New Covenant

Objectivism and the moral dilemma: Is the greater good always good?

It's not often you hear me disagree with something that Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, has written or said. Indeed, I heartily agree with his series on Decision Making and the Will of God. However, on his 27 September 2009 radio show, he made a commentary regarding utilitarian decision making and how it is applied to a specific moral dilemma scenario. His commentary was lengthy, and I recommend you listen to it in its entirety (begins at approx. 1:01:20 into the radio show). He presented a scenario, which was presented to him, as follows:

A group of the French Resistance, including families with infants, are hiding from Nazi occupiers. One of the infants wails inconsolably and will, more than likely, alert the approaching Nazis. The infant's life is terminated - probably by smothering the child so it's not making noise... to improve the group's chances of survival. But a moral imperative: Murder is wrong, has been violated. A case for utilitarianism could be made. However, is this not a case of moral relativism and, even though it's horrific, something that's necessary?

In responding to the scenario, he concluded that it would be expedient for the group to murder the infant. Take note that I am summarizing his statements here and, to reiterate, one should listen to his commentary in full for a complete understanding of what he stated. His reasoning included (my summary),

Utilitarianism as a standard model of moral action is relativistic (the end always justifies the means, but the end isn't always a moral good). However, this does not mean that considering the means to an end does not entail legitimate considerations.

Facing the scenario as an objectivist: a decision has to be made, taking into consideration relative circumstances and utilitarian aspects.

This is a moral dilemma in that there are only two choices and each of the two choices, in isolation, would be wrong to do. Note: taking circumstances into consideration, in your moral decision making, is not relativism. If it were, there would be no moral dilemma in this scenario.

In the case of this moral dilemma, the guiding principle is that human life has transcendent value and should be protected. In this situation the obligation to protect one innocent life (the baby's) is in conflict to protect the lives of all the other people in the group.

Which decision does the greater good? The morally obligatory action would be to silence the baby, although difficult and tragic. The only other choice would be much worse (and the crying child's life seems to be forfeit anyway).

It seems to me that, while Greg's decision is based on an objectivist methodology, he has placed too much weight on the concept of the "greater good". Is the greater good truly good when it encompasses betraying our commitment to certain moral truths? Despite any attempts at circumventing the rationale for the action, smothering the crying infant is still murder.

Consider the complications that arise when one envisions how the proposed scenario might actually play out. I realize that the scenario is carefully set up to invoke a moral dilemma, and that life is more complicated than the illustrations in our pre-packaged philosophical scenarios. However, a little tweaking of the scenario can also help illustrate some of the complications that may arise.

In Greg's commentary he noted that the mother of the infant may not want to have the infant silenced (murdered). Yes, I think that would be a safe bet. Let's run with that and suppose that not only does the mother not want her child killed, but she herself begins screaming when the majority of the group decide that is exactly what must be done. Not to worry, though, because while one of the larger males in the group rips the child out of the mother's arms, a couple of other males wrestle her to the ground to stifle her screams. After the child is killed the mother, understandably so, cannot keep from crying... essentially the same problem faced earlier with her infant. Despite their pleas, and subsequent threats, the woman will not relent from her incessant mourning.

Snap!

That would be the sound of her neck being broken so as to silence her. All, for the good of the group.

A moment later, in walks her husband who had been away from the group on reconnaissance. After seeing that both his wife and child have been summarily executed he begins a wild, and loud, fight with several of the males in the group.

Slice!

That would be the sound of his throat being slit so as to silence him. All, for the good of the group.

Unreasonable? Well, consider a scenario where we have a group with 6 adults and 5 infants, in which all the infants are crying. Since 6 is greater than 5, are we justified in silencing the infants?

How about if the group has 5 adults and 6 infants, and all the infants are crying? Tough luck for the adults, I guess, because 5 is less than 6.

What would happen if the group consisted entirely of adults, yet one of them has a severe case of hay fever (anyone been in Oregon in the Spring? Ugh!). There the poor sap sits, sneezing and honking, obviously having forgotten to take his Claritin.

"Aaaa-choo! Aaaa-choo! Honnnk! Honnnk!"

Snap!

And pity his poor neighbor suffering from a cold.

"Cough! Cough! Hack! Hack!"

Slice!

At a certain point, I think, the greater good argument begins to crumble in on itself. It's one thing to offer one's self in sacrifice, and quite another to force an ultimate cost upon someone else. Is the good gained truly worthy of the act committed?

Words, and their meaning

In our understanding of the communication aspect of language, the concept of "units of thought" is critical. At its lowest level of detail, a word comprises a unit of thought. However, the meaning of the word, in the context of the author's intent, is best understood when one moves up to higher level units of thought - those of sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books.

