Here's a post showing a Japanese cell-phone company ad that hints at mimicking Obama, but showing a monkey at the podium. CNN interviewed a group of outraged AA residents of Japan who feel that this should have been an obvious "faux pas".
A professor from Temple University explains that American politics are a part of a global dialogue and that the Japanese company failed to understand this.
In spite of this, the CEO of the company still didn't see anything wrong with the ad, nor did any Japanese people interviewed for the story even connect it with Obama.
It's so disappointing when the rest of the world doesn't revolve around us! Can't they see that our political race is important to them. Don't they know better not to make nuanced American racial slurs in their Japanese commercials? How is it possible that NO one in Japan was offended or outraged by this CLEAR insult to Obama and the AA community?
Like Prager says, you have to be taught to be a victim. Japan just didn't get that lesson, I guess.
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Patriotism, Nationalism, and Americanism
Here's a great post from Hot Air regarding the Conservative vs. Liberal view of things. Good thoughts in anticipation of the 4th of July holiday.
Random Thoughts
Here are some thoughts I don't have time to develop, but at least wanted to document in seminal form. If you wish to inquire, I will elaborate.
Every child in every generation in every family has been faced with the same decision as Adam and Eve in the Garden: will you trust your parents and depend on them for your moral compass, or will you instead attempt to secure the knowledge of good and evil from your own personal experiences. Sadly, every child chooses the same as Adam and Eve, and consequently, seeing their own nakedness and feeling their own shame. The best hope of parents is to delay this "crossing" for as long as possible to where the consequences of a child's actions are the most comprehensible and the least durable.
_____
There are words, and generally they are large words, whose meanings are difficult to explain but critical to grasp for everyone who desires to live well. Some of these words are:
_____
Quotable Prager Lines (food for thought):
Every child in every generation in every family has been faced with the same decision as Adam and Eve in the Garden: will you trust your parents and depend on them for your moral compass, or will you instead attempt to secure the knowledge of good and evil from your own personal experiences. Sadly, every child chooses the same as Adam and Eve, and consequently, seeing their own nakedness and feeling their own shame. The best hope of parents is to delay this "crossing" for as long as possible to where the consequences of a child's actions are the most comprehensible and the least durable.
_____
There are words, and generally they are large words, whose meanings are difficult to explain but critical to grasp for everyone who desires to live well. Some of these words are:
Appropriate Credibility Mature Discretion
To learn to speak with discretion, maintain one's credibility, to behave appropriately, and to handle defeat or disappointment in a mature way, for example, should be the goal and hope of all men and women of character._____
Quotable Prager Lines (food for thought):
When a child asks, "Why? Don't you trust me?", the best response is, "I don't trust human nature." The heart of the Torah is based on the command to love the stranger. The other sex is the ultimate stranger. As a man, I have more in common with a tribesman from a remote people with whom I cannot speak because he is a male than I do with my own wife. Society should be focused on determining what is good for the whole. In light of the recent judicial activism, I wonder "how far will society bend for the individual?"
Re-Narrate the Story of Your Life
A narrator is a story teller. It doesn't matter if the story is true or not, that is his job. To narrate is the action. The narrative is the subject. It seems that this word has come of age, so to speak; being used in such ways as a meta-narrative, the same party-line narrative, etc. I don't intend to add anything substantial to the definition of this word,. Rather, I hope to introduce it to those who are not familiar with it and explain a use we may not automatically think of.
To start with something familiar. When a child comes to an adult and explains in thorough detail how he got a quarter when his tooth fell out, the adult listens to the child's narrative, and without any contradiction, responds by emphasizing the wonder of the story. In the adult's mind, however, he thinks kindly of the adults, not the Tooth Fairy, who put the quarter under the child's pillow. In his mind, the adult has re-narrated the story of the child using information only he, as opposed to the child, has.
We actually do this a lot throughout the course of life. Think of interacting with a child on any major topic and one will probably have a, let's say, "different" narrative of the events. Take how the sun comes up, how grass grows, why birds lay eggs, where babies come from, etc. Moving away from children, we actually do this with those who lack certain knowledge that we may possess. For those seasoned mothers, a first-timer might explain some bizarre connection she has noticed between watching a particular TV show and her indigestion, yet you are able to discern it's the fact that she is watching it in bed sitting up, or while eating a bowl of grapes with hot sauce. So you actually might "re-narrate" the young mother's story in order for her to better understand her experience.
This may also happen with people who are superstitious and believe certain events of their lives happened because of some freak incident. I have contact with a man who makes comments that sometimes honestly surprise me related to how he believes he got sick, why his baby gets sick, why the cops pulled him over, why the boss doesn't like him, etc. His lens of reality is based on many misperceptions, superstitions, or simply a lack of knowledge about the world around him. A similar example of this is some African cultures' understandings about AIDS and how it is transmitted. To explain what the Western world has come to learn about diseases, hygiene, or even translate the cultural disparity of an African vs. Western concept of warfare (why African militias may cut the breasts off of the women of their enemies, for example) is all a version of re-narrating a story.
Well on to my point. When a Christian faces trials or suffering there are many ways to narrate the experience. There is the superstitious view or the "Health and Wealth Gospel" view that informs one's understanding of what happened. My Master's Thesis addressed "The Power of Story to Sanctify Suffering...". The basic concept of how re-narrating what has happened to people more consistently with the "Story" of God's working in human history has the ability to bring peace, and even hope, so much so that one can find some "value" to what has happened. Sometimes the ability to re-narrate an event is not possible until some time afterwards. However, I also believe it is possible to simply narrate your personal journey through suffering in a way this is consistent with God's over all character and eternal purposes WHILE you go through it. This is the ideal scenario. Regardless, there is a Story that is being told. God is telling it. The issue is whether or not we are narrating our story consistently with His or "innocently" telling others about the Tooth Fairy.
If this is to "work", however, the lynch pin is knowing God's Story accurately and well.
To start with something familiar. When a child comes to an adult and explains in thorough detail how he got a quarter when his tooth fell out, the adult listens to the child's narrative, and without any contradiction, responds by emphasizing the wonder of the story. In the adult's mind, however, he thinks kindly of the adults, not the Tooth Fairy, who put the quarter under the child's pillow. In his mind, the adult has re-narrated the story of the child using information only he, as opposed to the child, has.
We actually do this a lot throughout the course of life. Think of interacting with a child on any major topic and one will probably have a, let's say, "different" narrative of the events. Take how the sun comes up, how grass grows, why birds lay eggs, where babies come from, etc. Moving away from children, we actually do this with those who lack certain knowledge that we may possess. For those seasoned mothers, a first-timer might explain some bizarre connection she has noticed between watching a particular TV show and her indigestion, yet you are able to discern it's the fact that she is watching it in bed sitting up, or while eating a bowl of grapes with hot sauce. So you actually might "re-narrate" the young mother's story in order for her to better understand her experience.
