Here are some of my recent thoughts on politics, specifically the economy and the election.  Sorry for the rambling nature of the post.  I doubt it will sway any of you one way or the other, as most people have already made up their minds.  Yet I hope these thoughts will be profitable to you.  As always, I will appreciate hearing your opinions.

1. The economy... in two words. "debt" and "oil".

Our national debt of trillions of dollars seems problematic.  Likewise the 'social security' system, with the 'baby boomers' expecting to retire while a smaller number of people are paying into the system.  Meanwhile personal credit card debt averages around $8000 per family (not including mortgages).  As for mortgages, the Carter administration and Clinton administration (and 1992 and 1999 Congresses) apparently urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their 'subprime' mortgage loans to low-income families, which recently caused turmoil as they almost failed and the government chose to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts.

The issue is: do we allow the consequences of people's poor financial decisions to sting them, or ought the government to step in and provide public money to try to ease or eliminate the consequences?  Which is the most wise and loving thing to do, in the long term?

Most people in government these days seem to be calling for "more regulation", and bailouts, etc. (http://casey.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=1999877173.90323.383&gen=1)  If this trend continues, it will likely apply also to the other financial tsunamis looming, such as the national debt, the credit card debt, social security, etc.  The government will spend taxpayer money to try to keep the system afloat, instead of letting those who were in debt go bankrupt.  This will work, until the government runs out of money.  Then hyperinflation will occur.

I think Alexander Tyler's quote is extremely applicable and prescient:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

Meanwhile, oil is the trigger that has surfaced these problems again this year (coincidentally right before the election, or maybe not so coincidentally).  I personally think most people still underestimate how dependent the western economy is upon oil... for energy, transportation, and consequently, for food and water.  The holders of the majority of the world's oil (the Middle East, Venuzuela, Russia, Nigeria) are currently not very friendly with the USA. The 1930's depression had the advantage that more people lived within walking distance of food production than they do today. If oil and gas got really expensive, life might drastically change here in America, and it might trigger a large economic depression and possibly chaos until food and water and jobs became more accessible.

Yet the Bible gives plenty of hope for such times.  Matthew 24, Luke 21... Jesus predicts war, famines, and lots of persecution for Christians.  But He says to 'lift up your eyes, for your redemption draws near."  Habakkuk picks up the same theme:

Though the fig tree should not blossom
And there be no fruit on the vines,
Though the yield of the olive should fail
And the fields produce no food,
Though the flock should be cut off from the fold
And there be no cattle in the stalls,
Yet I will exult in the LORD,
I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.
In other words, even if the economy completely fails and anarchy prevails, we who hope in Christ are completely secure - our citizenship and our hope is in heaven.  The situation will be ripe for reaching out with love and with the gospel to our neighbors.  No matter how we die (as we all will), whether by starvation or persecution or mob violence or cancer, we will wake up "in the presence of the Lord", Jesus Christ the Living Word of God.

 

2. The election - specifically Obama versus McCain.

Obama seems somehow more a discussion topic than McCain... perhaps McCain is seen as somewhat tamer, as a 'continuation' of Bush's presidency, while Obama is seen as more of a change.  I was interested to read tonight perspectives from Brian McClaren and Randy Alcorn on Obama... I'll comment on them below.  I have friends and family whose sentiments lie on both sides, so it's been interesting to hear the different perspectives.

From what I've seen, Christians who are voting for Obama give the following main reasons:

• In foreign policy, Obama emphasizes 'peace and reconciliation', not 'war' (or 'national defense', as the McCain side would say).  I think this means, at the bottom line, that he is more in favor of letting the United Nations handle international affairs, rather than 'unilateral' actions.  War is always horrific, and Obama is emphasizing the need for the United States to extricate itself from the conflicts it is involved in.  Many Christians see Bush as a president who arrogantly went against the world's opinion and thrust the nation into war.  The question of how to deal with Islamic terrorism is not often discussed these days, or at least not as often as it was discussed immediately after 9/11.

 

• Obama emphasizes helping the poor through government action, i.e. moving in a more socialistic direction, in healthcare, expanding welfare programs, mortgage assistance, etc.  It could be termed "helping the poor and needy among us", or "taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor", or "social justice and equity"... regardless of the terms used, his policies are undeniably more socialistic than McCain's, and to many Christians, this indicates to them that he is more concerned about the poor than is McCain.

 

• Also, of lesser prominence, Obama more emphasizes the need to protecting the environment, and he promises more changes in fiscal policy (i.e. more "government regulation" of Wall Street, health care, etc) than McCain, and so for those who think the current economic problems are due to Bush's policies, such change is welcomed.