As John Holzmann shows us, another critical aspect of understanding the meaning to a passage of text, is that of grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. In Get Myself into trouble..., he bravely addresses that tenuous issue of Worship Songs.

Spelling, punctuation, grammar, the words themselves: they matter very much to me. And I realize they mean much more to me than they do to the average bear. That's my training. That's a discipline I have pursued since I was very young. I realize that the structural elements of language make a difference, and so I seek to use them to the best effect.

I am concerned that [our church], in its worship/singing on Sunday mornings, seems, often, to ignore these elements . . . to the detriment of meaning.

Among the various songs he takes aim at is Everything, by Tim Hughes.

...at the tail end of the song, we wind up singing a heretical pantheistic affirmation that God is everything ["You are everything"]--repeated at least four times over (though, as I recall, [our worship leader] encouraged the congregation to sing it 8 times). Please! God is not "everything." He made all of creation. He made human beings. Etc. He is not the things He made.But then, after a pantheistic affirmation, finally, the song winds up repeating a kind of Hinduistic mantra, a meaningless jumble of words: "Jesus everything." Four times over on the screen. Eight times over as a congregation:

Jesus everything. Jesus everything.

Jesus everything. Jesus everything.

As above: Whatever is that supposed to mean? . . . Or is it the intention of [our church] to advocate that its members enter into a kind of mindless euphoria through thoughtless repetition of meaningless--but holy-sounding--words?

How many of the worship songs we sing, on Sunday mornings, fall into the trap of pushing non-Christian (or even heretical) ideas at the expense of thinking through more theologically proper songs? Do we dumb-down our worship songs to accommodate a touchy-feely culture, or in response to a less intelligent society? Or both?

In the Middle Ages, stained glass was used to illustrate narratives of the Bible because the populace was largely illiterate (as was the case in most societies in history). Now, it seems, we purposely cater to a culture that, despite the means and ability, prefers to feel than to think.

Also reference Holzmann's post, Hymns and praise songs: what's the difference?.

My journey towards owning a firearm, vol. 2: the Tueller Drill

Twenty one feet.

One and one-half seconds.

The Tueller Drill was developed by Sgt. Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City Police Department, to demonstrate the amount of time it would take an assailant, armed with a contact weapon, to travel 21 feet (7 yards) to his intended victim. Based on the tests conducted, it was demonstrated that it only took 1.5 seconds for the attacker to reach his victim. The point of the drill was to illustrate the dilemma faced by an armed victim, namely, to be able to recognize the potential threat, determine that an attack is occurring, and respond appropriately (in self defense). Particularly designed for persons armed with a holstered firearm, the drill was contrasted against the time required to draw, aim, and shoot the attacker. Tests typically show that most experienced shooters can recognize a threat, draw their firearm, and shoot in around 2 seconds.

That leaves the victim in the red by about 1/2 of a second.

Thus, it is entirely possible for an attacker armed with a knife to move across 7 yards and make contact with his victim before the victim can take action to defend himself. The dilemma an armed person now has is whether or not he can recognize a real threat with a non-existent threat, and whether or not the aggressor is within his danger zone. If he makes the wrong decision, and kills the person representing the non-existent threat, he could be faced with murder charges. If he makes the wrong decision, and waits until the bad guy's attack is well underway, he could be dead.

What to do?

In Armed Response, David Kenik recommends running through various scenarios designed to instill the reality of how quick an attack could take place. For instance, he envisions a home invasion occurring while your family members are in various locations within the house. How much time would it take to get your family into one safe location and to retrieve your self-defense handgun? He thinks that the lag in time to accomplish so much dictates his being armed while in his own home. 

Is Kenik overreacting? Maybe, although his point is well taken that if an event (such as a home invasion) were to occur, time would be of the utmost essence. In my opinion, scenarios such as those recommended by Kenik are useful in helping to educate one on the need for alertness at all times. One of the key components of one's response time, to an attack, is to recognize that an attack is occurring or about to occur. Indeed, one of the tips given to women, regarding their responsibility in managing their own safety, is to always be aware of who is about in their surroundings. This is typically known as being in relaxed alert mode of Condition Yellow.

Apart from the fact that many people consider a lethal threat occurrence to be so unlikely as to negate the necessity for consideration, much less training, I have to wonder how such people view events such as house fires, car accidents, natural disasters, etc. As for my family, my wife and I have discussed with our children what to do in the event of a house fire. We've done this, despite the fact that none of us have ever experienced a house fire.

Owning a firearm, for the purposes of self-defense, opens up a myriad of responsibility issues for the firearm owner, not the least of which is the understanding of the Tueller Drill and its implications. Regardless of whether or not an attacker is 21 feet away, one's awareness of his surroundings is paramount. Self defense experts will reiterate that tactical training, with one's firearm, is critical and should include exercises designed to stimulate one's ability to make shoot or no-shoot decisions under stress.