This may also happen with people who are superstitious and believe certain events of their lives happened because of some freak incident. I have contact with a man who makes comments that sometimes honestly surprise me related to how he believes he got sick, why his baby gets sick, why the cops pulled him over, why the boss doesn't like him, etc. His lens of reality is based on many misperceptions, superstitions, or simply a lack of knowledge about the world around him. A similar example of this is some African cultures' understandings about AIDS and how it is transmitted. To explain what the Western world has come to learn about diseases, hygiene, or even translate the cultural disparity of an African vs. Western concept of warfare (why African militias may cut the breasts off of the women of their enemies, for example) is all a version of re-narrating a story.
Well on to my point. When a Christian faces trials or suffering there are many ways to narrate the experience. There is the superstitious view or the "Health and Wealth Gospel" view that informs one's understanding of what happened. My Master's Thesis addressed "The Power of Story to Sanctify Suffering...". The basic concept of how re-narrating what has happened to people more consistently with the "Story" of God's working in human history has the ability to bring peace, and even hope, so much so that one can find some "value" to what has happened. Sometimes the ability to re-narrate an event is not possible until some time afterwards. However, I also believe it is possible to simply narrate your personal journey through suffering in a way this is consistent with God's over all character and eternal purposes WHILE you go through it. This is the ideal scenario. Regardless, there is a Story that is being told. God is telling it. The issue is whether or not we are narrating our story consistently with His or "innocently" telling others about the Tooth Fairy.
If this is to "work", however, the lynch pin is knowing God's Story accurately and well.
Is John McCain a Terrorist?
Ever since McCain took the lead in the primaries to become the presumptive Republican nominee for President, I have taken a break from commenting on him explicitly. I am now ready to articulate my thoughts as I have developed them thus far.
Conservatives have always argued "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" This has come into clear relief as President Bush's comments at the Knesset stoked a firestorm from Democrats who felt Bush's comments were directed at them, and more specifically, Obama, as it related to his willingness to meet with foreign dictators without preconditions, or what Bush labeled "appeasement."
Let me break down the logic as to why we don't negotiate with terrorists (and I welcome all to challenge me if my logic fails at any point):
The thing is, we've heard this before. We have given in to demands such as this and it has predictably encouraged others to make similar demands (i.e. previously George Bush and now John McCain). Now, in the case of elections, the arm twisting and threats are unfortunately all legal (I will concede this point is not consistent with the general logic of dealing with terrorists). George bush was supposed to be better than John Kerry or Al Gore, and I believe all things considered, he has been. But that's not how we justify good decisions. It may actually be better to let a hostage live by merely giving a terrorist $1 million, but we don't do that.
When we "settle for the lessor of two evils", we fall into the trap of exchanging our principles for expedience and practicality. I'm tired of that. I'm tired of giving in, of blinking first in a game of political "chicken" with the king-makers who say we have to do it if we want a platform to speak from, or to save our place at the table, or whatever other good and strategic thing we are supposed to get out of it. I'm tired of negotiating with terrorists who threaten dire consequences if I don't give them my vote!
If anyone wants my vote, in this free society we live in, they will have to earn it and demonstrate by past experiences that they will support my view of what America ought to be. I won't accept a politician who promises the world and poll-tests his convictions in order to get into office, only to run like he had always run before.
I cannot vote for John McCain because:
John McCain and the Republican king-makers will be solely responsible if he fails to get the true Conservative vote and loses the White House. I will not be guilted or shamed into voting for a man I do not agree with. If that's the case, why not vote for Hillary or Obama? The only difference is variation of degree.
Politicians my sell their souls to achieve certain ends; something they are despised for even though we almost expect it. But the day that voters sell their souls, we might as well start playing Taps on a muted trumpet! I expect more from myself, and hope for better from my government and its leaders.
Conservatives have always argued "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" This has come into clear relief as President Bush's comments at the Knesset stoked a firestorm from Democrats who felt Bush's comments were directed at them, and more specifically, Obama, as it related to his willingness to meet with foreign dictators without preconditions, or what Bush labeled "appeasement."
Let me break down the logic as to why we don't negotiate with terrorists (and I welcome all to challenge me if my logic fails at any point):
Loosely, a terrorist is someone who uses force/threats to compel others to comply with his demands. It "almost never" (I never like to say "never") matters what the demands are: money, political asylum, etc. If someone uses force, their demands are not granted. Force can be defined as anything from hijacking an airplane to threatening to blow something up or kill someone, or any number of other dire consequences. If someone who threatens dire consequences to get what they want, and those who have the power to grant the request actually comply, this will promote/encourage others to use force/threats to get what they want. This would promote anarchy and violates one of the founding principles of democracy, the rule of law.
Therefore, we don't negotiate, nor comply with demands made by those who threaten us. Maybe you can see where I'm going with this. It is argued that conservatives must vote for John McCain or face dire consequences if a Democrat wins the White House in the fall. The consequences are laid out rather convincingly: withdrawal from Iraq and the following Genocide of Iraqis, the handing over of the Supreme Court to liberals with as many as 4 potential justice seats becoming vacant, the implosion of US business and our economy under higher taxes, etc. So, if we don't want to see these things happen, we MUST vote for John McCain. We have no other choice.The thing is, we've heard this before. We have given in to demands such as this and it has predictably encouraged others to make similar demands (i.e. previously George Bush and now John McCain). Now, in the case of elections, the arm twisting and threats are unfortunately all legal (I will concede this point is not consistent with the general logic of dealing with terrorists). George bush was supposed to be better than John Kerry or Al Gore, and I believe all things considered, he has been. But that's not how we justify good decisions. It may actually be better to let a hostage live by merely giving a terrorist $1 million, but we don't do that.
When we "settle for the lessor of two evils", we fall into the trap of exchanging our principles for expedience and practicality. I'm tired of that. I'm tired of giving in, of blinking first in a game of political "chicken" with the king-makers who say we have to do it if we want a platform to speak from, or to save our place at the table, or whatever other good and strategic thing we are supposed to get out of it. I'm tired of negotiating with terrorists who threaten dire consequences if I don't give them my vote!
If anyone wants my vote, in this free society we live in, they will have to earn it and demonstrate by past experiences that they will support my view of what America ought to be. I won't accept a politician who promises the world and poll-tests his convictions in order to get into office, only to run like he had always run before.
I cannot vote for John McCain because:
The arm twisting by the conservative elite and the Republican leadership has become clear to me for what it is: terrorism. I don't agree with John McCain on global warming, immigration, campaign finance, etc. I don't trust John McCain to run to the right once he gets into office if he is more interested in running to the left to get in (those who do this only have more political IOU's to pay out, and most of them won't be in line with conservative ideas). John McCain's reputation as a maverick has only proven that he will run against the tide of Conservatism toward the tide of Liberalism. If that's an asset from a Conservative perspective, I'm not sure what to believe anymore. There are no guarantees that John McCain will do anything about the issues that Conservatives want him to. To prove this all you have to do is look at George Bush on Immigration, Government Spending, and Global Warming.
