Global Warming: not settled science; possibly science fiction.

The BBC has posted an article on this subject here.  This is the first time I can recall citing a BBC article, but the fact that one of the most liberal news media outlets on the planet is questioning the merits of global warming - well that is news.

My thoughts: whatever your politics, it seems undeniable that we are in a period of "global cooling."  What that means, is up for debate.  To me, I find it to be clear evidence in support of my theory: God's plan dictates global climate trends.  Mans' actions may have some impact, but so rarely can man overcome the forces of nature.  We may want to believe we caused a period of global warming, but I don't really believe we were a major contributing factor for the same reason I refuse to believe mankind can stop a tornado: mother nature is far more powerful than we mere mortals give her credit.  God built the earth, and his enginnering skills are above par.  To suggest we can change the climate is like suggesting man can stop tsunamis: both sound like science fiction to me.

And the award ... means nothing? The death of the Nobel Prize.

Apparently the Nobel prize is no longer a noble prize.  Even the Associated Press is questioning the committee's motives.  Check out this article they published on Yahoo! news.

Now, I am not going to bash our president, regardless of my political views.  That is not the point I am after here.  My aim is to ask, like the author of that article, what has Obama done (not promised) to earn such a prestigious award? 

We have all heard the promises of a new world with free healthcare, no poverty, and no war, but has the President actually accomplished, past tense, any of this?  Whatever your political views, believers, none of us can claim he has delivered on those promises at this time.  Will he deliver?  That remains to be seen.  However, as it stands, he has accomplished nothing that would place him ahead of other contenders.  Even Bono (U2 lead singer) has done more, to date, to end hunger and poverty than President Obama.  Comparing their efforts, Bono probably comes out ahead of most presidents to date.

I say the prize has lost its nobility, because it is being awarded for political goals - not for rewarding actual accomplishments in achieving a better world for all.  What was once a prestigious award now is junk, at least in my eyes.  If they gave me the award (which they shouldn't - I don't deserve it no matter what I promise), it would adorn the bottom of my waste basket rather than the top of my mantle.  An award given purely for a political agenda is only truly an award to someone sharing that agenda.  Otherwise, it is just junk taking up space.

But that's just me.  Who knows - maybe they will resurrect it in the future by giving it out to someone based on his/her merits and achievements rather than political promises.

Be blessed.

God really does help those who help themselves...

I have often heard the expression, "God helps those who help themselves," and recently I heard another believer say this is not Biblical.  I beg to differ.

Granted, the foregoing expression is not a Bible quote, but, depending on how you interpret that old saying, it is largely true.  Just read this passage from Galatians 6 (ESV), which I am so fond of quoting: 

"1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5For each will have to bear his own load.


"6One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 7Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."

It is true that Christ called us to share each others' burdens (verse 2), but that does not undo personal responsibility, and, ultimately, we must all be responsible to bear our own burdens (verse5).  God not only will not be mocked, this passage teaches us that He cannot be mocked.

What does that mean?  It means that, if we make no effort at all to carry our own load and to fulfill our own obligations (sowing good things), then God will not cause us to reap something entirely different than what we have sown (verse 7).  However, if we keep doing (sowing) good, and if we do not grow weary (enduring in faith), then we reap our harvest in "due season" (God's time - not ours) (verse 9).

I read today about a set of parents who were part of the "faith healing" crowd and who, accompanied by their pastor, allegedly prayed over their sick infant for 30 hours without seeking medical attention. Click here to read the article.  Now, I do believe that healing comes by faith in the Lord, and I do believe the Lord performs miracles.  However, I do not believe that means the Lord wants us to ignore the wordly treatment options available to us (remember, Luke was a doctor).

Instead, I believe the Lord wants us to sow our efforts into doing all we reasonably can to resolve our own problems, trusting Him to bless our efforts.  In my own life, when I have had a problem or been confronted to the obstacle, I prayed hard for God to take care of it.  Sometimes, with no more sowing than a prayer, the Lord took care of the issue, but most of the time he required me to put some effort in.  I call this reaping/sowing principal "no deposit; no return."