Probably most important, is the decision one must make regarding whether or not they can shoot a firearm, in self defense, and potentially take another human's life. And that will be the topic of vol. 3 in this series.

All photos - © 2009, A. R. Lopez

A nice way to look at it...

The father of a friend at work recently passed away. It was unexpected. My friend is a Christian, and it was evident, from talking with him when he returned to work, that his faith helped him and his family cope with the trauma and grief.

What was interesting, as he found out and we both discussed, was how other people at work reacted to the news of his father's passing. One person, in particular, made a telling comment. When discussing what had transpired within the family after his father's death, my friend said, "We're doing good, though, because we know he's in a better place." The other co-worker, a non-Christian, then responded, "That's a nice way to look at it."

"That's a nice way to look at it." The statement, and the tone with which it was made, could have been paraphrased as: "Even though it is purely fantasy, thinking that your father still exists somewhere is a good way to help you feel better."

That day, my friend and I both got a clearer understanding of the hope we have, as Christians, in the Resurrection and the Life. And we also got a clearer understanding of the utter lack of hope those without Christ must deal with. I pray that our lives, and not just our words, emulate that hope to those in this world who lack it. And I pray that our lives are lived in a manner which indicates that we really believe that heaven exists.

Yes, that's a nice way to look at it; but only if it's true.

Was the fire Elijah called down also meant to set you on fire?

At a recent Christian youth event, the keynote speaker had, as the scripture reading, 1 Kings 18. A key excerpt from the chapter,

And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

1 Kings 18:36-38 ESV

Seems straightforward, doesn't it?

Yet, per my daughter's notes, the speaker at the event proceeded to tell the youth in the audience that:

Fire was the answer then and fire is the answer now. He (God) wants to set you on fire and show the world that He is God. God's will is to reveal Himself through a people blazing with power and purity and love. We can ask God for fire - but don't ask like the prophets of Baal - we do not earn God's Spirit - that is the way of idolatry.

No, no, no, no, no!

What is it about our self-absorbed culture which mandates that we, as 21st century Western Christians, must find within Biblical passages some connection of how it directly applies to us? Why are crude analogies constructed, linking some present day action with selected excerpts from the text, regardless of whether said analogies have anything to do with the actual meaning of the text in question? This may come as a surprise to many evangelicals out there, but most of the Bible wasn't written - directly - to us.

Granted, the notion that God wants us to "be on fire", showing the world He is God, is not necessarily a false one. It's just that the text of 1 Kings 18 doesn't say that.

In 2001 I attended a lecture by Walt Russell, a BIOLA professor and author of the book, Playing With Fire. His talk was instrumental in illustrating the proper methodology one must take in interpreting the Bible (or, any text, for that matter). Through a proper understanding of literary genres, author's intent, public meaning, personal significance, etc., he laid out the groundwork for how we should approach not only our own reading of the text, but a teacher's lecture or a pastor's sermon.

With regards to 1 Kings 18 we should be aware that the genre of the text is that of historical narrative, an Old Testament narrative, to be specific. Within the Old Testament narratives we need to understand that, while there is typically a central human figure in the story, the central figure (or, hero) of the story is always God. Such narratives should reinforce God's eternal plan, as laid out through human history, as well as provide a bridge to illustrate our continuity with the children of Israel (as the people of God). Secondarily, such narratives also give us a glimpse at both positive and negative role models within the old covenant of believers.

Thus, if we were to read 1 Kings 18 with the mindset of "what does this passage mean?", we would no doubt see that God had brought a drought on the land and had told Elijah that He was going to now bring rain. Of note here is the fact that Ahab had abandoned the Lord's commandments and followed Baal. Elijah sets up the confrontation between the prophets of Baal and the Lord God, boldly stating that "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." Of course the prophets of Baal can do nothing and, after Elijah taunts them, he calls on the Lord God (the hero of the story) to bring fire down from the heavens. The chapter concludes with God bringing the rain he had promised.

Is it so difficult to now look at the passage and ask, what does this passage tell us about God and His plan? Is it so difficult to see that the Lord God is one, is a jealous God, is compassionate for His sheep, is creator of all, and is worthy of worship? 

Yes, we 21st century Christians should be on fire for God. We should be showing the world God's love and, in effect, that He is God. But we shouldn't be about loosely grabbing His Word for backup text to such notions. It's not only a lazy way to read His Word but, if taken to extremes, can be quite flippant. Consider that, if we aren't to ask like the prophets of Baal, what would be the consequences? - our imminent slaughter? Or, if we are to be set on fire, like the altar Elijah prepared was, what and when are the jars of water to be poured over us? False analogies have a tendency to break down pretty quickly.

So, let's stick with meaning inherent to the text.