I hear those of you screaming: "BUT WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE? Are you just going to let the liberals have the White House?" Well, to this objection I go back to my terrorism analogy and reply, "Where will you draw the line and demand leaders that will advocate for Conservative ideas?" Who's fault is it if a terrorist shoots a hostage? The police for not granting his request within his timeframe? NEVER! Who's fault is it if a suicide bomber blows up a wedding party because political prisoners were not released? The Jail Warden? The Governor? The President? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The terrorist alone holds complete culpability for his actions and the negative consequences of those actions.John McCain and the Republican king-makers will be solely responsible if he fails to get the true Conservative vote and loses the White House. I will not be guilted or shamed into voting for a man I do not agree with. If that's the case, why not vote for Hillary or Obama? The only difference is variation of degree.
Politicians my sell their souls to achieve certain ends; something they are despised for even though we almost expect it. But the day that voters sell their souls, we might as well start playing Taps on a muted trumpet! I expect more from myself, and hope for better from my government and its leaders.
Evangelical Intelligentsia
Here is an interesting article from the Washington Post that might give Christians some insight as to how the world views us, and maybe how we should view ourselves. The article is titled: Exploring Evangelical Minds, and looks at the Intelligentsia in the Evangelical world. From the article,
"...The study is being directed by Berger and Timothy Shah, an evangelical political scientist at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Shah is documenting the history of the evangelical movement, including its hostility to higher learning, a revival of scholarship, and the minds and ideas it has since produced.
Some aren't convinced that evangelical scholars have made as much progress as they think.
Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe, who wrote an article in the Atlantic in 2000 called "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind," said despite the success of some evangelical scholars, many have retained an insularity and defensiveness that limits their effectiveness...."
This is a sad commentary on those of us who are called to serve the Lord with all our MINDS. If this study is any accurate indication of our success on that front, I think we really need to evaluate ourselves and what we are doing to represent the all-wise God that we serve and represent.
Obama, the Victim
At a recent speech at Carnegie Mellon University, accompanied by Theresa Heinz Kerry, Michelle Obama made the following remarks:
"Michelle Obama brought a politician's cadence to her fifty-minute speech, delivering spitfire observations that built naturally towards applause lines, devoting much her speech to a detailed accounting of her husband's successes as a candidate in numerical terms, citing the size his contributor base and the share of counties he won in South Carolina's primary.
"Barack Obama will always be the underdog. No matter how much money he raises, now matter how many wins he pulls together, no matter how many delegates he accumulates, he is still the underdog," she said. "That's the way it works.""
What does she mean "That's the way it works?" Is this another "we will always be the victims because we're black" proclamations? I don't understand it any other way. Please explain if you know. And if it is as I suspect, how can she justify this? This reverse racism is difficult to swallow and I wish the MSM would call her out on it. I guess at least she was paying attention in church on Sundays.
The Math Problem of Suffering
How we view the “problems” in life makes all the difference. If we view them as a simple math equation where we take known life circumstances and add them up (or subtract them for the negative things), the “bottom line” is always different. Sometimes life is fair. Sometimes it’s not. Sometimes God is good. Sometimes He’s not, etc.
For example, “I serve God for 20 years” minus “my teenage daughter gets pregnant” or “my husband leaves me” = “God has forsaken me.” Or, “I give money to a missionary” plus “I get a promotion at work” = “God is good.” This view leaves us constantly assessing God’s Word and His Nature in light of our personal experiences. It is not biblical and it does not honor God who is by nature good and does not change.
However, if we view the “problems” in life like an algebra equation, then we always know the “bottom line” ~ God is good, or “immovably good” as D.A. Carson says when talking about James 1. What is unknown, rather, is the value of the variables x, y or z. So whether earthly wealth, human suffering, job promotion or cancer are the known factors, our job in understanding the “problem” is not to determine the bottom line. Our job is to find the value of the unknown variables that support the “bottom line” conclusions of God’s unchanging nature and Word.
For example, in the equation “my cancer” + “z” = “God is good,” “z” may be worth God’s faithfulness to his promises to never leave me, or it could be worth his grace that is sufficient for all things, or it could be worth the peace that passes understanding in the valley of the shadow of death. The value of my cancer in addition to the value of God’s all-sufficient grace leads me to conclude God is good! God’s Word is true. His promises never fail. And whether we can ever make sense of it and find the value of the unknown variables, or we find the problem too complex for our finite minds, we can always know without a doubt, the sum (and also the “summary”) of life’s “problems” is always “God is good.”
For example, “I serve God for 20 years” minus “my teenage daughter gets pregnant” or “my husband leaves me” = “God has forsaken me.” Or, “I give money to a missionary” plus “I get a promotion at work” = “God is good.” This view leaves us constantly assessing God’s Word and His Nature in light of our personal experiences. It is not biblical and it does not honor God who is by nature good and does not change.
However, if we view the “problems” in life like an algebra equation, then we always know the “bottom line” ~ God is good, or “immovably good” as D.A. Carson says when talking about James 1. What is unknown, rather, is the value of the variables x, y or z. So whether earthly wealth, human suffering, job promotion or cancer are the known factors, our job in understanding the “problem” is not to determine the bottom line. Our job is to find the value of the unknown variables that support the “bottom line” conclusions of God’s unchanging nature and Word.
For example, in the equation “my cancer” + “z” = “God is good,” “z” may be worth God’s faithfulness to his promises to never leave me, or it could be worth his grace that is sufficient for all things, or it could be worth the peace that passes understanding in the valley of the shadow of death. The value of my cancer in addition to the value of God’s all-sufficient grace leads me to conclude God is good! God’s Word is true. His promises never fail. And whether we can ever make sense of it and find the value of the unknown variables, or we find the problem too complex for our finite minds, we can always know without a doubt, the sum (and also the “summary”) of life’s “problems” is always “God is good.”
Originality in the Pulpit
I collect quotes and have a computer file where they are all organized. Today as I was looking up one to offer to a friend, I re-read this one and just had to air it out and hang it on the line for the rest of you. A.W. Tozer was a prophet of his time, and ours, I believe. Reading what he writes generally makes me want to shout AMEN!
Where is the serious man?
"Some preachers have such a phobia for repetition and such an unnatural fear of the familiar that they are forever straining after the odd and the startling. The church page of the newspaper almost any Saturday will be sure to announce at least one or two sermon topics so far astray as to be positively grotesque; only by the most daring flight of uncontrolled imagination can any relation be established between the topic and the religion of Christ. We dare not impugn the honesty or the sincerity of the men who thus flap their short wings so rapidly in an effort to take off into the wild blue yonder, but we do deplore their attitudes. No one should try to be more original than an apostle." God Tells the Man Who Cares, 144.