Christians who are voting against Obama give the following main reasons:

• Obama is strongly pro-choice.  In other words, he does not consider the aborted fetuses as human babies unjustly killed by the millions each year, but rather as blobs of tissue without rights, whose life or death should be controlled by the mother's wishes.

 

• Obama's socialistic leanings are seen as ultimately harmful to the poor, to the economy, etc.  In other words, his plans to give money to the poor are seen in the light of other unsuccessful socialistic experiments of the past century.

 

• Obama's views on many other topics reflect the Democratic liberal positions, and do not jive with the Bible's teachings (on homosexual marriage, race, and other areas).

My own thoughts on the issues of the war, socialism, and abortion:

• The War on Terror (an ill-conceived title because it is unwinnable) - War is horrible - everybody admits this... including Obama, McCain, and me.  However, what is the alternative?  It is easy to criticise an incumbent president, and say "if I was president, I would withdraw from international conflict; I would bring home the troops."  But the actuality is that there are and will be wars, some of which will inevitably involve us.  Consider the 9/11 attacks, or the Saddam Hussein regime kicking out the nuclear inspectors.  How would Obama react to such events?  Unless I hear from him a novel plan, his 'peace' talk sounds like mere armchair quarterbacking.  I am guessing he would emphasize submission to the UN.  Since I do not trust the UN, this smells bad to me.

 

• Taking money from the rich to give to the poor strikes me as a bad decision for long-term national prosperity.  I personally think that individuals, especially Christians and the Church, should be helping the poor, not the government.  I think the government should step back and get less involved (and shrink itself in general)... drastically reduce welfare, etc.  It seems to me that whenever the government has increased taxes and given more money to low-income people (even back in Roosevelt's 'New Deal' in the 1930's), the subsidy/welfare mentality that has resulted has had long-term detrimental effects on low-income people and families. So when I hear Christians say that we should hold Jesus' emphasis on helping the poor and should thus vote for Obama's socialism, I agree with the former and disagree with the latter.  Government doleouts to the poor, to me, seems less loving, farther from Jesus'/the Bible's recommended approach.  Is McCain any better?  Well, he may be the lesser of two evils...

 

• Abortion = murder.  Government-sanctioned abortion = government-sanctioned murder.

I have heard the following question from my friends: Why would you put advocacy for the unborn above advocacy for the poor, and above advocacy for those being killed by US troops in foreign countries?

My response (openminded, but based on the evidence I have seen so far) is: Government socialistic aid is actually probably not the most loving response to the poor.  War is indeed extremely tragic, but one must weigh whether the carnage from foreign policies of 'appeasement' or inaction might actually be greater than the casualties of 'unilateral regime change', as ugly as that may be.  So advocacy for the unborn is actually the only real advocacy question in this year's election... and there is a clear answer as to whether McCain or Obama is a stronger advocacte for the unborn babies.

 

Finally, two perspectives worth reading (though I have already commented above on their main points)

Brian McClaren, four reasons why he is voting for Obama
http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/why-im-voting-for-obama-and-why.html

My reaction: On his reason #1, claiming that Jesus' message was one of "reconciliation"... Really???  Reconciliation with whom or what?  How?  The main reconciliation Jesus talked about was between sinners and God.  How does McClaren's post fit with Jesus' emphasis on 'straight and narrow way' leading to life which few find, or "he who is not for me is against me", or Himself as "the way, the truth, and the life... no man comes to the Father but by Me"?  I suspect that McClaren would find the rhetoric of Jesus Himself quite "militant" and "polarizing", were Jesus to be speaking in today's culture.
Also, McClaren's reason #3, on caring for the poor, I have addressed above by questioning whether socialism really provides more hope for the poor than does capitalism; whether big government is the solution, and indeed whether searching for "a solution" is actually a red herring since "the poor you will always have with you"... and whether instead we ought to focus on individual and church-based generosity and urban transformation...

Randy Alcorn, on why he is not voting for Obama
http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-cool-obamas-pro-abortion-stance.html

Here's a great quote from his post:
"Please don't tell me abortion isn't the only issue. Of course it isn't. Treatment of the Jews wasn’t the only issue in 1940 Germany. Buying, selling and owning black people wasn’t the only issue in the United States of 1850. Nonetheless, both were the dominant moral issues of their day. Make no mistake about it. In our own day if we support a candidate who defends abortion, who is dedicated to that cause, we are supporting the killing of children. Yes, even if he’s the coolest candidate to come along in decades."