Confessions of a self-indulgent culture

Do you have an NEO (i.e., Near Earth Object) impact written into your insurance policy?

From NASA's Near Earth Object website:

No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible so that some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them.

When naked apes, endowed with the imago Dei, turn their backs on God, they fear for their lives...

image courtesy of NASA

Charles Finney: Pelagian?

An interesting interview of Michael Horton on the Stand to Reason weekly radio broadcast, on June 8th (rss feed for weekly podcasts).

Horton, the author of Christless Christianity: the Alternative Gospel of the American Church, made some claims about Charles Finney that were quite astounding. In discussing the premise of the book, namely, that the American church has pushed Jesus aside and essentially put a self-help, therapeutic gospel in His place, Horton alluded to the theological stance of Finney, that which Horton posits is more tuned in with Pelagianism than with Arminianism. From the book,

As I will make clearer throughout various points within this book, ever since the Great Awakening, especially evident in the message and methods of evangelist Charles G. Finney, American Protestantism has been more Pelagian than Arminian.

In his essay, The Legacy of Charles Finney, Horton is more blunt,

Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign; man is not a sinner by nature; the atonement is not a true payment for sin; justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality; the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns.

...

Needless to say, Finney's message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today the bear his imprint: revivalism (or its modern label, 'the church growth movement'), Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, political triumphalism based on the ideal of 'Christian America,' and the anti-intellectual, anti-doctrinal tendencies of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It was through the 'Higher Life Movement' of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Finney's perfectionism came to dominate the fledgling Dispensationalist movement through the auspices of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary and author of He That Is Spiritual. Finney, of course, is not solely responsible; he is more a product than a producer. Nevertheless, the influence he exercised and continues to exercise to this day is pervasive.

Wow!

I'm certainly not an authority on Finney, but an initial hearing of Horton has revealed many issues with which I agree on. That American evangelism, in the alleged Finney sense, could be the catalyst for many of the ills within the church, as well as cults outside it, which we see today, is astonishing.

My journey towards owning a firearm, vol. 1: Why?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Also known as the 2nd Amendment.

I've purchased a firearm - a semi-automatic handgun (to be specific, a Glock 22, .40 S&W caliber).

How did this happen?

There are many reasons for one to choose to own a firearm: Self-defense, the exercising of one's 2nd amendment right, insurance for potential times of civil unrest, pure enjoyment (as in target-shooting), hunting, etc. Yet, despite this, I've been surprised to find that my decision to arm myself has sparked a variety of responses from people with whom I am acquainted. Emotions ranging from joyful glee to tentative fright to that of sour judgment have been levied in my direction - all because of my desire to own, and use, a firearm.

I was quite unprepared for such disparate reactions. So, let me take a few posts explaining my journey towards owning a firearm.

First, why... Why own a firearm? Well, let's say that I've always been interested in firearms but, for various reasons, have never pursued said interest. Introvert that I am, I tend to not want to look like I don't know what I'm doing (in front of others) and, when dealing with firearms, one had very well know exactly what they are doing. While I could have certainly found ways to learn, whether it be through friends, or the classroom - I never made it happen. That changed recently, though, as I finally decided to get the education, knowledge, and training to be proficient in the handling of firearms. What was the catalyst? Middle age, perhaps. I've joked with more than one friend, that, given I now reside in middle age, I'm simply going through that so-called crisis in which men desperately need to hold on to and prove their manhood - typically via the acquisition of a convertible sports car. If that's the case, then at least my venture into the sport of shooting is much cheaper than that of purchasing Nissan's latest Z model!

However, it goes far beyond a mere desire to prove my manhood.

Rush.

Yes, shooting a firearm gives one quite the rush. The night I returned from taking a gun safety / practice class, my adrenaline was flowing and I couldn't wait until the time I would return to the shooting range for more - fun. Up until that class, I had never fired a pistol and had never fired a rifle with a caliber larger than .22LR. The night of my class, I fired a .40 S&W caliber semi-automatic handgun (an HK USP), and it was, literally, an amazing experience!

As I stepped into my shooting lane that night, our instructor had us - I was joined by about 5 other shooters - load one round of ammunition into the pistol's magazine. Upon his command we were to load our firearm, take aim, and fire at a paper target (ostensibly, a silhouette of a human being). The HK USP is an all steel gun, which means it's a bit heavy. This particular model had a serrated grip which seemed, to me, to be excessively rough. Gripping the gun in my right hand, I placed the magazine (with one round in it) into the magazine well. After the magazine clicked in I then pulled the slide back to engage the cartridge into the chamber. At that point, the gun was "live"... and deadly. My trigger finger, up to now, was not on the trigger as - per basic firearm safety rules - you do not put your finger on the trigger until you are about to fire. As I leveled the live handgun, pointing it towards the target, I placed my left (support) hand into position, against the open, left side of the pistol grip, wrapping my left hand fingers around my right (strong) hand. I then acquired my sight on the target, held my breath, and gently squeezed the trigger.

