Winging It

I recently overheard a conversation. Two older gentlemen (they were at separate tables, so they had likely just met) were discussing politics. They were both Vietnam vets (part of the conversation). One was telling the other about what political views he should have. The other was nodding. "Oh, I didn't know that." And I thought, "Is that it? You just met this guy. Are you simply going to take his word for it?" You might think you'd never do such a thing. You might be able to admit you would. Change "fellow veteran" to "fellow Christian" and you'll likely see my point. If the person to whom you're speaking has identified himself or herself as a fellow believer, you're much more likely to take them at face value despite knowing the vast array of perspectives covered under the umbrella called "Christian."

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines knowledge -- How do we know what we know? There are lots of other places out there that examine what we know. This particular branch asks you to try to understand how you know. It doesn't care if you understand that 2 x 3 = 6. It asks, "How do you know that it is true?" Take a walk through epistemology sometime. You'll find wonderful terms like JTB ("justified true belief") (and using "justified" in a completely different sense than we do), evidentialism, reliabilism, and Deontological Justification. Yeah, it's a completely different language there.

One might think the pursuit is too esoteric (although you likely wouldn't use that word ... or any of the other words they are using), but if you think about it for a moment, you can realize its importance. We have all heard, for instance, "Seeing is believing." We've also heard, "Don't believe everything you hear." These are epistemological statements. And we know that some of what we hear can (even must) be believed and some of what we see cannot (must not) be believed. So the question is asked, "How do you know?" There are some who argue the notion of "fallibility", the belief that nothing can be truly known -- a kind of epistemological fatalism. But we obviously know things. So ... how do you know?

I played a stupid game when I was in junior high school. It didn't matter what anyone said -- I'd respond with "Prove it!" As long as I kept responding with "Prove it!" I made it impossible for them to prove anything. You see, I rejected any argument. I was a junior high fallibility proponent. Of course, it was just a game (My mom made me stop when the girl in the carpool said, "I'm a girl" and I responded, "Prove it!"), but it's not so much a game today. There are more and more voices out there arguing exactly that: "How do you know?" How do you know that Christianity is true? How do you know that Intelligent Design is true? How do you know that homosexuality is a sin? How do you know that abortion is wrong? What makes you think you know anything at all? So we might point to a Bible verse and they respond, "Prove it!"

The problem, of course, is that very few (if any) know how they know what they know. Every single one of us has come to conclusions. Every one of us believe our conclusions. We are convinced that we're right. It is the nature of knowing. Oh, we might be able to be convinced that we're wrong at times, but there is lots of stuff that we know is true without even knowing why. Explaining why may not always be easy. Explaining why to the satisfaction of those who disagree may very well be impossible.

The odd thing in all of this, of course, is that those who are shouting "Prove it!" are somehow exempt from their own rules. They are disagreeing with some position or another and demanding proof. They are not, for some reason, required to provide proof of their own position. If they do offer reasons why they think that way, you aren't allowed to question it. They'll simply tell you, "We've provided all the proof you need." That's good enough for them, but not good enough for you. Why is that? In other words, despite the protests against the reliability of what Christians know, everyone has to live under the same question:: "How do you know?"

I think that too many Christians today don't know why they believe what they believe. I think it would be highly beneficial to them to find out. Ask the hard questions. Find the answers. There are lots of good sources. But keep in mind, everyone has the same problem -- we can always question what is believed. And keep in mind that no matter how good your answers, you will always find the skeptic who shouts, "Prove it!" and no answer will suffice. Just be ready.

We all like to think that art simply illustrates life, but we all know, if we're honest, that, especially in our day, much of life imitates art. Our ideas are constantly being shaped by our television shows and movies. It is certainly not the other way around. The artists that make our programs and productions take their opportunities to tell you what they want you to hear, and we eat it up because, well, like a drug, we're addicted.

You can certainly see where they've taken us in the last couple of decades. Take, for instance, Murphy Brown. The show ran for ten years from 1988 to 1998. Candace Bergen played a reporter for a TV news show. She was tough and hard and hard to get along with. But the show made headlines when Murphy got pregnant and had a baby. Vice President Dan Quayle made headlines criticizing the show for glorifying single mothers and minimizing fathers. Of course, Hollywood, not to be outdone (and certainly not to quibble about morality) made a show the next season celebrating "the diversity of families" and people cheered, not for Quayle but for Hollywood. Yeah, we get it. All this outdated morality is not necessary. We get it.