I actually see this today quite often when preachers toss out some "novel nugget of truth" which can quite easily be found in an email forward that everyone gets in their daily junk folder. These catch phrases, these slogans, these one-liners, these mantras, these sound bites, these witty contrivances that are intended to accomplish the equivalent of a oratorical sugar high, most often just make me sick to my stomach.Where is the serious man?
Journalistic Honesty & Legislative Integrity
I just about came unglued when I read the statement "The idea - to subject all Californians who collect welfare payments to random drug testing - is the brainchild of a 16-year-old with cerebral palsy." Serious!? No one has ever thought of this before? A teenager with severe disabilities is the first person in the universe ("brainchild" would indicate this person is the father of the idea), to think about this. Come on!
Well, the article goes on to explain that a 1996 Welfare Reform Act actually authorizes this in California and that Michigan became the first state to start random drug testing for welfare recipients in 2000. So how is this idea the brainchild of this kid? It's either sloppy journalism or sensationalism to get you to read the article, the best that I can figure.
The back story is that this kid won a contest to enact a law sponsored by a CA state legislator. The "sell" is that this kid "makes such a compelling argument that it will be difficult to say 'no' (to him)," explains the legislator. Apparently this kid's mother was on welfare and doing drugs when she became pregnant with him, causing the cerebral palsy and his life of difficulty. The legislator explains that he "'can't run and play' like other children because 'his mother chose to use drugs.'"
How sad that an adult, and a CA Legislator, is using this kid as a ploy for this effort.
Well, the article goes on to explain that a 1996 Welfare Reform Act actually authorizes this in California and that Michigan became the first state to start random drug testing for welfare recipients in 2000. So how is this idea the brainchild of this kid? It's either sloppy journalism or sensationalism to get you to read the article, the best that I can figure.
The back story is that this kid won a contest to enact a law sponsored by a CA state legislator. The "sell" is that this kid "makes such a compelling argument that it will be difficult to say 'no' (to him)," explains the legislator. Apparently this kid's mother was on welfare and doing drugs when she became pregnant with him, causing the cerebral palsy and his life of difficulty. The legislator explains that he "'can't run and play' like other children because 'his mother chose to use drugs.'"
How sad that an adult, and a CA Legislator, is using this kid as a ploy for this effort.
First, Michigan's law and other states' laws have all been challenged by the ACLU, and no state currently is practicing this, including CA, in spite of the 1996 Act (as the article points out). Second, a mother using drugs when she is pregnant is already against the law, and many children are actually removed from a mother's care and adopted out when this happens (as was the case with this kid). Third, as has been discussed on this blog before, and quoting Dennis Prager, "Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves."
The fact that it would be hard to say no to this kid, makes this horribly manipulative and, as Prager explains, makes me wonder what this law maker is thinking."Simple" Adults
A few situations recently have combined themselves in my mind to produce this post: there was a school shooting somewhere, a school bus accident, and a conversation with my boss over "company policy".
There was a comment in the flurry of coverage of a school shooting, in essence, stating that there were no metal detectors [that would have prevented this tragedy]. For the life of me, every time someone shoots someone else in a public place, I cannot figure out why people bring up metal detectors. I mean, I get why they mention them, but I have no idea what they think a metal detector would actually do. If a guy has actually stocked up on ammo and written his own suicide note, does anyone really think he would call off his deranged plan because a metal detector goes off as he's walking through the door spraying bullets? The first shot would probably be at the UNARMED guard standing there monitoring the lights and bells on the detector. This rush to put metal detectors at every entry way of every public building is honestly, mentally deficient, truly "simple-minded." Why can't the average adult think through this? I know it's SOMETHING [as in, let's just do something]. But maybe this is just the sad, brutal, uncontrollable reality of living in a free, but fallen world. Not sure.
A recent school bus accident that killed at least 2 kids provoked the age-old controversy regarding making kids wear seatbelts on buses. Statistically, a child is 8 times more likely to be injured when a parent drives him to school then by riding a bus. This is the same "unreasonable" fear that many people have when a plane crashes [statistically one of the safest forms of transportation]. Yet, adults still think in such simple terms and offer such simple non-solutions for government intervention. Why?
Finally, my boss and I were discussing a policy at work that, to me, seems very "simple". It's one of those "we must ALWAYS" do such and such. There is no room for personal discretion or reasonable accommodations that would deviate from this policy [i.e. We actually throw out stuffed animals from "last season" or bottles of water when they pass their "expiration date". Like we can't even use it to mop the floor? Nope! We must throw it out because what if employees intentionally damage a bottle so that they get to drink it for free? It happens, you know.] Well, I guess I have an answer for this, but it really doesn't matter, because there's this company policy that takes away any potential for fraud, theft, loss, etc. To me, this is such a "simplistic" policy. It really makes me wonder where all the adults went.
I thought there was a level of cognitive functioning capable of dealing with complexities and shades of gray and the difference between "fair" and "just" and all of this that makes someone an adult, or at least mature. Why is it that the adults running things can't think of better things to say or do when confronted with the complex (and sometimes just commonsense) issues of our daily lives?
There was a comment in the flurry of coverage of a school shooting, in essence, stating that there were no metal detectors [that would have prevented this tragedy]. For the life of me, every time someone shoots someone else in a public place, I cannot figure out why people bring up metal detectors. I mean, I get why they mention them, but I have no idea what they think a metal detector would actually do. If a guy has actually stocked up on ammo and written his own suicide note, does anyone really think he would call off his deranged plan because a metal detector goes off as he's walking through the door spraying bullets? The first shot would probably be at the UNARMED guard standing there monitoring the lights and bells on the detector. This rush to put metal detectors at every entry way of every public building is honestly, mentally deficient, truly "simple-minded." Why can't the average adult think through this? I know it's SOMETHING [as in, let's just do something]. But maybe this is just the sad, brutal, uncontrollable reality of living in a free, but fallen world. Not sure.
A recent school bus accident that killed at least 2 kids provoked the age-old controversy regarding making kids wear seatbelts on buses. Statistically, a child is 8 times more likely to be injured when a parent drives him to school then by riding a bus. This is the same "unreasonable" fear that many people have when a plane crashes [statistically one of the safest forms of transportation]. Yet, adults still think in such simple terms and offer such simple non-solutions for government intervention. Why?
Finally, my boss and I were discussing a policy at work that, to me, seems very "simple". It's one of those "we must ALWAYS" do such and such. There is no room for personal discretion or reasonable accommodations that would deviate from this policy [i.e. We actually throw out stuffed animals from "last season" or bottles of water when they pass their "expiration date". Like we can't even use it to mop the floor? Nope! We must throw it out because what if employees intentionally damage a bottle so that they get to drink it for free? It happens, you know.] Well, I guess I have an answer for this, but it really doesn't matter, because there's this company policy that takes away any potential for fraud, theft, loss, etc. To me, this is such a "simplistic" policy. It really makes me wonder where all the adults went.