Many shooting instructors tell you that, as you squeeze the trigger, the actual firing of the gun should come as a surprise. Let me tell you, the first round I shot definitely came as a surprise. In all honesty, after the gun fired (loudly), and the recoil bounced back into my body, my initial thought was, "What on earth am I doing here? I'm in way over my head!" Our instructor then asked us to load our magazines with multiple cartridges and continue firing. I did so and found that, as each successive shot reverberated through the indoor range, I grew accustomed to the sound of the gun firing, to the shock of the firearm pushing back against both of my hands with the recoil lifting the barrel up, to the blast of hot gases venting out from the gun, to the sound of an expended shell casing bouncing onto the concrete floor, and to the distinctive smell of burned gunpowder. I became fascinated with acquiring the target in my sights, and then seeing how close the projectile, which I had sent flying, came to hitting my target. I marveled at the processes involved in taking dead aim onto a subject - the concentration - the discipline - the mechanics.

Is it wrong for me to enjoy shooting a firearm, a firearm which, if pointed and fired at a human being, would most likely kill them? I don't think so, and if you happen to think so, then I'd be interested in knowing what you think about the fact that multi-thousand pound vehicles are frequently seen being driven erratically about, at speeds upwards of 80 miles per hour? The kinetic energy stored up in a moving SUV is tremendous - and I shudder to think how casually such energy is wielded about, without the slightest regard to the potential impact to innocent human life.

Yet I traverse a tangent.

Having a rip-roaring fun time, though, was not the only impetus for my researching and entering the realm of gun ownership. Self-defense was another. We live in dangerous times (and not simply because Barack Obama was elected). I have a family to protect, and a firearm is one method with which I, and they, can be protected.

However, the very lethal nature of a firearm, combined with legal ramifications of using lethal force, make the use of such a methodology extremely complicated. 

And that's what I'll discuss in vol. 2 of this series - Having a pistol for self-defense.

- first image: my Glock 22; second image: results of my first night shooting, with the HK USP; all images © 2009 A. R. Lopez

Christ, the Lion and the Lamb, God, and giving worship to Him whom worship is due

An engaging study of Revelation is going on at my home church, every Wednesday night. Our pastor, a New Testament scholar, who wrote his dissertation on Revelation 19, is providing for us an in-depth analysis of the context of Revelation, including educating us on the genres it's comprised of, as well as the cultural meaning of the imagery described. Suffice it to say, this ain't no Left Behind series!

Last Wednesday, we began Revelation 5. Here is the text, per ESV,

5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, 4 and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. 5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. 8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”

11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” 14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Note that the scroll, referred to in verse 1, was being held by God the Father (ref. chapter 4), who was given his due worship. He is seated on the throne and is holding the scroll in his right hand. While it appears that no one is found worthy to open the scroll, one of the elders states that the Lion has conquered, so that he can open the scroll. Yet we see a sort of juxtaposition taking place when John sees not a Lion appear, but a Lamb - that had been slain.

Lion / Lamb, conquered / slain. 

The Lamb then approaches God, on the throne, and does not ask to be given the scroll, but he takes "the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne"! The elders and all creatures then confirm that Jesus is worthy to receive worship.

The Lion who has conquered is the Lamb who was slain, and he is worthy of that which is only allowed to be given to God - worship.

It's all a matter of timing

From President Obama,

Today, ...the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists. We will help Iraq build new ties of trade and commerce with the world. And we will forge a partnership with the people and government of Iraq that contributes to the peace and security of the region.

The only thing new about this strategy is that Obama has shifted (i.e., changed his mind) regarding his approach towards our presence in Iraq. Remember, this is the same person who opposed the Surge, who once gave up hope on succeeding in Iraq, and who once stated that the lives of troops killed in action were "wasted". (HT: HotAir)

Life is, by no means, fair. Many times, our fortune, or failure, is simply a matter of being in the right place at the right time - of having that lucky break. What we'll see, in the next few years, is Obama receiving the accolades for any progress to be displayed in Iraq. Bush, in our media's shortsightedness, will take more than his share of the blame for what it cost to succeed - the failures, mistakes, and blood. Yet, he is the one who was fated to do the dirty work.

And, I think that history will eventually provide us with the clear picture of who accomplished what.

Facing life's circumstances in the new year

Tucked somewhere inbetween making tamales and lighting each of the 5 candles of Advent, watching the movie It's a Wonderful Life has become sort of a family tradition for us. Call me sentimental, but I firmly believe the film to be a masterpiece of cinematic story-telling.