How about Will & Grace? Aired from 1998 to 2006, the show was about Grace, an interior designer, and Will ... well, Will is gay. No, it wasn't a side issue. The show was centered on a gay guy. You see, we need to take this seriously. We need to know that it's every day, normal, acceptable, even good. No missed messages there.

There are lots of messages going on in lots of shows. Hollywood and its subsidiaries are working hard to make our lives imitate their art. From our morality (or lack thereof) to our perspectives to our political views, they are working hard to change how we think ... and they are largely succeeding.

Have you noticed lately what they're doing with our image of women? Sure, there are the classical "sex object" approaches. They haven't gone away. They still like to suggest on a practically hourly basis (or more) that buying whatever product exists on the market will make guys popular with women. No one is suggesting anymore that June Cleaver is a role model. She's not a good idea. She never was. What were you thinking? What is Hollywood replacing her with? To me, it's a frightening female.

Look around the world of movies and TV and you'll come up with what to me was an unexpected composite woman. You'll find her in the movies in roles like Lara Croft. You'll see her in television series like The Women's Murder Club or TNT's Saving Grace. This is not your standard Donna Reed. No, this is something different. In The Women's Murder Club, Angie Harmon plays a homicide detective. She has friends. There is an assistant D.A. and a medical examiner and they are joined by a newspaper reporter. They're on odd group, each willing to break whatever rules they need to break to get to whatever results they want to get. They have no sexual ethics. They aren't limited to marriage or love or anything like that. And they're viewed as heroic because they get their man or convict their criminal or ... whatever it is they're supposed to do. In Saving Grace, Holly Hunter is a hard-nosed cop with personal problems. She drinks too much and her life is a mess and God steps in to help her. That's fine ... but the show is built on the premise that she's perfectly willing to do battle with God.

These are just examples. You'll find them all over movies and the TV. They are the new woman. She's not particularly feminine anymore. She's certainly not a homemaker. She's tough and, frankly, mean. She can be very nice to you if you are nice to her, but she'll cut you to ribbons if she feels like it. If Hollywood has its way, it looks like tomorrow's woman will be ... well ... much more like a man. She will sleep with whomever she wants without any commitments or even emotion. She'll rush in where angels fear to tread, guns blazing, and save the day. Who needs men anyway?

At some point do we ask the question, "Do we really want to let the media dictate our thinking for us?" I don't, but I'm feeling like an outsider looking in on this.

We're in a struggle these days in America. The country was originally based on what is commonly called "the Judeo-Christian ethic". It wasn't uncommon for laws to be derived from biblical sources. Even if laws weren't called directly out of the Bible, there was a common morality in this country that was based, primarily, on that same ethic. We, of course, have evolved pass that point. In 1947 Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used the phrase "separation of church and state" and the concept stuck. The division has advanced so far today that the perception is largely "You can believe what you want, but don't bring it into the public square." Having removed religion (Christian or otherwise) from any right to provide input to laws and morality, we have radically and quickly modified our morality as a society. In terms of moral perspectives, what was "evil" yesterday is "normal" today. What was "normal" yesterday is "archaic" today. Having removed any mooring in something solid, we're drifting, morally speaking. Now, I'm not trying to argue or bemoan anything at this point. I'm just telling you where we are.

At some point we have to ask, "Who gets to decide?" We've had examples of bad laws that get changed. Civil rights issues have come up and positive changes have occurred. Excellent. Women's rights issues have come up and laws have changed. Very good. It is undeniable that there have been bad laws on the books and that some of those bad laws have been changed or removed for good reason. There are other changes, however, that I would argue aren't so good. But we have to ask, "Who gets to decide?"

The Spanish Parliament recently passed a resolution that the great apes should be provided "human rights". Spain is not the first. New Zealand passed such a resolution back in 1999. Other countries are following down that path. It's the product of a campaign called The Great Ape Project based largely on the work of Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer. They argue that, just as racism and sexism were bad, so also is "speciesism" -- discrimination on the basis of species. So while Singer, for instance, sees no problem with killing or using human beings for medical testing if those humans are incapacitated (please read up on Dr. Singer to more completely understand his position -- I'm being brief here), he is anxious to extend protection to apes that he won't extend to those humans. And Dr. Singer's view on the apes has prevailed.