I thought there was a level of cognitive functioning capable of dealing with complexities and shades of gray and the difference between "fair" and "just" and all of this that makes someone an adult, or at least mature. Why is it that the adults running things can't think of better things to say or do when confronted with the complex (and sometimes just commonsense) issues of our daily lives?
LAME, not Lame Duck!
Reformed Chicks has this post about how Bush is asking for a BILLION dollars to secure the border.... (wait for it)
.... of Mexico!
Is he running for President of North America! What is wrong with this picture? And Bush just endorsed McCain as a "true conservative". Exactly, McCain is just as conservative as Bush and that's setting the bar very low. We don't need another 4 years with Bush (by voting for McCain). I'm starting to like Obama more and more. When your choices are Slim and None, None starts looking pretty convincing.
This would actually stick it to the Republicans to the point that they drive to the Right and maybe we can get it some real leadership in 2012! If we lose 6 supreme court justice positions, then the moderate Republican party is the only one to blame, not us true conservatives!
SCREAM!
.... of Mexico!
Is he running for President of North America! What is wrong with this picture? And Bush just endorsed McCain as a "true conservative". Exactly, McCain is just as conservative as Bush and that's setting the bar very low. We don't need another 4 years with Bush (by voting for McCain). I'm starting to like Obama more and more. When your choices are Slim and None, None starts looking pretty convincing.
This would actually stick it to the Republicans to the point that they drive to the Right and maybe we can get it some real leadership in 2012! If we lose 6 supreme court justice positions, then the moderate Republican party is the only one to blame, not us true conservatives!
SCREAM!
Cherry Picking...
...or choosing only certain pieces of information that support your premise in order to defend your position. This is the first skill necessary to be a politician. I find it kind of ironic that the story told about the greatest American President, George Washington, is regarding his not being able to tell a lie regarding chopping down a cherry tree. His character revealed by his confession. Yet, today, cherry picking (a lesser "crime" for sure) indicates a lack of character.
My only point is that I don't agree. EVERYONE picks cherries! I suppose some can do it with the sheer intent to deceive, and this is wrong. But the average person chooses the cherries that seem to be consistent with the world as they understand it. The cherries that don't fit, the ones that seem suspicious or incongruent, are set aside (not discarded) until other information gives them a place.
Thomas Sowell, in A Conflict of Visions, explains that everyone has a worldview, a perspective, a "vision" of how the world works, which we use to understand and assimilate new information and govern present actions. He explains,
So, when politicians argue the pros and cons of tax cuts, entitlement programs, war, race issues, global warming, etc, it may be that they are knowingly distorting their opponents position by "cherry picking" only the perceived negative aspects, and by doing so, impugning their adversary's character. And they then do the exact opposite when presenting the evidence for their position, glossing over any known difficulties in the argument This situation is the most sinister aspect of cherry picking. But the average person, and I would say the average public servant, really is doing what they feel is best for their family, their constituents, and their country. I really believe this.
It's just sad when we can sit by and see the sinister working of politicians do what they do: claiming to have all virtue and altruism on their side and their opponent having none. That's the bad thing, but that's not cherry picking as much as it is politicking. I cannot tell a lie. Sometimes I wish that tree was chopped down and we could get some real statesmen into the seats of power of this great nation.
My only point is that I don't agree. EVERYONE picks cherries! I suppose some can do it with the sheer intent to deceive, and this is wrong. But the average person chooses the cherries that seem to be consistent with the world as they understand it. The cherries that don't fit, the ones that seem suspicious or incongruent, are set aside (not discarded) until other information gives them a place.
Thomas Sowell, in A Conflict of Visions, explains that everyone has a worldview, a perspective, a "vision" of how the world works, which we use to understand and assimilate new information and govern present actions. He explains,
"Visions are all, to some extent, simplistic--though that is a term usually reserved for other people's visions, not our own. The ever-changing kaleidoscope of raw reality would defeat the human mind by its complexity, except for the mind's ability to abstract, to pick out parts and think of them as the whole.... No matter what vision we build on, it will never account for 'every sparrow's fall.' ... Ultimately there are as many visions as there are human beings, if not more, and more than one vision may be consistent with a given fact. Theories can be devastated by facts but they can never be proved to be correct by facts. Facts force us to discard some theories --or else to torture our minds trying to reconcile the irreconcilable-- but they can never put the final imprimatur of ultimate truth on a given theory. What empirical verification can do is to reveal which of the competing theories currently being considered is more consistent with what is known factually" (5-7).
So, depending on the vision of the world you start with, or the current understanding of the facts on hand, you will most likely choose some cherries over others as you listen to a political speech, participate in a public discussion on some local issue, or argue some point with a friend. It's more about consistency with the worldview you start with than intentionally rejecting indisputable truth.So, when politicians argue the pros and cons of tax cuts, entitlement programs, war, race issues, global warming, etc, it may be that they are knowingly distorting their opponents position by "cherry picking" only the perceived negative aspects, and by doing so, impugning their adversary's character. And they then do the exact opposite when presenting the evidence for their position, glossing over any known difficulties in the argument This situation is the most sinister aspect of cherry picking. But the average person, and I would say the average public servant, really is doing what they feel is best for their family, their constituents, and their country. I really believe this.
It's just sad when we can sit by and see the sinister working of politicians do what they do: claiming to have all virtue and altruism on their side and their opponent having none. That's the bad thing, but that's not cherry picking as much as it is politicking. I cannot tell a lie. Sometimes I wish that tree was chopped down and we could get some real statesmen into the seats of power of this great nation.
A Thirst for Beauty
I've been thinking lately about the concept of beauty. This theme recycles through my mind quite often throughout my day as I stock shelves at Costplus World Market. Yes, there are a lot of "things" that are beautiful in the store. But my thought is more on the universal "appetite" for beautiful things and how it influences us. Both genders are infected with this thirst for "pretty things", if I can use a more feminine descriptor, here. For example:
Whether we choose to possess such things by staring long, taking a picture, touching the shiny object, or actually shelling out some cold, hard cash, both men and women have this "curiosity" to find beauty and hold on to it. So we collect jewelry, ties, vases, or pictures. Some of us hunt for the perfect vacation spot, the best car, or the most beautiful woman; trying out a few along the way.
Having my hands unwrap and display dozens of beautiful things each day, and refraining from buying any of them, has me pondering the purpose of beauty; or, even more accurately, the purpose of our appetite for beauty. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are many "ugly" things that I run across each day. But people buy them - and lots of them. For each of us there is this thing inside that says "That's beautiful. I want it." Maybe it's the design, the color scheme, the texture, the pattern, the combination of all of these, or even the creative function of the object that makes it attractive. Regardless, our senses tell us it is beautiful. So what is the purpose of this reaction?