Greg Koukl, at Stand to Reason, recently pointed out an op-ed by Andrew Klavan, written in 2003, in which Klavan extolls the virtues of both Scrooge (1951) and It's a Wonderful Life. He writes,

In “Scrooge,” a man grown rich because of heart-shriveling greed is forced by spirits to view the consequences of his existence.

In “It’s a Wonderful Life,” George Bailey, a man in financial trouble because of his large-souled generosity, is forced by an angel to view the consequences of his non-existence: what would’ve happened if he’d never been born.

On both sides of the mirror, the results are the same: a revolutionary personal transformation, what the New Testament calls “metanoia,” which is often translated as “repentance” but which means literally “a change of mind.”

After the metanoia, there’s a lot of Christmas caroling and happiness and that sort of thing. Thus movie critics – who frequently confuse darkness with depth – sometimes belittle these films as sentimental.

They’re wrong. Watched carefully, the films are disturbingly realistic. Because, for each protagonist, the change in outlook has absolutely nothing to do with a change in circumstance. They aren’t singing carols and so forth because they’ve won the girl or beaten the villain or made millions or righted wrongs. Scrooge can never bring justice to the people he’s ruined, and Bailey will never become the world-traveling architect he wanted to be.

As we enter the new year, we would do well to consider whether or not our outlook for the future is driven by our circumstances or by our will.

Happy New Year.

The stumbling block of Christ-mas

So one of the gifts I received, for Christmas, happens to be a gift card for Barnes & Noble. Mind you, we celebrated Christmas on... Christmas day (as opposed to Christmas Eve), which was the 25th day of December. Now, I'm pretty sure that is the correct day for Christmas because virtually every calendar I lay my hands on specifically delineates December 25th as being Christmas. Another confirming indicator, that December 25th is Christmas, was the heightened frenzy found at the local shopping malls, as belated shoppers frantically scampered about, attempting to get their Christmas presents before... Christmas day. Indeed, I also noticed that the anchor stores at the malls had special operating hours, all leading up to... Christmas day. And yet another indicator, that there is something special about December 25th, is the fact that no mail was delivered that day, nor were many businesses open. Hmmm...

So, imagine my surprise on December 26th (that would be, the day after Christmas), when I logged onto Barnes & Noble's website, only to find an After Holiday Sale.

Yep, no kidding. 

So scared, are they, of offending what truly must be a minority of people, that they lack the fortitude to simply call a spade a spade. Like it or not, B&N, the holiday you ground your pre and post sales upon, is none other than - shudder! - Christmas.

Quote of the... uh... century?

From CNN, Poll finds great expectations for Obama,

"My fervent prayer is that there will be peace on Earth in all nations, and let all countries unite together to make this dream come true," said iReporter Shari Atukorala of Kandy, Sri Lanka. "To the President-elect Barack Obama: Sir, you can do this for all of us."

Utterly amazing.

Is this perception of Obama common? Maybe so. Also from the CNN article,

The public thinks it's likely that Obama will improve race relations, improve economic conditions, bring stability to the financial markets, make the U.S. safer from terrorism, reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, win the war in Afghanistan and remove U.S. troops from Iraq without causing a major upheaval in that country.

How much of this adoration, do you think, has gone (and will go) to Obama's head? At what point does admiration for one's leader turn into adoration, albeit worship, of one's leader? 

On the one hand, reality may rear its ugly head and simply educate the many ignorant, but sincere, idealists who have put their faith in Obama; on the other hand, the cult of worship, is an enticing temptation, which strokes at the very essence of the narcissist's ego.

Christians: pray for Obama

Why "My President is Black" is incorrect

Via Malkin, it seems we have a new slogan, what with the election of Barack Obama.

My President is Black

Wrong!

Truth be told, Barack Obama is half black and half white. In other words, he's biracial.

Martin Luther King said, in his I Have a Dream speech, that he dreamed of the day when his children would

not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

So, let's encourage supporters of Barack Obama to start following Dr. King's wishes, and not focus so much attention on the color of Obama's skin. Or, if they must draw attention to it, to at least begin admitting that, Our President is Black & White.

How to hate the vote of the people

Opponents of California's Proposition 8 - "Marriage Protection Act", which clarified that marriage is between a man and a woman, claim that the proposition was all about hatred (e.g., "No on 8, End Hate" and "Separate Church & H8").

They prove it by holding hateful, anti-Mormon marches after the measure was passed by the voters.

images - LA Times

Equality for all; California's Prop 8

The California Marriage Protection Act, aka Proposition 8, was passed by popular vote on Tuesday, November 4th. The proposal was to add the following 14 words to the California constitution:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

As of Wednesday, November 5th, lawsuits have been filed by Gay Rights backers to challenge the will of the people, and protests against the Proposition were occurring in the predominantly gay city of West Hollywood.