At some point we have to ask, "Who gets to decide?" If we strip off religion, for instance, on what do we base the notion of "human rights"? You can't use science. Evolution simply proves that we're all part of a common growth, so to speak. Evolution will support "all creatures are of no ultimate value" just as easily as "all creatures are of equal value." And if the concept of "human rights" has no real basis, on what do we base any sense of specialness to apes? It seems that we're arguing for religious values without allowing religious voices.

So we have to ask, "Who gets to decide?" Christians would like to say, "We do! We're right!", but that is obviously ... well ... not largely accepted. The more common answer would be "The majority does!" That carries its own problems. If the majority, for instance, is racist, then we have a majority making racist laws. That's not good. America's government structure with its checks and balances is nice, but it isn't foolproof. Congress is still capable of passing bad laws. The President is still capable of signing bad bills into law. And we all know that the court system is fully capable of legislating from the bench, as in California recently where they not only ruled that a law prohibiting the marriage of homosexual couples was unconstitutional, but also told the state that they had to resume marriages in 30 days. That's not merely ruling on a question; that's legislating.

But I'm still stuck here. Who gets to decide? We've determined that Christians (any religion) don't get to decide. We've proven that a majority rule isn't the best choice. We know that a representative government is still fully capable of making bad rules. So who gets to decide? If we eliminate the voices of the religious, the voices of the majority, and the voices of the government, what are we left with? It seems as if the best possible choice we can come up with is ... anarchy.

No, that's not the best option. Could it be that we already eliminated a better choice?

Does America hate children? Worse ... do Christians hate children? Of course we don't! I doubt you'll find anyone who would admit that we do. In fact, they will argue that what we're seeing is a love for kids. I really have to wonder.

Since I am fully aware that the world is under the bondage of sin, I'm going to focus my attention primarily on Christians. And I'm going to go first to the place that this should be happening the least -- in church. How many churches today do not allow little children in the service? If they do, it is only for the "worship time" and then they are released to "children's church." Why is that? It's a relatively new phenomenon. We didn't have children's church when I was a kid. We sat in church. What changed?

The reasoning will tell you what changed. The reason that young children are either wholly or partially excluded from the church service is that they are disruptive. It's as simple as that. They yell and scream and squirm and run around. They distract people. Depending on your particular conviction, their distraction is possibly enough to upset worship and definitely sufficient to divert attention from the sermon. People go to church to worship and learn; children prevent that. Therefore, it is obvious that youngsters must go.

We're paying a heavy price for this fact. In the world, children lack discipline. As a result, teachers cannot teach. Education declines. A single teacher could once easily manage a class of 35 well-behaved children, but such children today are almost non-existent. So education suffers. And it's not just education. People tend to cringe when children show up because they're disruptive everywhere. They scream at movies. They yell in grocery stores. Parents are wrestling with them in the aisles at WalMart (or whatever other store you care to name). They're disturbing the meal at the restaurant that you're already paying too much for. Children gone wild are disrupting not merely the church services -- they're disrupting the world.

What happened? When I was a kid we didn't get the option of yelling in the grocery store or running in the aisles at church or screaming at the teacher. But generations of parents have step by step surrendered control to their offspring. They think it is "loving" somehow to let their children reign. They bemoan their plight. "What am I supposed to do? I can't get them to do what I want." And I scratch my head and wonder "Aren't you the adult?"

I don't think I'm surprising anyone here or saying anything controversial. I think we're all aware that children are not as well-disciplined as they were two or three generations ago. But what about my accusation: Does America hate children? I would argue that what we're doing to our kids today is modern child abuse. They need to be taught morals and we abdicate the job. They need to be taught self-discipline and we decline. They need to be given rules -- how to get along with others in a civilized society -- and we refuse. Why? Primarily because it's just too much work. We buy the lie that parents are supposed to be their kids' best friends. It's a lie. We agree with the nonsense that kids shouldn't have guidance. We think that godly discipline in narrow minded and archaic. (It isn't just the world that is arguing that corporal punishment is child abuse ... despite what the Bible says.) And we think, for some unknown reason, that our children should always like us. So we -- the ones that are supposed to be older and wiser -- surrender to the "wisdom" of the child. We Christians know that discipline is necessary and discipline is uncomfortable (Heb. 12:11), but we absolutely refuse. And children continue to decline. They know more than we did when we were their age, but they mature much, much later ... if at all ... because parents, including Christian parents, abuse their children with neglect, fear, and self-centeredness. Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer couples are interested in having children?