God doesn't need our pitiful efforts - He is the all-powerful creator of the universe.  However, he does require our efforts, no matter how insignificant they may seem to us.  God designed the universe to work a particular way, and we are mocking both that creation and the nature of our God when we expect to reap something without sowing something (but our efforts to mock will fail when we inevitably reap what we sow).  That doesn't mean God cannot perform miracles, which is His right.  However, we do not get to dictate to Almighty God how he performs miracles, including the miracle of healing. 

I once had a large, non-malignant mass/tumor on my spine show up in x-rays.  My family and friends, in a tremendous show of faith, love, and support, prayed corporately for me.  By the time my MRI results came back, the mass was gone.  It didn't shrink: it was gone.  Some have said the x-rays were wrong - whatever.  I say, and I always will, that God had other plans for my spine.  Praise Him!  He healed me, and I believe the faith of my family and friends made a huge difference.

But I went to the doctor... 

That's right: I didn't sow nothing.  I prayed (a LOT), and I went to see a doctor.  I didn't sit around with excruciating, unnatural back pain for months on end begging God to heal me without taking any actions myself to pursue treatment.  I prayed, I went to the doctor, and God blessed those efforts with a harvest of healing, in His time, not in mine.

"Faith healing," is something I whole-heartedly believe in, but I don't see that as an excuse to avoid sowing our efforts toward the healing for which we are petitioning the Lord.  Going to the doctor is not a sign of lacking faith - it is a practical measure that the Lord can bless.  We go to the doctor, and we pray to the Lord, who will decide how to heal us - through an overt display of divine power, or through the doctors hands, or via whatever other mechanism He deems wise, in His time.

If you are sick - seek medical attention, but don't stop praying.  Also, don't pray that the doctors heal you.  That is a sign of lacking faith.  I suggest this prayer:

"Lord, I am not feeling well, and I know something is wrong.  Normally I would be afraid, but I am stepping out in faith and trusting you with my future.  I pray that you heal my broken body according to your Will.  In the name of Jesus I pray this, amen."

Say it.  Pursue it.  Believe it.  Receive it.  Just don't skip the pursuing - it is an essential element. 

A wise man seeks wise counsel (no.3).

"Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed."
-Proverbs 15:22, NIV.

This verse came to me in my email devotional, and I find it to be one of the best verses in the Bible when it comes to decision-making and dealing with confusion.  Frankly, in my own life, I have often been convicted with the reality that I cannot do everything myself. 

As an example, I broke my foot last week playing tennis.  Try as I might, I couldn't take care of myself, and I needed someone to nurse-maid me until I was back on my feet again.  I am pleased to report that I am recovering quickly, and I am even able to walk normally for brief periods with the crutches (as opposed to using only my good foot).  In a short time, I will be right as rain.  In the beginning, however, my wife was a God-send.  Were it not for her, I'd have had to hire a nurse or stay in the hospital until I was able to function again.

Similarly, we should not make important decisions all alone without seeking some wise counsel first.  I will not waste time rehashing previous posts dealing with the question of when to seek help and from whom (you may find the first two posts in this series here and here; you may also find the post "No Man an Island" to be relevant, which you can find here).  Instead, I just want to focus on the wisdom of the verse quoted at the top of this post.

My wife and I have a wonderful, happy marriage.  However, we do occasionally differ, and sometimes the decision of when to seek advice is an area in which we differ.  My wife is a very private person, and she would often prefer that we make important decisions alone (after consulting the Lord, of course).  I, on the other hand, feel like the best decision is made only after consulting others whom I consider wise and knowledgeable.  Is my wife wrong to want to keep matters private?  Not at all, and some decisions really do require discretion, especially in a marriage.

