pregnant with 2nd child" - I already have a 2nd child, and as far as I know this blog is hoping to remain free of offspring as I don't have enough to spend on this blog, let alone another!

"Behaviors law does not tolerate" - This blog needs a lawyer.

A series of related ones: "purposes of marriage," "men agape your wives," and "truth about marriage and sex" - A good marriage has a purpose, includes agape love and truth - especially about sex. By writing that, I've guaranteed another dozen searches will end here and garner no new information. My apologies.

Another series, which I see a lot of (considering I posted on this, like, once maybe): "what will happen to slippery slope if euthanasia is legalized," "euthanasia arguments," "should euthanasia be legalized blogs." - This blog is against euthanasia's legalization. And with that sentence, I've guaranteed another dozen hits this week from people looking for information on euthanasia. I apologize that none is forthcoming from this post.

God bless!

Baseball Update!

2006-03-17T15:15:00.000-06:00

Yeah, I know most of you don't care. But, as "owner" of the Red Sox in Always Right, Usually Correct's Beginner's Luck Baseball League , I'd like to point out that I'm in first place in my division.

I attribute my success to my canny ability to (1) pick good team, and (2) let the computer-chosen defaults stand.

Sometimes laziness is the best way to success.

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 3/17/06 Edition

2006-03-17T12:59:00.000-06:00

Happy St. Patrick's Day!
...
Yes, I know, it's been a while. Sorry, busy week.
...
What is the commonality between this and this (HT: Hewitt)? Demographics have consequences, and when aggregated, birth rates determine how goes a society. Want future generations to share your values? Have kids. They really are the future, inane songs by Ms. Houston aside.
...
Like music? Classical? Get teary wheneve you hear Pachabel's Canon in D Major played during a wedding? You'll love this. And, turns out the hamster's gone upgrade on us. (HT: Blogotional, the home too of this fun nugget.)
...
Having some blog writer's block? You can get ideas for posts at Evangelical Update (topic: Gender, Homosexuality, Celibacy--Confusion!!!), the next God or Not (topic: Evil, location: Buridan's Ass), the next Vox Apologia (topic: "In order for someone to be forgiven why must there be punishment at all?") and the next Vox Symposium (topic: "The Fear of The Lord".) Please visit the linked sites for details on submission deadlines and format.
...
This can't be good for anyone. Are men treated "fairly" in all matters reproductive? Certainly not; men who want to keep a child can be legally thwarted by a woman choosing an abortion, and men wanting nothing to do with a child can be thwarted by a woman seeking to keep a baby and request child support from the aforementioned male. But this lawsuit seems to me a wrongheaded way to seek redress of these grievances.
...
I enjoy the irreverent (warning! language and, um...crudeness issues) rantings of The Koolaid Report enough to find out which of the KAR gang I'm most like. Turns out, I'm a budding Learned Foot:

Which KAR blogger are you?

You are LearnedFoot! Women want you. Ben Worley wants to be you. And you are always willing to learn something from Iron Maiden.
Take this quiz!

Quizilla |
Join

| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code

Happy Birthday...

2006-03-10T16:48:00.000-06:00

...to me! Well, so far anyway, excepting NBB youngest has come down with the fever bug that NBB eldest and I shared last week. So, we won't be able to take advantage of the absolutely fabulous weather today.

So, 36 is starting out to be an auspicious year...beautiful day, sick daughter. Pray for her please. 103 is a bad temp for a soon-to-be 4-year-old.

Thanks, and God bless!

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 3/8/06 Edition

2006-03-08T16:16:00.000-06:00

Thanks to those who prayed for NBB Eldest. Her fever topped out just over 104 on Sunday, and dropped from there. She's back to normal now, but thanks to our sharing lessons she decided I must enjoy the bug too. My fever's not nearly so high as hers was, but my dreams have been interesting of late. I'm hoping this blog entry says what I think it says when I go back in a few days.
...
I should be able to ace this considering the five quarters of calc-esque math I had to take...

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

(HT: Blogotional.)
...
Apologies all. Last week's Christian Carnival was hosted at Wittenberg Gate due to a communication issue. I never updated my link. This week's should soon appear at Adam's Blog. If for some reason it moves, I'll update quicker this week!
...
More blogger tributes to Kirby linked at Bogus Gold. Most are MOB-sters, obviously, with the Minnie connection.
...
Reminder: Vox Symposium entries due 3/10. The topic is "The Fear of the Lord." If I'm able, this will be the topic of tomorrow's entry...
...
Speaking of the fear of the Lord, the Scott's have a new son who will soon be taught much in regards to fearing the Lord. Hop over and see Charles Liam Scott.
...
Please pray for Haleigh.
...
God bless!