Lest anyone think that rights have been eliminated, by the passage of Proposition 8, one should read the already existing California Family Code 297.5. An excerpt:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. (emphasis added)

Bottomline: Proposition 8 it isn't about hate, inequality or discrimination; it's about protecting marriage between a man and a woman.

Barack Obama has won the election: God, help us

Senator Barack Obama has won the election for President of the United States and, essentially, the leader of the free world.

God, help us.

In 1 Timothy, Paul stated,

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

- 1 Timothy 2:1-4 ESV

Yes, Christians... God. Help. Us. As Christians, we have been admonished to not only submit to our earthly authorities, but to pray for them as well.

In Romans, Paul stated,

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

- Romans 13:1-5 ESV

God, help us.

Help us to pray for our leaders, despite the fact that we may not only disagree with them, but that they may be hostile to us and our beliefs. Help us to submit to our leaders, thereby demonstrating that we are not a subversive element, but are to be trusted as exemplary citizens.

While I believe Senator Barack Obama to be, among other things:

• dangerously naive with regards to his vision of hope,
• blatantly socialist with regards to his economic policies,
• and, most distressingly, no friend of the unborn;

I know that my Christian duty is to extend prayers for him, his cabinet, as well as other federal, state, and local authorities.

Despite the general conservative contention that having a President Obama will bring a sorry state of affairs to our country, it would do us well to put our situation in perspective, with regards to the context of history at the time of the writing of many New Testament epistles.

In 1 Peter, Peter stated,

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

- 1 Peter 2:13-15 ESV

Through his teaching, my pastor, Dr. David Thomas, has greatly helped me in keeping such a perspective clearly in view. This has especially been revealed in some recent lectures he gave on 1 Peter (see mp3 files here). In the 26 March 2008 session, he pointed out that:

• Peter and Paul have made an assertion that all human authority proceeds from God;
• To respect and submit to human authority is to respect and submit to God;
• Such a respect and submission has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with that authority;

And, with regards to the moral and ethical conditions of the leaders we pray for, he gave this comparison as context for the first century church,

• Of the first 12 emperors (Julius Caesar through Domitian), only one was heterosexual, the rest were either bisexual or homosexual;
• Nero, to whom Paul appealed (in the book of Acts), and the one who was Caesar when Paul wrote the book of Romans, married a 13 year-old boy;
• Nero kicked his wife in the stomach until she miscarried;

In the same message, he stated,

Christians recognize authority as invested in mortal, fallen and, sometimes, unbelieving and cruel individuals... as being a reflection of the authority of God. ...What they're [Peter and Paul] saying is, have respect for the authority that's invested in these mortal men, out of reverence for God.

Now, more than ever, we Christians must pray for our leaders, including President Obama.

John Piper on voting for a woman to hold the office of Vice President

Why a Woman Shouldn't Run for Vice President, but Wise People May Still Vote for Her

...a person with my view may very well vote for a woman to be President if the man running against her holds views and espouses policies that may, as far as we can see, do more harm to more people than we think would be done by electing a woman President and thus exalting a flawed pattern of womanhood. In my view, defending abortion is far worse sin for a man than serving as Vice President is for a woman. (emphasis added)

Read it all.

Marriage: between a man and a woman

In California, among the many state propositions up for a vote, one of the most heated is Proposition 8. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, "which added a section to the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman" (Wikipedia). In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court "ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution" (Wikipedia).

Enter Proposition 8. Here is the entire text of Proposition 8, as per the California Voter's Guide,

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Note that the California Marriage Protection Act proposes to add a sum total of 14 words to the California Constitution.

Opponents to the proposition claim that the proposition is discriminatory and that it takes away rights. One of the mantras chanted is "Don't eliminate marriage for anyone."

Yet, such thinking ignores the fact that the government does not sanction marriage for anyone. Typically, one cannot marry another person if one is already married to someone else. It's also highly unlikely that a 6 year-old boy and girl would be granted a marriage license by the government. The same could be said for a 20 year-old man and 18 year-old woman, if they were brother and sister. What's more, it's highly unlikely that the state government in California would sanction a marriage between two adult men and four adult women. It would seem, therefore, that we already have a form of discrimination, with regards to who can, and cannot, get married. In other words, the government already eliminates marriage for some.

Have you ever stopped to consider just why the government has an interest in sanctioning marriages in the first place? I can tell you one reason that they don't sanction marriages for... love. Nope. You'd be hard pressed to find any mention of love on an application for a marriage license. Whether or not two people, who wish to get married, love each other is really of no concern to the government.

Why is that?