All the same, the desire for privacy is often related more to one's pride than to a desire for discretion.  My advice to you, believers, is to strike a good balance.  Seek not only wise counselors, but discreet counselors.  In my view, an advisor is not a very wise person to begin with if that person does not appreciate the value of discretion.  Certainly, we know that discretion and wisdom go hand in hand (see Prov 3:21, 5:2, and 11:22).  

Remember: the Bible teaches us that our plans fail for lack of counsel (lack of wise advice), but our plans often succeed if we have many advisors.  Of course, we shouldn't be too quick to get or take the advice of a drunkard or fool, but when a knowledgeable person offers you advice, I suggest that you consider it as a gift rather than a burden.

How often do we hear advice from parents or other elders and disregard it as outdated or as another "lecture?"  Don't be a fool: if you have wise parents or elders, then listen to their advice.  It is worth more than gold.  As an example, if you are experiencing marital difficulties, don't shrug off the advice of a happily married couple and tell them it is none of their business.  Perhaps you are right that it is not their concern, but if that couple is genuinely trying to help you, then making your business their concern is a sign of friendship, not intrusion.  The secrets to happiness in their own marriage may very well be the secret to happiness in your own.  That is just an example.

Businessmen, for another example, I advise you not to hastily shirk the advice of your more successful colleagues.  Successful business models are often reproduceable, and for a successful businessman to share his insight with you, well that is invaluable.  Seize the opportunity!  Don't let pride be your downfall.

And remember, ultimately every decision that confronts you is your right and responsibility to make, but, knowing the every decision has consequences, would you not prefer your decisions to be informed decisions?  Having many advisors means understanding the facets of the situation with insights beyond/in addition to your own.  Listening to advisors is no excuse to refuse the ultimate responsibility for the decision.  You cannot sacrifice your judgment without making a choice to do just that.  Wisdom is about listening and discerning.  There is middle ground between ignoring good advice and jjust taking whatever advice comes your way.  I advise you (wisely I hope) to find that balance.  

Be blessed.

Dating: Experience and Regret

Many people oppose the concept of dating because of the likelihood of heartache and pain it can cause. Often, people think that they will regret all their dating experiences later in life, after and perhaps even before they actually get married.

In my life, I've certainly had cause to regret things that happened while I was dating. However, when I really take a look at what I regret, it's not the fact that I dated a particular person (except when she was not a Christian). What I regret are my own actions -- actions that were sinful, regardless of the context. Dating certainly provides special opportunities to "fall short of the glory of God," but so do most other activities in our lives.

More recently, as I've made more effort to submit this area of my life to the Lord, I've had experiences that I can look back on fondly. I've had the opportunity to enjoy time spent with women, and even after parting company I can see that it was the right thing and I don't feel regretful over that time.

It's difficult to shake the mindset that every time we break up or stop seeing someone, we have somehow failed. But the Lord has much to teach us, and sometimes He brings us together with someone to learn from them, either about others or ourselves. With this in mind, the most important thing is to date in a lighthearted spirit, enjoying the opportunity to get to know another creature precious to God. Perhaps He will guide you to share your lives, perhaps not; but in all, He is in control. Make sure that everything you do while with that person is pleasing to Him, and there will be no need for regret.

Antagonistic Axioms

In my previous post, I talked about situations where we let rules which do not come from God's law govern our thoughts and actions. I wanted to expand on that point here.

In mathematics, there are statements known as "axioms" which represent statements of truth. These axioms are typically propositions which could not be arrived at in any way other than assuming they are true. For example, in solving some equations and axiom might be provided stating that "x = 7".

Once this has been established, it can be treated as always true, and can be used in other statements. Often in abstract math assignments an axiom of this nature is simply provided. No explanation for why the variable x is equal to 7 is provided, nor is it typically asked for. Once this statement has been accepted, many consequences will follow, but the time for considering whether x is truly equal to 7 is over.