My premature thoughts at this point have seemed to hover on the concept of the ethereal nature of it all. Mother of Pearl, chrome, slate, black sand, flower petals, shades of light, cloud formations; the list could go on ad infinitum. All of these substances, and the human ability to combine them in exponentially more beautiful things, reflects a characteristic of Nature that we are drawn to. But in their natural forms, all of these things are fading or impossible to "freeze in time." For example, I can take a jar of sand from the most beautiful beach in the world and put it on my shelf at home. But this can never recreate the experience of lying on that beach and watching the sunset on the final night of my honeymoon.
And at a deeper level, the diversity and complexity and simplicity (yes, both in the same object at the same time - like the luminescent skin/tentacles of a jellyfish captured in the previous video) of creation displays the vast breadth and depth of a creator that was intended to be discovered and marvelled at. To delight in a sunset or precious stone; to stand in awe at a bird or doe or whale is, in many ways, one of the most primal senses we have been given.
One does not need to be taught what beauty is. Although, you may have to teach someone to sit still long enough or quiet enough to see it. But a boy will always pick up a shiny penny or glass marble found on a sidewalk, even to his hurried mother's dismay. He will pick a handful of the most delicate, beautiful, round flowers he's ever seen, for his mother: those white pre-dandelions. A girl will chase a butterfly or try to capture a rainbow or stand in a mirror for hours playing dress-up, even "stealing" her mother's makeup if she can. And this hunt to satisfy a thirst for beauty only grows with the man/woman.
I think this longing for natural beauty can be eclipsed by or mistaken for a Hollywood image. But at the core, there is this more foundational/creational hunger to meet with God, like looking over His shoulder while he paints a sunset, or finding a buried treasure that he hid for us to discover. And when we find it, or when we see it, we see the fingerprints of the One who shaped us as well. Simply, I believe the reason for our appetite to consume/possess beauty comes from the fact that God created beautiful things. And when we find it, it is like finding Him. And only when we leave this material world will be be able to hold this ethereal substance.
A woman may be seduced by a silver trinket or piece of jewelry just as much as a man is captivated by chrome trim on a car or a titanium-plated anything. A woman can find the deep red of a lipstick or evening gown just as tempting as a man finds a candy-apple red Corvette or a woman in a red evening gown. A woman can be drawn to the azure blue of a glass vase full of Irises or the relaxing waters of an island vacation just as much as a man can be mesmerized by a true blue silk tie or the stunning sparkle of a woman's blue eyes.
Whether we choose to possess such things by staring long, taking a picture, touching the shiny object, or actually shelling out some cold, hard cash, both men and women have this "curiosity" to find beauty and hold on to it. So we collect jewelry, ties, vases, or pictures. Some of us hunt for the perfect vacation spot, the best car, or the most beautiful woman; trying out a few along the way.
Having my hands unwrap and display dozens of beautiful things each day, and refraining from buying any of them, has me pondering the purpose of beauty; or, even more accurately, the purpose of our appetite for beauty. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are many "ugly" things that I run across each day. But people buy them - and lots of them. For each of us there is this thing inside that says "That's beautiful. I want it." Maybe it's the design, the color scheme, the texture, the pattern, the combination of all of these, or even the creative function of the object that makes it attractive. Regardless, our senses tell us it is beautiful. So what is the purpose of this reaction?
My premature thoughts at this point have seemed to hover on the concept of the ethereal nature of it all. Mother of Pearl, chrome, slate, black sand, flower petals, shades of light, cloud formations; the list could go on ad infinitum. All of these substances, and the human ability to combine them in exponentially more beautiful things, reflects a characteristic of Nature that we are drawn to. But in their natural forms, all of these things are fading or impossible to "freeze in time." For example, I can take a jar of sand from the most beautiful beach in the world and put it on my shelf at home. But this can never recreate the experience of lying on that beach and watching the sunset on the final night of my honeymoon.
And at a deeper level, the diversity and complexity and simplicity (yes, both in the same object at the same time - like the luminescent skin/tentacles of a jellyfish captured in the previous video) of creation displays the vast breadth and depth of a creator that was intended to be discovered and marvelled at. To delight in a sunset or precious stone; to stand in awe at a bird or doe or whale is, in many ways, one of the most primal senses we have been given.
One does not need to be taught what beauty is. Although, you may have to teach someone to sit still long enough or quiet enough to see it. But a boy will always pick up a shiny penny or glass marble found on a sidewalk, even to his hurried mother's dismay. He will pick a handful of the most delicate, beautiful, round flowers he's ever seen, for his mother: those white pre-dandelions. A girl will chase a butterfly or try to capture a rainbow or stand in a mirror for hours playing dress-up, even "stealing" her mother's makeup if she can. And this hunt to satisfy a thirst for beauty only grows with the man/woman.
I think this longing for natural beauty can be eclipsed by or mistaken for a Hollywood image. But at the core, there is this more foundational/creational hunger to meet with God, like looking over His shoulder while he paints a sunset, or finding a buried treasure that he hid for us to discover. And when we find it, or when we see it, we see the fingerprints of the One who shaped us as well. Simply, I believe the reason for our appetite to consume/possess beauty comes from the fact that God created beautiful things. And when we find it, it is like finding Him. And only when we leave this material world will be be able to hold this ethereal substance.
Defined by Negatives
It seems this presidential cycle has labels flying around based on who people WON'T vote for. If you won't vote for Hillary, you must be a chauvanist. If you won't vote for Obama, you must be a racist, etc. Well, let me set the record straight for myself:
Just so we're clear, there are reasons I am not voting for these candidates that have nothing to do with their unique identity markers. As Luther said: "I'd rather be governed by a competent Turk than in incompetent Christian." But beyond this, I am looking for a leader of this great nation who is a conservative that understands the limits of government and the true condition of human nature and is willing to stand up to remind people of both as opposed to the easy solution of letting a big government take control of a fallen people. Fred Thompson is that man!
I would vote for a woman any day - just not Hillary Clinton (where is our Margaret Thatcher?). It has nothing to do with her gender as much as her platform(s) [and I'm not talking about her shoes]. I would vote for a black man any day - just not Barack Obama (come on Colin Powel or Thomas Sowell!). It has nothing to do with his race as much as his lack of substance [and no, this is not hinting at the blasphemy of blacks being partially human (2/3) as reflected in the constitution]. I would vote for a Baptist any day - just not Mike Huckabee (what about Albert Mohler?). It has nothing to do with his faith as much as his heresy [This IS hinting at his statement that the reason he got into politics and left the ministry is because he was tired of "sitting in the bleachers" when it came to helping people and wanted to get in the game and "get his jersey dirty". The fact that a man who believes the Gospel of Christ is only a spectator's cheer, but that politics is "real work" toward helping others is shocking. Government is not the answer to ANY social/human problem, Mr Huckabee!].
Just so we're clear, there are reasons I am not voting for these candidates that have nothing to do with their unique identity markers. As Luther said: "I'd rather be governed by a competent Turk than in incompetent Christian." But beyond this, I am looking for a leader of this great nation who is a conservative that understands the limits of government and the true condition of human nature and is willing to stand up to remind people of both as opposed to the easy solution of letting a big government take control of a fallen people. Fred Thompson is that man!