Training our children is one of the singularly most important jobs as Christians. It ought to be one of the primary tasks of the Church to be teaching parents how to do that, involving themselves in the process, and holding them accountable. Instead, churches cater to their failures and create ... children's church, the tip of a very, very big iceberg that threatens to sink the unsinkable Titanic we call "civilization".

Psalm 139:14 starts out with that phrase: "I will praise Thee." What is it that has David's attention? "I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are Thy works." Feel free to examine any other translation. They all say the same basic thing. We are, indeed, wonderfully made, and, for the most part, we aren't even aware of it.

Medical science can tell you a lot of the ins and outs of your construction. They can tell you about your eyes, how they're comprised of lenses and sensors and how the brain receives this information and interprets it as real-time vision. They can tell you about your circulatory system complete with self-regulating pumping heart, self-regulating breathing lungs, and the blood with its vast cardiovascular system, nutrients, oxygen, and other life-essential components. They can tell you about muscles and how they work. They can tell you about your skeletal system and its necessary role in the body. They can tell you about your brain ... well, some things. That is quite a bit more complicated than they can currently figure out.

I mean no disrespect to science. Despite our vast amount of information and our advanced methods of measurement and analysis, there is still just too much going on in the body to actually understand it. We have made great strides in some areas, but we're still unclear. That's because we are fearfully and wonderfully made. That's because our Designer is so vastly beyond His design. What happens when hormones are unbalanced? What happens when genes shift? Where in the brain is the memory? How do we access it? What causes those occasional malfunctions? How does the body repair itself? We have some answers, but not all. That's because we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

So, here's what I suggest. If you have a body and you know the One who made it, regardless of its current condition, how about if you spend time today joining with David? "I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are Thy works." It is a magnificent place to be.

"Mom! He's doing it again!" Yes, Al Gore is at it again, calling on the U.S. to have every kilowatt of power we produce be fossil-fuel free by 2018. At the cost of $3 trillion, he is planning on fixing our global warming problem. Now, if sarcasm bothers you, go read the news item and don't bother reading further ...

[Begin sarcasm]

The world is coming to an end ... soon. I think we all know that. Global warming, an indisputable scientific fact (now, now, don't go pointing to scientists with scientific data that disputes it ... that's not science), is caused by humans and is so very bad that it has ceased to be "warming" and has simply become "climate change." If we don't stop it now, life on this planet as we know it will end ... soon.

So, what is the cause of the problem? "Well, it's carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels." No, no, that doesn't help. First, science can't actually draw a corollary between carbon dioxide levels and climate change as a cause-and-effect item. No, be specific. Okay, first you must realize that the United States is the real problem. Other countries are problematic, to be sure, but it is us, the U.S., that is to blame. So what is happening in the U.S. to bring about the end of the world? Well, it seems that 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions come from fossil fuel powered electricity, with 93% of those coming from coal. (For the record, then, Problem #1: Electric Power.) Next on the list is the emissions of internal combustion engines, comprising 33% of our carbon dioxide emissions. (That means Problem #2: Automobiles.) After that there is a decreased but significant problem with emissions from airplanes followed by emissions from buildings. (I'm sorry ... I don't know what that means. I'm just reporting what I found.) (Let's ignore "buildings" since I don't know what it means and say Problem #3: Airplanes.) A big part of the "greenhouse gases" is water vapor. Sorry ... not much we can do there. Indeed, they're not really sure if it's good or bad. Moving on. Nitrous Oxide is produced by oceans and rainforests, but man-made sources include nylon, fertilizers, catalytic converters, and the use of N2O for anesthetic. Apparently, though, the #2 cause of global warming is deforestation, with pollution being the primary cause. Between cutting, burning, and the loss of the forests' ability to absorb carbon dioxide, this is the second largest problem. (Sigh ... okay, let's reorder this. Problem #1: Electric Power. Problem #2: Transportation. Problem #3: Deforestation.) Now, this website lists a slightly different set of causes. 1) Pollution. 2) Human population.

Okay, we've narrowed down the causes. (Hey, back off! I know that there are loud voices in the scientific community that are in sharp disagreement with these views. Ignore those people behind the curtain. We can't be bothered with facts. Anyone who disagrees with the problem is clearly divisive, ignorant, and immoral.) So, having determined the danger (the end of the world) and the causes of the danger (humans), what are we going to do about it?