Memories

2006-03-07T21:22:00.000-06:00

An icon in this area passed away yesterday, at an age too young for most. For those of you not from Minnesota, perhaps Kirby Puckett's passing is a sad moment, but for many of us in this state, the death of the Twins' best ever center fielder is a significant event.

I loved watching Kirby play ball. He approached the game with a joy that was unsurpassed, and a heart bigger than anything. A few of my happiest memories include watching the Twins win the World Series in 1987 and 1991 - and in 1991 I can still remember Jack Buck announcing, "and we'll see you....tomorrow night" as Puckett's 11th inning home run landed in the stands, forcing a 7th game to the best series I've ever seen. I vividly recall cheering in my girlfriend's apartment (my roommate was dating her roommate at the time) and opening the windows to hear the cheers from downtown Minneapolis and the streets below. My wife (the girlfriend in the aforementioned scene) remembers this too. Puckett was literally one of a kind, and I'm sorry to see him die so young. I'm grateful for the memories though.
...
There are other memories for which I'm very grateful. My maternal grandparents lived in Chicago, while we were growing up in Minneapolis. We would visit once or twice a year, and those trips were always important. Sometimes we would watch 8mm movies, either recorded family events or Mighty Mouse cartoons. My grandmother passed on some years ago, but my grandfather still lives in Chicago. Memories like watching those movies with my grandparents are very precious to me.

Tonight my girls and I brought out the 8mm movie projector and held a "movies on the wall" night. This is something I love to do, in large part because of the times we spent on the north side of Chicago watching movies with the family. My daughters love to watch the movies, and the uniqueness of the experience is helping to build memories (I hope!) for them. And we're very sure to spend time with our own parents so the girls have the same good memories of extended family that we both have had.
...
Memories are important. Our history makes us who we are, moreso even than our genes. God understands this. (Um, duh.) He impressed upon Israel the importance of remembering the things they'd seen. The priests were to wear memorials. Joshua built a memorial for Israel after the nation crossed the Jordan river.

God wanted Israel to remember the things He'd done for His people. He also wants us to remember the things He's done for all of us:

14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."

17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." - Luke 22:14-19

Memories are powerful. They help us see the path we're travelling by showing us where we've been. They inform future decisions, and provide comfort in times of grief. God wants us to remember things; He gave us memories for a reason. We should enjoy them, and think back fondly to those things with which God has blessed us.

The most important memories, though, are those we don't remember from our own lives. None of us were there when Israel crossed the Jordan, or when Jesus and the Disciples partook of the Last Supper. But these are things that are of utmost importance for us to remember too. God is powerful. God is merciful. God is faithful. This is why God gave us the Bible - so we can "remember" and rejoice in His might, His grace, His love.

I'll likely never forget Kirby, and I know I'll never forget times watching 8mm movies with my grandparents - and passing that along to my own children. Those are wonderful memories, the likes of which make me feel extremely blessed. But the best memories for me to pass along are those of how God has worked, is working, and has promised to work.

God bless!

NBB Updated!

2006-03-03T19:19:00.000-06:00

Okay, I got tired of pink. I mean really, I hate pink, but it was the default color for this template, which I liked better than the others. Only took me about fourteen months to actually go in and change the color scheme. I may change again, but for now I think it's an improvement. Let me know if you agree that the format is more readable.

If anyone knows of a good banner maker, or is creative and can make one, let me know. I'm not sure when I'll get around to updating that.

I'm also curious about something else. When I look at my blog, the right sidebar content often doesn't appear until/unless I scroll-over. Does anyone else have this issue on my blog? Just want to know how much effort to put into fixing it.

...

NBB Eldest has some sort of bug...fever, stomach and throat sore, loss of appetite. Seems to be getting better, but that explains my absence yesterday. I'm not 100% myself -- gotta love the seasonal transitions for one's health -- so prayer is appreciated if you think of it.

Taking Offense

2006-03-01T18:00:00.000-06:00

Please don't take offense. Apparently some cartoons instigated some hard feelings among a certain segment of the world's population. I don't get it, and I'm looking for some help.

First of all, it takes a lot to offend me. Perhaps that's my problem in comprehending the current, um...passionate response to the Danish cartoons. I mean, even outright blasphemy against my faith doesn't offend me personally very often. Personal insults do not either.