The Wisdom of Walls
"We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff's edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased." ~ G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, p. 53.
Welcome to 2008! Sorry it's taken me so long to start posting again after the holiday craze. I honestly have been trying to figure out what would be the best thing to say in order to start 2008 out right. I came across this quote on Between Two Worlds and it resolved my contemplation.
At the beginning of 2007 I felt pressed to meditate on Jeremiah 6:16 "...Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls...." The thought of ancient ways, things that have been known/done for a very long time, brought to my mind the Old Testament commands to never move an ancient boundary stone (Dt 19:14; Job 24:2; Hos 5:10). There was a border, a boundary line that was established by ancestors (sometimes through God's command) long ago. These limits, these ancient paths, reveal a wisdom that has been forgotten over the years. And when we forget (or have never been told) why something was "off limits", we generally tend to doubt its value/trustworthiness and plow headlong past it. But in the moment of decision, at the crossroads of life, the wisest thing we can do is seek the ancient ways. There was a reason the wall was built. There are reasons that pillar was placed there. And lest we bring the roof down on our own heads, we better ask someone who knows before we tear it down to make way for the "new and improved."
Proverbs 8 is a wonderful backdrop to Jeremiah 6. Here we see that "Wisdom" takes her stand "where the paths meet" on the heights along the way (v.2). Later, in verses 27ff, we read that Wisdom was with God "when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth." Wisdom witnessed the work of God in making his creation "very good." God gave the natural world limits and boundaries. There is a right place for everything. It was good that the waters were given a shoreline to not cross over. It was good that the clouds where given a line beyond which they could not descend. And whenever the boundaries are breached in the natural world, destruction is close at hand!
So, where are the human boundaries? I wish I could say they were common-sensical. But today common sense is not so common. So Wisdom must show us the way. Proverbs 1:7 tells us "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." To fear the Lord is a choice (Pr 1:29). To acknowledge that I am not God and I don't know the right way, but He does, is where it all starts. Then, looking for the boundary stones and listening for the commands to "go no further" will help us navigate the ancient paths. Some of these stones are clearly visible and we must simply discipline ourselves to avoid crossing the line. Some are not so clear and the voice of God's Spirit will lead us carefully through the minefields of destruction if we continue to submit ourselves to His supremacy.
Sex is great! But there is a right place for it. When God says "No", we must trust Him that going beyond his boundary will only bring destruction. Rest is a precious gift! But after a while it turns to slothfulness, which only brings poverty. You pick the activity, the good things in this life, the things that bring some people happiness, and to all of these things there are limits. There are boundaries that Wisdom tells us should not be crossed for our own safety, life, and joy. Just like G.K. Chesterton's illustration, we must confess that God's boundaries are good, yea even very good. There is wisdom in the walls. There is freedom to frolic BECAUSE of the fence.
So as I consider 2008, my thoughts move from the boundary stones and ancient paths (most of which I am aware of when I really search my soul) to walking in the way of Wisdom. What disciplines do I need to re-enforce? What habits to I need to put effort toward breaking or making? What limits have I crossed in my selfish pursuit that must be repented of? Wisdom cries aloud:
"To you, O men, I call out; I raise my voice to all mankind. You who are simple, gain prudence; you who are foolish, gain understanding. Listen, for I have worthy things to say; I open my lips to speak what is right" (Prov 8:4-6).
Finding a Church
Unfortunately, the church has “grown” from the New Testament picture of mostly homogeneous house churches scattered around a city, all connected by a common leadership and doctrine. Nowadays, any preacher with a vinyl sign and a school auditorium or empty storefront can start a church formatted in his own image and emphasizing the doctrinal flavor of the day. And with free/cheap websites available for broad consumption, a technically savvy volunteer can make the church appear like the most dynamic, warm, authentic, and attractive place in town, complete with stock photos. As I am continuing to assess what I should be looking for as I visit churches, here are some bullet points I have come up with to help organize my own thoughts.
Consider the Marketing – First impressions can be wrong, but the way a church “sells” itself to its community is pretty insightful. In many ways the name, website or radio ads reveal foundational principles or priorities of the local body (or at least the leadership). A church slogan like “A church for people who don’t like church!” gives some glimpse into what you might find in the presentation of the gospel, the personality of the congregation, or the format for how sacraments might be handled. A church name/sign like “The River – Catch the Flow” may be very contemporary, but says something about the emphasis of this congregation that you may or may not want to participate in. These first impressions do reveal foundational principles that are helpful in the search.
Evaluate the Theology – This is actually easier and more difficult than it sounds. It’s easier based on the first point above, now that many churches have caught the marketing bug. You can tell if a church is “seeker friendly” or “Reformed” or “Charismatic” based on many key words used in their advertisements. On the other hand, it can be more difficult because just about every Evangelical church uses the same “Doctrinal Statement” in their literature. Unfortunately, words mean different things to different people and the sweeping theological truths attested to in such statements can be lived out very differently even among members of the same congregation. At the end of the day, this may be more of an art than a science whereby you just have to “feel it out” and see which versions of “solid Biblical preaching” or how firmly the view of “saved by grace through faith alone” is held and communicated.
Observe the Practice – What type of outreach or ministries or programs is the church focusing their resources on? When these opportunities are communicated, what value is placed on them? What basis is given for the outreach? How is the program staffed and supported? How is the call for involvement/participation communicated? These types of questions will give you a sense of what is important and how the body is motivated to do what it does. It’s a lot like the old adage: “If you want to know where someone’s heart is, just look at their check book.” This is particularly significant considering the next point.
Find a Ministry – Is there a way for you to contribute to the body? I’m sure just about every church could use help in the nursery or teaching the Jr High boys Sunday School. But ultimately this may not be a good fit. I have been involved in ministry in previous churches and know what opportunities I am most comfortable in. As you visit, it would probably be helpful to know what spiritual gifts and talents you have and how you might be able to participate in the ministry of the local body. As you evaluate the church, find out if there are opportunities for you to use your gifts. It may not be a good fit if you feel led to start a worship dance team and you are considering the Reformed Church on the corner. There may not be a homeless ministry, but if you feel led and gifted in such an outreach, find out if the church is open to having you start one once you’ve been active enough for the leadership to know you. If there already is a place where your gifts can be used, find out as much as you can about it.
Introduce your Friends – The one element I have been considering as I visit churches is “Would I feel comfortable inviting a non-Christian to this church?” I believe this is important because we are called to make disciples. As I rub shoulders at my work place or in my community with non-believers, I want to be involved in a church that I can unreservedly introduce them to where they can grow in their faith if they come to know Christ. The church is about people and is meant to grow. You don’t want to be a member of a church but have to recommend a church across town to your co-workers. The logical question is “So why don’t you attend that church?”