 

 

 

The ten books currently in my main reading pile besides the Bible are: "Love and Respect", "For Men Only", "Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church", "Don't Waste Your Life", "The Young Man in the Mirror", "The Reason for God", "Philosophy and the Christian Faith", "The Reliability of the Gospels", "George Mueller", and the Book of Mormon.  Just because they're in my pile doesn't mean I read them frequently (ha! far from it actually), but some of the ideas on this blog are obviously stimulated by the things I read when I get a chance.  The Bible is by far the most important book though... I recommend it more than all the others... the Bible is food, the others are condiments, or even silverware.

I have realized just tonight why I value my journal and my blog so much, and why I desire my closest friends to read them and to get to know my friends from previous places - it is because of two facts: I have changed a lot during the years of my life, and I have lived in several very different environments in my life - a version of 'rootlessness'.  My journals and blogs (and photos and letters and other forms of history) form a sort of thread that ties together 'the real me' and help me (and potentially others) understand who I am in view of the entire collection of experiences and friends... I tend to believe (rightly or wrongly) that unless I or someone else grasp 'who I was', it is essentially impossible to understand 'who I am' right now, and 'who I am becoming'... and likewise I think the more one gets to know my true friends, the more one can understand me.  If someone would view my journals and blogs and friends as 'secondary/accessories' and decides they're not worth the time to digest or get to know, I would feel that the person is not truly interested in getting to know me. That ought not change how I view/treat them, of course, in general...

Tonight reading "Love and Respect" - powerful and highly recommended... it's based on Ephesians 5:33, with thesis that husbands need respect and wives need love.  I think I strongly agree, based on what I've seen.  I don't know if I'll ever get to apply it.   But what about singles?  Does it not seem that single Christian men cannot / ought-not to direct the natural flow of their love / romantic feelings toward their single Christian sisters? (unless God is leading them to pursue marriage, of course) ...because that would easily tend to stir up feelings in the girls that would be difficult to repress... feelings that would risk 'leading them on' even accidentally, without meaning to.  As the african proverb says, "If you are not interested in giving money to the beggar widow, do not ask her too many questions."  What then to do with these?  How ought single men to 'practice' loving their wives, as it were?  Certainly not to direct this toward married women, that would be very foolish.  It seems to me that these feelings and impulses must simply be buried, dumped, wasted.  Not to say that God overlooks it, of course... all of our tears are saved in His bottle, and likewise with all of our romantic love.  It's like a garden hose which has no 'off' valve, but has no garden to water.  All it can do is pour onto the asphalt and down into the drain.  But that's better than prematurely soaking the paper packets of seeds which are meant for other gardens.  The energy of single people can of course be turned toward positive 'projects', as it is well known that churches benefit from the extra time and resources and energy of single men and women... and missionary endeavors to far lands, etc.  To a limited degree the longing of single Christian men to lead and provide and the longing of single Christian women to care for and nurture others can be 'redirected' into small groups, others' families, etc. Yet somehow it doesn't seem that simple.  If Christian single men need respect/significance and Christian single women need love/security, who can they legitimately get it from?  From God, I suppose.  Whom do they practice on?  Ultimately no one, I suppose.  Yet 'friendships' are obviously important.

There's the example of Jesus... single all his thirty-odd years on earth, yet somehow building a DEEP friendship with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, and others... especially Mary (John 11, etc)... while staying perfectly pure and sinless.  How could he intentionally build/allow such a deep friendship, while somehow making it clear to her that he had no romantic intentions toward her?  I wish I could watch His life in person.  E.g. Paul with the many women friends he mentions, Dorcas (great name for an American girl), etc.  May God give us all wisdom.  As the Quran says, "May God lead us to the straight path."

One more thing - I heard this awesome analogy from Piper's lecture on John Newton the other day - Newton used it in one of his sermons.

Imagine if there was a man who had just been told (and verified with official documents) that he had inherited a HUGE fortune [think billions or trillions].  All of his financial needs and wants would basically be solved for the rest of his life.  All he had to do was travel to a particular distant city to receive his inheritance.  He traveled and traveled, and finally, just when he was getting within five miles of the city, a wheel on his carriage broke [or his car broke an axle or something].

Imagine how utterly ridiculous it would be if we saw that man cursing and muttering darkly to himself as he walked the rest of the way, upset at the fact that he had to walk to the city and get all hot and sweaty and tired.  Or how utterly moronic we would think he was if he decided not to complete his trip because of the inconvenience!

Thus it is [says Newton] with our own situation (for those who are believers/disciples of Christ) - on our way to HEAVEN to live with GOD, FOREVER, joint heirs with Christ, bride of Christ, children of God, etc - when we encounter difficulties and sorrows and trials here...