There are a few reasons for this, aside from my understanding that the First Amendment guarantees that there will be speech/actions with which I vehemently disagree and find to be utterly insulting. First, I tend to discount anything I perceive to be false. So, if someone blasphemes God, I recognize the lie inherent in the assertion, and so take one of two approaches depending on the situation. I either try to clear up the ignorance, or I write the episode off as being unworthy of offense. After all, who cares what an idiot says? In such cases, I'm not offended so much as I'm concerned about correcting error. If someone is blaspheming, they are treading dangerous ground, and the loving response would be to restore that person to a true belief -- or at least to demonstrate the lie so that others are not led astray.

Second, by taking offense, I am allowing others to dictate my feelings to me. In other words, I let the actions of others determine how I feel. If someone is rude, do I let their rudeness affect my disposition? I'm not sure I should. Again, correction or disdain seem to me more appropriate actions.

Third, I think taking offense is generally a sign of insecurity. This ties to my first reason. If I know something to be wrong, or ignorant, or false, and have sufficient confidence in the rightness of my position or belief, then it's hard for me to be offended. Instead I tend to pity the idiot, I mean the other person involved.

Finally, I expect offensive words and actions to come my way. Jesus promised it would happen. In fact, He even commends it as a blessing when we are aligned with God to the point that the world deems us worthy of insulting. If I weren't tracking with God, the world wouldn't care enough to slander me, nor would I really care what they say about Him. Jesus' response was to love and forgive those who persecuted Him. It is up to God to deal with insults, not us. Our job is to try and show people the way of truth and love.

Should we be offended as much as we are? Should we take attacks so personally, or should we really be looking for ways to respond as Jesus would - with truth and love?

I'm not saying that insults can't be damaging, or that blasphemy should be ignored. But how does it help to take things so personally, and get so bothered in our hearts that we forget the offender needs to learn truth? Should I let my feelings get so hurt that I lash out, selfishly trying to reclaim honor, or should I instead try to help the offender understand and correct his/her behavior?

Perhaps it's because I'm from the U.S., where dissent and debate are (allegedly) encouraged and accepted (though there are some out there who try to squelch free speech.) Perhaps it's because I believe Jesus when He said we should love those who curse us. But I really need help understanding why taking offense is such an accepted thing for so many people. I don't get it.

God bless!

How to find the Northern 'burbs

2006-02-28T22:59:00.000-06:00

You know, I often see posts on other blogs that talk about the odd searches that bring readers to the blog in question.

I'm not sure how I should feel about it that I rarely get, um...discovered via odd searches. On the one hand, it probably means I don't write things that would attract people with...exuberant creativity. On the other hand, I don't get to fill posts with witty rejoinders in response to searches I don't quite grasp.

Resigned to that, I searched my referrals, hoping for a nugget.

Aside from a couple of searches along the lines of "what about those who haven't heard of God?" (a bunch of those), and one or two about euthenasia (I wrote that post looooong ago) I found the following:

"to dream about my daughters being pregnant"

Oooookay. Not sure what to say about that. To me this would be a nightmare, and one I haven't discussed on my blog. What concerns me more is that NBB doesn't show up until page 5 of the search results. Is this a common dream?????

Then there was this one:

"Are mean spirited acts immoral"

I don't recall talking about this, but on the off chance this person returns, I would answer in a mocking manner, which is mean spirited, ergo immoral. So I will resist.

"Northern Political Minnesota blog"

I touch on politics from time to time, so this makes sense. What doesn't is that the results put me at #3, behind Power Line and Hugh Hewitt - who, btw, is an Ohioan living in Cali.

"jay leno biblical knowledge"

Yep, in the pantheon of theologians, Mr. Leno is a biggie.

But still, this list doesn't quite scare me the way some of Ed's do.

Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 2/28/06 Edition

2006-02-28T17:59:00.000-06:00

Who says Christians can't be rough 'n tumble athletes? Christianity is Jewish talks about the original trash talker in a little OT competition. Just be sure to choose the winning side.
...
In a nutshell, are our priorities right? Key quote: "I’m not complaining; we prioritize within the means we have, and we are always trying to look for ways to make our material lives fit our spiritual ideals. All I ask conservatives — all conservatives — to do is to rethink in a serious way whether the various ways we live today are consistent with what we say we value as conservatives, especially with regard to the integrity of our families.." (HT: Fraters Libertas.)
...
Caveat emptor applies, but the Theology wiki could be interesting. (HT: Tim Challies.)
...
There are few things about which I am more passionate than Right to Life causes. I know there are others who disagree. What I would wish, though, is that we can all agree that the parents should be making any decisions about removing life support from ill children, not doctors. Apparently, that wish is not to be fulfilled everywhere. Doctors and judges have NO right to tell parents their child must die when the parents want to continue the fight for life. Unfortunately, down the proverbial slippery slope of right to die cases we find "duty to kill" cases, where doctors or government bureaucrats get to play God and decide whether some lives are worth living, or whether society's interests are best served by killing the weak among us.