Yes, I know there is no perfect church. I also know that I may have to agree to be stretched in my own practice of my faith as I consider plugging into a new church. There may be styles of worship, denominational practices, personality quirks of the pastor, or other issues that I have to ignore or embrace as I seek to live in community. But “testing” a church before committing to it is a wise thing. After all, it is there that your faith will be fed or starved, your character strengthened or defected, and your knowledge and image of Christ clarified or deformed. As you fight for your own faith, it is critical that you use discernment and caution, especially when choosing a community of faith.
Everybody Loves a Baby
And that’s the problem with how most churches present Christmas. Now hear me out. I have been involved in those dramas with Mary and Joseph and baby Jesus, the wise men, shepherds, etc. I love the songs that sing about that “silent night” and the “round y’on virgin”. But there’s a problem with this marketing campaign – if I may be so crass as to call it that. Let me explain.
First, the details of the birth of Christ are included in Scripture to lend credence to his Messiahship. The prophecies that were fulfilled, the strangers that witnessed it from various demographic groups, the miracles that surrounded it – all were important details to confirm that Jesus was the Messiah. He is who He said he was and witnesses of his life and ministry took care to document the many details to substantiate this claim and to solidify our faith.
Second, the significance of a baby being born is commonplace compared to the true weight of what is happening – God becoming human. The incarnation is that theological truth and historical miracle greater than any other that this holiday marks. The virgin birth is significant because God was “being born” and not just another prophet or important world leader. God was taking on human form. And how God in human flesh could be 100% God and 100% man extends past most human comprehension. But this fact alone makes everything else that happens effective. If Christ was not human and God his life, obedience, temptation, sinlessness, miracles, death, and resurrection would all be irrelevant to me.
But when we focus on a baby, so pure and innocent, so unjustly persecuted even from birth, we can provoke immediate emotional responses of care, pity, compassion, warmth, affection, etc, etc. People will tolerate, and even enjoy, the story of Christmas because it’s about a baby after all. And who doesn’t love a baby. And we can give people goose bumps by portraying the hardship of Mary and Joseph traveling so far and finding no room in the inn. We can stir up their pity for a child being born in a stable with animals. We can give them Disney versions of wise men with camels and treasure and flying carpets and genies (well not quite, but it does look close to Aladdin with its fantasy and magic). It can almost seem so disconnected from the true significance of an eternal God taking on human flesh and becoming, in the wisdom of God, our mediator and savior.
Can you imagine parents reenacting the birth of their children every year on their child’s birthday: the joy of the pink plus sign on the pregnancy test, the shopping for blue or pink clothing, setting up a crib, getting the nursery together, the water breaking, the doctor’s slap on the bottom and the cry of breath for the very first time, etc. Now that the child is 10, 15, 18, 21 the parents retell the same story and dramatize it for all his friends before blowing out the candles on the cake. It kind of misses the point even of a human birth. The celebration is about the person, their life and significance in the family, etc. The “event” of the birth was just the beginning. There is so much more to celebrate. And so it is with Jesus.
Christmas is about Emmanuel – God with us. It is about a Savior being born (not just a baby). It is about joy for the entire world because this human would redeem and liberate us precisely because he was also God. The weight of these truths can so easily be lost when we just talk about a baby.
So this Christmas season I challenge you to meditate on the Incarnation – the flesh-wearing God, the Eternal human, the God-man. I also challenge you to be vigilant as you experience this season with all the other messages (from the Christian world) that may seduce you to simply feel nurturing or pity or any lesser emotional reaction related to the earthly elements of this divine drama.
Cultural Insights from 1947
The pastor made reference to this assessment of cultural decline by Carle Zimmerman on Sunday. I had never heard it before and was truly struck by its acuity. I found the exact paragraph quoted in this article in The Good News.
These eight planks form a very broad and urgent platform for those advocating for the family in our culture today. It is amazing to see this in the full light of 60 years of "progress" in America.
Sociologist and historian Carle Zimmerman, in his 1947 book Family and Civilization, recorded his observations as he compared the disintegration of various cultures with their parallel decline of family life:
"Eight specific patterns of domestic behavior typified the downward spiral of each culture Zimmerman studied: Marriage lost its sacredness [and] is frequently broken by divorce; traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony is lost; feminist movements abound; there is increased public disrespect for parents and authority in general; an acceleration of juvenile delinquency, promiscuity and rebellion occur; there is refusal of people with traditional marriages to accept family responsibilities; a growing desire for, and acceptance of, adultery is evident; there is increasing interest in, and spread of, sexual perversions and sex-related crimes" (quoted in Confident Living, November 1987, p. 34).
Boys Without Men
I have had several venues of exposure to this topic lately: one was a podcast by Al Mohler, the other a radio program by Dennis Prager. The consensus is that boys who don't have a positive male influence in their lives either grow up to be effeminate men or "exaggerated" men. There is the womanized male or the male who has never learned to deal responsibly with his testosterone, his strength, or his passion, and therefore overplays them (this can be most noticeable in thuggish behavior).
Ultimately, boys need men. Prager asked the question "When do boys meet men?" There are predominately female teachers, female social workers, and female authority figures throughout their formative years including high school. So when do boys meet men? It would be nice if we could say they meet them in church. But Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, and various other church figures are a majority female (at least the ones a child/youth would interact with).
He even expressed how he felt boys clubs should not let mothers lead or be involved (Den Mothers in the Boy Scouts, for example). In order for a male to learn how to be a man, there has to be a man show him. If a male learns only from a woman, or from another boy, the results are less than admirable.
Mohler referenced a Liberal British Newspaper report on the effects of fatherless males in their country - the results were not pretty. The bottom line is not that boys need a dad, as much as they need older males to grow them into men. Single mothers (as a result of hundreds of reasons) have hard jobs raising boys. And some fathers are negative influences in boys lives. But neither of these issues negate the fact that it takes a male to turn a boy into a man that is healthy and mature.
Christian men: Step up! And not just with your own kids.
Ultimately, boys need men. Prager asked the question "When do boys meet men?" There are predominately female teachers, female social workers, and female authority figures throughout their formative years including high school. So when do boys meet men? It would be nice if we could say they meet them in church. But Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, and various other church figures are a majority female (at least the ones a child/youth would interact with).
He even expressed how he felt boys clubs should not let mothers lead or be involved (Den Mothers in the Boy Scouts, for example). In order for a male to learn how to be a man, there has to be a man show him. If a male learns only from a woman, or from another boy, the results are less than admirable.
Mohler referenced a Liberal British Newspaper report on the effects of fatherless males in their country - the results were not pretty. The bottom line is not that boys need a dad, as much as they need older males to grow them into men. Single mothers (as a result of hundreds of reasons) have hard jobs raising boys. And some fathers are negative influences in boys lives. But neither of these issues negate the fact that it takes a male to turn a boy into a man that is healthy and mature.
Christian men: Step up! And not just with your own kids.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