I think the solution is pretty simple. Step One: While the U.S. is obviously the primary offender (We're the primary offender in anything, aren't we?), it is equally obvious that all of the civilized world is heading in the very same direction, adding their own, albeit decreased, contributions to the problem. So, what we need to do is go bomb them into oblivion. I know ... too much smoke will be a problem. I think it's a necessary risk to bring about the kind of change we need. And we can carefully limit our targets. We need to take out oil fields, petroleum processing plants, electricity generation stations, and automobile factories. Hey, take down the power plants and you've pretty much shut down the world anyway. Step Two: Having eliminated the rest of the world, now it's our turn. Dig a really big hole and bury everything. That would include our cars, trucks, airplanes, tractors, tanks, anything that burns fossil fuels to propel it. Step Three: Put a radical and sudden end to our electricity generation. Sure, more smoke, but it will dissipate, and, trust me, the results will be the salvation of the solar system. It's worth it.

There it is ... we're done. Having terminated the use of fossil fuels, we would almost entirely eliminate pollution. With the complete disabling of the world market, we would eliminate any need for deforestation. The world-wide bombings coupled with the (short-lived but deadly) aftermath likely removes a significant portion of the population. Centralized agriculture and sprawling cities become a thing of the past because there is no means to grow, harvest, or transport food, goods, or people over large areas. Most people would likely starve, further aiding in the problem of population pollution. We'd end up with a small, communal existence, much like it was back before the Industrial Age. It will be good! And if humans die out in the process, it will be even better! We, after all, are the ultimate problem.

"Oh, come on," my detractors might argue, "that's going too far!" Well, how about an alternative? We cannot maintain the current technology and lifestyles of humans around the planet with our current methods. It has already been reported that even if the U.S. cut out all emissions entirely, within a decade the rest of the world (the Third World) would have replaced all U.S. emissions. China and India are rising rapidly with complete disregard for the environment and with larger numbers of people who will have larger needs for electricity and fuel. The only way to affect real change is to affect real change, not minor fixes. We cannot sustain cities. We cannot sustain industry. We cannot sustain transportation. We have to impact the two problems: Pollution and Human Population. I haven't yet heard a reasonable plan that would change those two items. Mine would.

So ... who's with me? How soon can we start?

[End Sarcasm]

It's what we teach our kids. You know ... the "right thing." When Aunt Martha gives him those silly slippers, you tell him, "Tell her 'thank you'." When she reaches for the cookies you tell her, "Ask first." And when he hurts his little sister, you tell him, "Tell her you're sorry."

I know we need to train our children. I know that they don't seem to naturally know these things. I know that we need to tell them to say "please" and "thank you" and all that. But I'm wondering ... do we really need to teach them to say "I'm sorry"?

Last week Jesse Jackson stepped on himself by talking into an open microphone and saying things he shouldn't have said. I didn't misspeak. He shouldn't have said them. He shouldn't have said them into an open microphone, sure, everyone gets that, but he shouldn't have said them at all. So what does he do? When he hurts his "little brother", he is told "Tell him you're sorry" ... and he does. "In this thing that I said in the hot mic statement that's interpreted as distraction, I offer an apology for that because I don't want to harm or hurt this campaign." Hear it? He's not sorry he said it. He does not apologize for accusing Obama of talking down to blacks. He doesn't recant his wish to castrate the senator from Illinois. No, he's sorry he was heard out loud. He's sorry that it is a "distraction." He's sorry that people are upset.

My point is not regarding Mr. Obama or Mr. Jackson. Jackson has simply illustrated my concern. When we teach our kids "Tell him you're sorry," what are we teaching them? We're teaching them the repentance of Esau. "I'm sorry I got caught. I'm sorry that I might endure losses. I'm hoping that if I say the right thing I won't suffer too many consequences." That's not repentance. That's not godly sorrow. That's pure, unadulterated self-interest.

What is it, on the other hand, that is absolutely, fundamentally necessary if we want our children to be saved? They have to hear the Gospel ... sure. They have to come in faith ... sure. But one absolute necessity is repentance (Luke 24:46-47; Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). Now, of course I believe that repentance is a gift (I can't read those passages on repentance and not see that). My concern is that our children will come to the place that they believe that they said, "I'm sorry" to God, knowing that if they don't, it is sure damnation, and they believe that they've obtained safe haven, salvation. Why? Because that's what we taught them.

Parents don't have an easy job. Today's world makes it even tougher. And we do indeed need to teach our children proper interaction with others. Somehow, though, we need to figure out how to teach them the difference between "I'm sorry I got caught" a la Jesse Jackson versus genuine sorrow for sin. That's a much more difficult lesson to convey.