Axioms have great effect on everything that relies on them. They can be the key to deciphering a complicated equation. Our lives don't rely on equations, but they are guided by axioms of another kind -- moral axioms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not a rule which can necessarily be derived, it must be given. However, once it is accepted as truth, it has a profound effect on all that follows it.

Since axioms are so powerful, we must guard ourselves against accepting the wrong things as axiomatic. Our culture is constantly trying to establish new axioms in the minds of the people, some of which are good but many of which are profoundly wrong.

When we approach a situation, our minds tend to look for an axiomatic solution first, relying on logic and reason only if one cannot be found. For example, consider whether it would be acceptable for a private company to refuse to hire non-Caucasians. When I consider this issue, my mind does not contemplate the possible merits of such an arrangement, it immediately reaches the conclusion that this is an unacceptable thing to do. This conclusion is reached before I have weighed any arguments, because non-discrimination is axiomatic in my mind.

The trouble here is that if we accept the wrong axiomatic propositions, then we will make wrong moral choices consistently, even if we know the Scripture which disproves the axiom. Cultural, worldly propositions have a tendency to get into our thought processes before Scriptural ones.

Consider this situation. A candidate comes up for consideration to be an elder at your church. He is a strong Christian, a good leader, a good man, and a good husband. However, his high school-aged children are unruly and rebellious, rejecting God and living according to the world's standards. Would we reject such a man for consideration? How about if he already was an elder, and his children only then became rebellious?

Not only would most of us suggest that the man above should be made an elder, we probably cannot conceive of a church which would remove him from his position due to the actions of his high school- or middle school-aged children. I can hardly imagine any other answer. Yet in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, we read this about an elder in the church: "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?"

My point is not necessarily that we should be removing more elders from their positions, but that I can hardly bring myself to recommend that it should ever be done. Propositions I have accepted from society as a whole make it nearly impossible for me to submit to the authority of Scripture in this area.

The world has been working very hard to push new axiomatic statements onto the population, and having pushed them, it then attempts to make them "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" to make those who disagree with these statements seem like outsiders or outliers. Some examples are: "Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality"; "Marriage is just a societal acknowledgment of two or more people who love each other, has no sacred element, and can be redefined as we see fit"; "Women are the same as men"; "Religion is a primitive relic of the past"; "Science disproves faith"; "Religious faith is irrational"; "Christians are judgmental and hateful"; etc.

As Christians, our full set of axioms should come from Scripture. God has provided all the foundational propositions we need to live righteous lives in His service. It's important that we not allow worldly propositions into our minds, because of the power that axioms have to distort our thinking. When I consider the elder mentioned above, I did not use God's standards to decide how I should act with respect to that situation, I used the world's standards. I didn't consider God's standard, because I had already found an axiom which covered the situation. It wasn't necessary to consider the situation against Scripture, even though I knew the relevant passage, because I already had an answer before I got that far in my thought process.

As Proverbs states and John discussed below, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." (Proverbs 4:23) We must fill our hearts with God's righteousness, then guard them against infiltration by ideas such as the ones above which will lead us astray.

Thankfully for all of us, we don't have to listen to any worldly wisdom, because God has given us everything we truly need in the form of His holy Word.

The Unexamined Life

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

-Socrates

Over time, I have come to find that there are many unexamined assumptions in my thinking, assumptions which are already in place before I start to logically consider an issue. Everyone has unexamined assumptions, and they can often get in the way, but they're especially problematic when it comes to our faith.

American culture has many norms and values which vary significantly from those espoused in the New Testament. To see the effect the culture can have on our thinking, we need only to look at earlier Western civilizations.

The Greeks and Romans had no problem with slavery. Many Romans doubted that a modern society could work without their labor. Women were not only not equal to men, they were far inferior -- they could not participate in the political process, and typically could not own property. In Roman society, marriage and family were not especially important elements in a man's life. A Roman man focused his efforts on his work, valuing his family life to a significantly lesser degree.

