No Apology Necessary

This past Tuesday, CERN recorded its first high-energy collisions of protons, in the hopes of discovering, among other things, the higgs boson.  The higgs boson, which has been popularized in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons as "the god particle," is a theory that hopes to discern the origins of the universe.    

This is all very intriguing to me, especially since I have every confidence that their findings will only further substantiate the claims of Intelligent Design (ID).  While I don't dogmatically hold to ID, I do think that mere logic would suppose that a "creation" requires a "Creator."  I'm sure, though, that such findings will be somehow explained away.  It is, in the end, of little concern.

What is telling, however, is the lengths some persons will go to hold to a God-less universe.  Often shrouded in intelligent incredulity, they more often than not evidence instead a will-based recalcitrance against a Supreme Being.  Though "what can be known about God is plain to them," they, nevertheless,  "do not honor Him as God" (Romans 1:18-23).  It is telling, also, to note the end result of such a stance (see previous link).

This is not to say that we should persist in demonizing atheists, which is a blight on the evangelical church.  They are no worse, for example, than he who says, "I love God," but hates his brother (1 John 4:20).  No one is able to love God, or know God, except through the agency of Jesus Christ.  Our apologetic, then, in reaching these persons should instead be to point to Christ, and their sin against Him, rather than "study up" and hope to answer every cognitive objection they have.  If Romans 1 and 2 are true, then their objections are based more on the fact that God is Judge, and we are deserving of His judgment than anything else.

Out of Focus?

Focus on the Family, whose mission is to "nurture and defend families worldwide," is one of many parachurch organizations that dot the evangelical landscape.  With an operating budget of $138 million, their aim is to come alongside (American) families and support "traditional values."  One of their primary means of accomplishing this is by being very politically active, lobbying representatives and wooing those in Washington. 

While I don't take specific issue with Focus on the Family, or its head, James Dobson, I do wonder whether their strategies are effective, or even helpful.  I am growing increasingly wary of overt political involvement, especially in the espousal of having prayer in schools, for example, since it'd be a hollow victory if even it was gained.

The means of affecting change has been, and will always be, Christ and His church.  Imagine, if you will, if that $138 million, and the untold millions raked in by similar ministries, were divested instead to the struggling churches throughout the world?  What if we took our monies and focused on God's family, not our own, to "make His name known among the nations" (Psalms 67:2), giving instead to solid missionary works?  Even in my own (beloved) denomination, we could invest even more monies in missionary endeavors if there weren't so much overhead and administrative costs. 

Of course, that begs the question whether the churches would step up and advocate for the family, for missions, etc.  However, in my experience, a need can't be met unless it's a grave one, and if these parachurch organizations were to pull out, I fully suspect that God's people would step up and be His ambassadors through His church.

In my humble opinion, for what it's worth.

The Manhattan Declaration

Much has been said already regarding the Manhattan Declaration, at least in my circles.  I'm not here to comment, then, on whether it's "too ecumenical," since Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical "Christians" have all worked together to put it forth, and are imploring those they represent to sign the document.  Nor do I care to argue its three primary tenets, which are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty

I take no issue with the Declaration, nor its signatories.  I heartily agree, in fact, with the stand it is espousing, and would likely sign it myself, if I felt that it would do any good.  Herein lies the problem, though, at least for me.  What, exactly, do statements such as this actually accomplish?  Anything?  Obviously, it's too early to tell.  Basing itself upon the pattern of resistance espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King, it certainly hearkens back to effective strategies, and so may very well prove to be one itself. 

Nevertheless, if all we do as concerned "Christians" is make public declarations and political stands, then I fear we have sorely "missed the boat" as to how Christ our Head would effect change.  I fear so often that we are known more for that which we oppose than for the positive and visible changes we are making in our own immediate context.

For example, can we really argue for the sanctity of human life, when our rate of birth is no higher than our pro-choice counterparts?  While we would never resort to abortion for an "accidental" pregnancy, don't we proactively work to avoid them with various contraceptives, some of which may actually even have abortive qualities?  

And, if we do take issue with abortive mothers, which we should, shouldn't we also be ready and willing to adopt these unwanted children into our own homes, as an expression of love and as a demonstration of our own adoption into God's family?

Certainly, there are those among us who are pursuing adoption, and are striving to be above reproach in their use of contraceptives.  They should be commended.  And there is definite allowance for ignorance on these matters, for sure. 