It's really very simple. The government recognizes, as just about every civilization since humans began, that the covenant of marriage is the foundation and basis for the family unit. The family unit, it turns out, is the basis for a well functioning society. And a well functioning society is something that the government is very interested in. When a male and female commit to each other, the natural and general result is a family (i.e., children). This is a process that has been the cornerstone of virtually every civilized society. This family unit by marriage commitment, it should be noted, is something that a same-sex couple is incapable of attaining by natural means. Note that as a rule, by nature, and by design (HT: Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason), marriage between a man and a woman provides the family unit which the government has an interest in regulating.

One last point to be noted is that the only "right" which same-sex proponents claim will be eliminated by Proposition 8 is the sanctioning of the government, and as I've shown above, this is not an inherent right. No other "rights" will be eliminated. Same-sex couples already have access to domestic partner health benefits, they already have the protection of employment discrimination laws, they can freely practice their lifestyle, etc.

So, why is there the need for Proposition 8? That, too, is simple. It's because those that advocate same-sex marriage want not the right (which they already have) but the blessing of the government. By getting the blessing of the government, they wish to impose their behavior, as normalized, upon the rest of society - including those that would consider their behavior as wrong.

Advocates of same-sex marriage would have you believe that the issue is about intolerance. In that, they are correct, for the position they take is intolerant of any position that does not accept their behavior as normal.

Further Ref:

Jennifer Roback Morse

Stand to Reason blog

Obama is pro-abortion; and Christians don't know this

As I noted in this post, Princeton bioethicist Robert George, in his article Obama's Abortion Extremism, stated,

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States.

That post, and the follow-up A Comprehensive argument against Barack Obama, were intended to expose Obama's truly pro-abortion position, for any non-Christians that may have stumbled upon this site. Imagine my surprise when, the very week after I posted, I found myself in an argument with a Christian friend who adamantly considers Obama to have a distinctly pro-choice position.

I was astounded to hear my friend, a professor with probably close to 40 years in academia, make (what I consider) arguments typically promulgated by liberals and liberals within academia. Perhaps, in retrospect, given the fact that my friend has spent so much time within academia, regardless of whether or not it was secular academia, I should not have been surprised to hear liberal arguments.

Initially, I was informed that Obama was pro-choice and not pro-abortion. Upon my asking what the difference was I was given the argument that Obama is "personally opposed to abortion, but...". I was about to offer the suggestion that one take that same personally opposed statement and substitute the word "slavery" or "rape" for "abortion", and then see how absurd it sounds, but I was immediately informed that Obama has said he would sign on to a ban of partial birth abortions would they only offer an exception for cases of rape or incest. (note: Robert George's article shreds such claims. More on that later.) I was then told that it was essentially not pro-life to allow a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to die rather than remove (abort) the "fetus".

Do you see the problem with these arguments? They play with words (e.g., "personally opposed"). They use the exception as determiner of the rule (e.g., cases of rape or incest). They ignore the humanity of the unborn (e.g., referring to the unborn child as a "fetus").

In further conversation with my friend, attempts were made to compare the devastation of the war in Iraq as not indicative of the Republicans truly having a pro-life position. Of course this is nothing more than diversion. Even if such a claim were true, how does that, I wonder, have anything to do with the devastating fact that 4,000 unborn children are aborted every day?

I was given this website to refer to as, supposedly, an objective basis for determining the position of Obama. I noted, to no response, that the website makes multiple references to Obama supporting a "woman's right to choose", yet never completes the statement (i.e., a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child). 

I offered the article by Robert George, an article by Steve Wagner (Stand to Reason), as well as the National Right to Life Committee's recent interaction with Barack Obama, as information outlets to help one understand Obama's actions with regards to the abortion issue. Unfortunately, my friend considers third-party sources to be hopelessly biased and, as a result, would not even reference my recommendations, preferring to simply listen to what each candidate states themselves. 

Are there other Christians who have turned a blind eye to the actions of Barack Obama with regards to the abortion issue? Are there other Christians who don't view the issue of abortion as a major concern?

Greg Koukl, in his Oct. 20th weekly radio show, recently stated (28:30 into the program),

It seems to me, based on what Robert George has written, the lesson is this: If you are radically pro-choice, Obama is your man. But, if you think that abortion in all its forms, the garden variety of abortion, plus partial birth abortion, plus large scale production and destruction of embryos for embryonic stem cell research, plus allowing babies who survive abortion to die, plus having the government pay for all of this with your tax dollars - If you think this is wrong, because of the wanton destruction of defenseless human life. Then it seems to me you better invest your vote elsewhere. And if you believe God cares about these things, I don't know how you can vote for Obama, and then stand before God and say, "I made the good, right, moral choice..."

If you are not aware of the candidate Barack Obama's actions, with regards to abortion, I invite you to take a look at the data presented by Robert P. George, and see how it squares up with the statements made by the candidate Obama. It should be (painfully) clear that Obama is no friend of the unborn.