Today, we see these views as ranging from abhorrent to misguided, but we feel a strong instinctual distaste for them. Yet these values were held by many of the people who founded Western civilization, and we retain and greatly value much of their legacy. Our modern culture has taught us that the above views are wrong, and we tend to disagree with those views reflexively. We rarely take the time to consider why slavery is wrong, or why women should be considered equal to men. Given time we could formulate an argument, but we don't see any need -- our culture believes these practices wrong, and we can rely on the assumption that others who share in that culture will believe the same things we do.

The trouble is, of course, that there were Christians in Roman times who had no trouble with slavery because their culture taught them that it was okay. We must be on our guard to see if our cultural assumptions are interfering with our perception of God's law.

I was struck by the illustration of this point that I once saw in a TV show. In the show, the (woman) President had started as essentially a strong political liberal but had grown deeply in touch with her religious beliefs, relying on her faith and holy book to guide her policy as commander-in-chief. So strong was her faith that she undertook a mission which risked many thousands of lives entirely based on her beliefs. However, in a subsequent episode the subject of abortion was raised. The religious leaders she talked to, the same ones with whom she had previously consulted for her faith-based operation, were all strongly opposed to any form of abortion. However, the President immediately dismissed out of hand the idea of banning abortion, angrily stating that she had "fought for women's reproductive rights for my whole career" and would not restrict them now. Her tone made it clear that the topic was not up for discussion, as the idea was not one she would consider.

I think the writers had intended to make a very different point through the situation, but what I drew from it was this: Here was a woman who claimed to believe; indeed, who had just risked her own life and the lives of others based exclusively on the assumption that her beliefs were true. And yet when that same faith asked her to give up one of her cherished ideas, one of her cultural values, one of her unexamined assumptions, she would not. Not only did she not want to, she wasn't even open to the possibility of following her faith and not her long-held political stance. The idea of "reproductive rights," a cultural value, had become so deeply ingrained in her thinking that she let it stand directly between her and her faith.

To me, this seems profoundly irrational; if her faith is true, as she claimed to believe, why listen to it some of the time and not all the time? But people do the same thing every day. There are the homosexuals who want to believe in everything the Bible says except the part about homosexuality being wrong, the women who believe in everything except (biblically-defined) submissiveness, those who claim to believe in Christian teachings but don't acknowledge Christ as the only Way to the Father, those who believe in Christ as a great moral teacher but not as the Incarnate God, and on and on.

We all have a tendency to let our unexamined assumptions keep us from adhering to the truth. Often we do it even though we know better -- I've read the parts of the Bible about forgiving others so that I'll be forgiven, yet I still want to hold grudges at times. I know that God tells us not to worry about what we'll wear or what we'll eat, but I still worry about those things.

I think what happens in these instances is that we do not allow ourselves to consider these issues, instead relying on the same cultural assumptions which prove to us, without a need for argument, that slavery is wrong or that women should be equal to men. While these cultural values can be good, as in those examples, they also allow us to skip the whole process of considering whether certain ideas or behaviors are consistent with biblical truth -- we just "know" that certain things are acceptable, so we don't need to consult with our knowledge of the Bible. If we did, however, we might realize that the thing we "know" is untrue.

I think the important element is to stop and consider, when we find our behavior or thinking at odds with biblical truth, what our reasoning is. If I stop to consider why I'm worrying about money, I have to start drawing up an argument which explains why I should be allowed to do something which God has told me I need not do. As I attempt to do so, I see that any argument I could make is flimsy and insubstantial. I don't really have a good reason to be worrying about money, except that American culture has inculcated the idea in me that I should. One would hope that the fictional president discussed above would realize, as she tried to make an argument as to why she should oppose the teachings of her own faith, that she was letting her cultural assumptions interfere with adherence to her religious beliefs.