And I am completely baffled how we got to the point where we see children as ruining one's life.
...
So, thought all the rules were in the Old Testament? Think again. (HT: Adrian Warnock.)
...
God or Not is up for the week (topic is "Truth") at Kingdom of Heathen. Go. Read. Participate. And tomorrow (um, Wednesday), look for Christian Carnival at Demosthenes.
...
Conservatives are happier than liberals? Sounds about right. Perhaps it's because conservatives are more likely to recognize that reality means a disconnect between two of liberalism's favored icons. Or, perhaps this disconnect. Come to think of it, modern liberalism is a study in contradictory beliefs (there's a blog post in there, I'm sure, about how liberals hate the Iraq war, and tend to side with Islamists, although Islamists seem to stand for everything that's anathema to liberals: oppression of women, brutality towards homosexuals, religious preeminence, etc.)

I'm not sure I'd equate conservativism with being a Republican, though, as I'm the former but not the latter.
...
So, I'm doing the dishes this evening, cleaning the house (you know, all that oppression of women thing us patriarchal conservatives are into) and I kept thinking about how Ben Witherington was, once again, bringing clarity into a controversial topic: women keeping silent in church. Read into the comments. Very good stuff.
...
I don't know whether this is good or bad. Another childhood favorite being redone by the Sci Fi channel. We'll have to wait and see.
...
Hmmm...long trip tonight. I blame it all on the last few days. Seems a bunch o' good stuff was posted. Keep it up!

God bless!

Trust Him In the No Times

2006-02-24T21:57:00.000-06:00

I remember a story from way back that went a little something like this. A man was in his house when a storm brought floodwaters to his doorstep. The National Guard was wrapping up evacuation tasks in his neighborhood, and their last stop was his house. "Come with us!" they shouted. "No, God will provide for my safety," the man responded.

The waters continued to rise, and shortly the man climbed out his 2nd story window to sit on the roof of his porch - where the water was now lapping. A stranger with a boat came along and said, "come with me! I can take you to safety." "No, God will provide for my safety," was the reply.

The waters continued to rise more, and the man found himself on his rooftop, water lapping at his feet. A National Guard helicopter hovered over him, and over the loudspeaker he heard, "we can lower a line and pull you up. You don't have any time left!" He waved them off, shouting, "no, God will provide for my safety."

Suddenly the floodwaters knocked loose his house, and it collapsed underneath him. He was pulled under the flood waters and drowned. When he stood before God, he asked, "Lord, I trusted in you and you didn't save me. Where were you?"

To which God replied, "but I sent the National Guardsman, the boat and the helicopter!"

Too often I find myself looking for the miraculous answers to prayer instead of the mundane ones. Even more often I find myself looking only for the "yes" answers instead of, well, the answers God gives. Instead of accepting the boat ride, I want God to transport me to higher ground with an Angelic color guard. And sometimes God doesn't send even a neighbor with a boat, but instead asks me to "drown" (metaphorically speaking, to be sure.)

Complaints about unanswered prayer abound. We wonder why illness isn't healed instantaneously, never mind that God gives us doctors and medicine. We wonder why God doesn't remove our job situation, never mind that God sometimes has us in places we wouldn't choose for a greater purpose. We wonder why we are persecuted (well, not so much in this country) when God is building us into greater witnesses for His glory.

We ask and do not receive the miracle, and so believe God doesn't answer prayer. We pray and things, from our perspective, get worse. We start to think we are speaking to an invisible, unhearing, uncaring God.

What we need to remember is that "no" is an answer to prayer. What we need to remember too is that "later" is an answer too. God sends boats and helicopters instead of angels. Or He lets us "drown" for a greater purpose.

We need to trust Him in the "no" times. We don't know better than He does. What seems like unanswered prayer to us is a better-answered prayer from God's perspective. No is sometimes better than yes. The mundane is oftentimes more useful, for His purposes, than the miraculous.

God loves us. Whatever the answer He gives to our prayer, trust He is right and knows best. Don't be disappointed (he says, knowing this is a struggle in his own life) when we don't get the answer we want; we're getting the answer we need.

God bless!