My point is this.  We've cried for decades about the moral degradation of our nation, and have worked politically to have our voice heard through means of the Religious Right, the Moral Majority, etc.  It hasn't worked.  Perhaps we would do well to get "back to the basics," and strive to be a "peculiar people," as "strangers in a foreign land" (1 Peter 2:9-12).  We are to look wholly/holy different from the world in which we live, and until we do, we are "spitting into the wind," I fear. 

Suffer the Little Children

It was with profound joy that I participated in my church's Thanksgiving service this week, as many of our folks were able to testify of God's rich blessings in their life. Repeatedly, we heard how faithful He had been, how He had answered prayers, how He Himself has secured for us redemption in Christ, who is our greatest treasure. Peculiar among the testimonies, however, were those of two of our younger couples.

They both shared how it was not in their plans to (ever) have kids, since it brought on certain financial difficulties, inhibited freedom, etc. These testimonies were very poignant and honest, and they resonated with me since I was of that mindset not too long ago.

My wife and I are, as you can see, blessed with one of the most precious baby girls in all the world, and yet at the prospect of having her, I first recoiled. Leigh, my wife, was anxious to have a child within only a year of our marrying, and I still had so much more I wanted to do and accomplish before I was burdened with a little crying mouth to feed.

It took me quite a while to recognize my inherent selfishness in these motives. And, while I've yet to accomplish (fully) some of those things I wished to do, and Leigh and I have to be careful not to allow our daughter, Kristine, to distract us from one another, I have not been inhibited in any noticeable way by having our firstborn. In fact, the world has only opened up in far greater magnitude than it ever revealed itself to me before.

Certainly, if we are called to singleness, we are to follow that route with an unflagging pursuit of God's glory in our lives. If we are married, we are to do the same, and one of the primary means of doing that is raising up (many) godly children that are discipled well, and prepared to advance the Gospel in innumerable ways. To do anything less is to betray simple biology, and to diminish one of the gifts God intended sex for (though it is certainly a gift in itself).

If I'd known then what I know now, perhaps we'd have two kids by now. Nevertheless, I'm grateful for God's patience (and my wife's). While marriage certainly pushes me beyond living only for myself, which is the chief of sins, fatherhood only does more so.

Praise be to God!

"The Box"

My wife and I had the rare opportunity tonight to go on a date, and it was our intention to see The Blind Side together. However, since they couldn't seat us together, and the last time I checked, a date required such arrangements, we decided to give The Box a chance.

Based upon Richard Matheson's short story "Button, Button," The Box raises the question of what fateful consequences await the choices we make. What a tangled web we weave, it seems, when we make personal decisions that "won't harm anybody" (at least, anybody we know, in this scenario). Some may call it "karma," others "reaping what you sow." I call it simply "reality." Every cause has an effect, and the underlying ethics of our decisions are inescapable, however well we might justify them or rationalize them away.

This "reality" holds true for believer and nonbeliever alike. "All have sinned," certainly, and so it goes without saying that the consequences for those who do not believe in Christ are dire. However, I know so many presumed "Christians" who think that because they have "confessed with their mouth (though not with their lives) that 'Jesus is Lord,' that they are somehow immune to the consequences of their actions. They persist in "respectable sins" like jealousy, pride, and lust, thinking somehow that they "won't harm anybody," except, of course, the holy God who, it had seemed, had freed them from such vices.

Though the movie left us relatively unsatisfied, it did allow us the occasion to share Christ with the one other couple in the theater. The woman we spoke with evidenced a very similar thought pattern to these professing Christians, in that she was staking her soul upon "what worked for her," when the universe evidences that we, in fact, are not in charge. My prayer for her, and the "christians" like her, is that He will open their eyes to their need of Him, and His prerogatives, which far outweigh their own in wisdom, benefit, joy, and every other desirous category.

I'm no Liberal, but....

I suppose it's no big surprise that abortion has taken the fore in the ongoing health care debate. It's been a hot button issue since Roe v. Wade. Since that time, Christians have been relatively outspoken about the ills of abortion, and have even become embroiled in the politics of it all. While the effectiveness of this can be debated, I do think it worth our while to consider our role.

For one, we would do well to examine the historic stance of the Church on this issue. Abortion is certainly nothing new, and the Roman culture surrounding the early church is no exception. In fact, even infanticide was a common practice, but you don't see Peter and Paul petitioning the Roman courts to outlaw it. Instead, Christian families were adopting these unwanted children (typically girls). They provided a loving outlet for those families who could not, or would not, care for their own children (See Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity). We would do well to do the same. It rings of hypocrisy when we lament mothers who don't want their children, when we don't provide them an outlet for their care.

Remember, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1:27). May we show ourselves to be such people.