I think the best thing we can do is try to be aware when we consider a course of action which is contrary to biblical teaching. In the future, if such a course seems right, it would be good to try to square it with Scripture. Does this action really comply with Scripture, or oppose it? If it opposes Scripture, is there any justification which could objectively explain it? Could I convince a disinterested person that my reasoning is sound, and not rationalization?

For my part, I hope that in the future an awareness and consideration of the assumptions which inform my thought process will help me to make decisions which are better and more grounded in the truth of Scripture.

Sense & Insensibility: Jane Austen

My wife recently expressed to me that she thinks Jane Austen may be a bad influence on women. I have limited exposure to Austen's writings, though I have enjoyed many of the films based off her novels, including Emma. I have less to say on the matter than my wife might, but I have to agree that it is discouraging that a woman who spent so much time writing about relationships and marriage never found a man she deemed worthy to marry.

Many times, I have made the point that we should look for a spouse first that God would approve of, and second that meets our own list of characteristics/priorities/desires. To the extent our list contradicts that of the Lord, we are surely doing something wrong. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, there were many men in Jane Austen's life. Nevertheless, she never married.

Many Christians read Austen's books and so come under the influence of her philosophies regarding marriage, in the way people might read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and find her hyper-laissez-faire notions for government to be compelling (I know it has a certain appeal to me, at least). Of course, any glimmer of truth can make a unique brand of philosophy compelling when laced so subtly into entertaining fiction, but to the extent Austen makes the point not to marry without love or affection, I offer the following points:

Why is it so difficult to find someone worthy of our love and affection? There are no perfect people in this world that objectively qualify as "Mr. or Mrs. Right," only imperfect people who need desperately to be loved in spite of, and perhaps all the more for, their inherent flaws. I am awful at loading the dishwasher to my wife's satisfaction, for instance, but she seems to find that as a point of affection and humor - not a deal-breaking flaw that makes me less than an exciting fictional male lead (this is good, because I am no Cary Grant, who would certainly be capable of making even dish duty charming).

Similarly, I remind you all that if you are waiting/looking for the perfect mate, then you will wait a very long time. If you never abandon that way of thinking, then you will likely die unmarried (sorry -harsh reality). Is it really better to live without a spouse perpetually than to share your life with someone you're not 100% certain is "the one?"

You want a fictional example? Scarlett O'Hara chased her precious Ashley (I think) and completely missed Rhett Butler (sp?), who got tired of waiting. Was she better off alone? Eventually she didn't seem to think so, but by that time Butler was tired of playing second fiddle. No man or woman wants to be someone's second choice, after all. So Georgia burns, Butler leaves, and O'Hara is alone. Serves her right? I think so - Butler deserves a woman with sense enough to appreciate his efforts, but I digress...

Austen is considered a realist (according to Wikipedia at least), but it seems that she was more and idealist than a pragmatist when it came to marriage in her own life. Certainly affection and love are important in a marriage, but affection and love are gifts and commitments: not buried treasure to be found and searched for over an entire lifetime. Want to find your soul mate? Then learn to be more giving of your soul (metaphorically speaking). The key to true love lies in generosity, not life-long pursuits of endless waiting for some special destiny that awaits you. Effort is always required to obtain a loving and marriage, but that effort should be 90% self sacrifice and 10% searching (see 1 Cor 13 re the sacrificial nature of love). Believe it or not, if you want to really live, then you must die to yourself.

Just a thought. And now the inevitable waive of attacks on my ignorance of Jane Austen (which I admit)... Of course, attacking Austen really isn't my point, is it? Don't bother defending Austen's honor: it is not my intent to impeach it. Rather, I hope to impeach the idea that there is a cosmic destiny that you should put your life on hold waiting for when perfectly good opportunities for love surround you. Trust me, if you open your heart, there are people all around you that would cherish your love - so what if they are not perfectly what YOU want? Do you think perfect is waiting just off the horizon? Best of luck with that...

As for my wife and me, we will continue enjoying each others' imperfections, entirely committed to loving each other no matter what. I wish you all such a wonderful, imperfect marriage.