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us... Romans 8:18

In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials... 1 Peter 1:6

For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison... 2 Corinthians 4:17

Fellow Xangan Lance "FKIProfessor" posted a thorough review of the fascinating-sounding book "The Spiritual Brain". You can read his review here: http://www.xanga.com/FKIProfessor/632686621/the-spiritual-brain.html .

The book seems to be a good example of the growing number of non-Christian non-materialist scientists.  I.e. they don't believe that we humans are just 'machines'; they believe there is a 'spiritual' aspect to us as well, but they do not believe in the Biblical portrayal of a personal God who created the world and who has related to us in the past, currently relates to us in some ways, and will be fully revealed to the whole world in glory at some point in the future.  As an example, it's interesting to note that the Dalai Lama (top Tibetan Buddhist leader) was invited to give the keynote address to the 30000 scientists present at the "Neuroscience" conference in 2005, about spirituality and the brain.

One especially fascinating aspect of the book (from Lance's review; I haven't read it myself) is the discussion of the "God areas" of the brain.  I.e., there is some experimentation investigating areas of the brain which reportedly when electrically stimulated can produce 'out of body' experiences, mystical experiences, etc.  And the 'God gene' - the idea that some people are more susceptible than others to 'mystical experiences of God'.

I would actually not be surprised if there really is an area of the human brain which is closely tied to mystical experiences, or even genetic components which enhance the function of this area.  But of course I don't think that that would rule out the existence of the human soul, any more than a team of researchers investigating a locked running car from underneath coming across a 'gas pedal rod' which revved the engine, could legitimately conclude that there was no longer any need to suppose that cars need 'drivers'.

And this research really underscores for me that my faith in God through Jesus Christ is NOT based on subjective experiences.  I do not believe in Him (primarily) because I have "felt" God's presence (although I have) or experienced specific answers to prayer (although I have).  Rather, my faith in Him is based primarily on the evidence from history, especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  If He really rose, and the evidence indicates that He did, then the God He preached about is real, regardless of whether I "feel" Him today or not.

If you want to delve further, Glenn Miller's writings on this (e.g. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/sh6end.html) are very interesting.  He tends to be more 'subjectively oriented' than me about the basis for his faith, but he makes some interesting points (and certainly believes with me the 'objective' bases found in the historical record).

What is your faith in God based upon?   What evidence for the reality of God do you have that you could not attribute to an "imaginary friend?"  Or if you do not believe in the God of the Bible, what do you think about my reasons for believing in Him?

I was thinking today about Thomas Kinkade and the fact that I don't seem to despise him nearly as much as many of my friends do, and about art in general, about which we've discussed some thoughts before in the past.

And I was pondering one of my favorite paintings, by Norman Rockwell:

Here is a blurb about this painting:

Some of Rockwell’s most powerful creations came out of his years with "Look." One such piece was inspired by the unjust murders of three civil rights workers near Philadelphia, Mississippi. The painting, “Southern Justice,” was done in 1965 and depicts the horror endured by three young men, two white and one black [James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwermer], who had come to Mississippi in the fight for equality. One man is seen lying dead in the foreground; the next is standing in the glow of the attacker’s torch while defending the third man, who appears near death.

Though this painting is not very "Kinkadian", the question for me is whether the sentiment it expresses is Biblical, and whether it's a skillful work, worth thinking about.   I think so, for two reasons.

First, its goal (as a work of art) is to promote racial equality (Rockwell left the Saturday Evening Post after working for them for 47 years, because they told him "never to show coloured people except as servants".  Rockwell's decision fits with the Bible's portrayal as all the world of ONE race and endowed by the Creator with unalienable human rights, contrary to the racism inherent from the theory of evolution.  And it fits with the mission of "seeking justice" and "defending the fatherless" that God has commissioned His people to engage in.  Our primary task is "making disciples" of Jesus - fishing for men in light of the extremely high stakes of eternity.  But meanwhile we are the salt of the earth, and without a doubt this influence cannot ignore our host country's political structure.

Second, I find so much beauty in the portrayal of the standing man holding up the other man.  I remember standing in front of this painting in the Norman Rockwell museum being literally stunned by the force of the standing man's gaze (he has piercing blue eyes, which are hard to see in the online pictures).  The look in his eye says, "Go ahead.  Shoot me.  But I will not run away - I will not cease from helping this black man who is my friend."  This "rugged individualism" is not really "American" in origin, although it is one of the most beautiful things that the American culture has preserved for the world.  (...though particular strengths are often tied to related excesses/sins...)   Instead, this insistence on doing what is right even when it is unpopular or "goes against what society considers right" is Biblical  (contrast with the atheist/agnostic's relativistic/cultural view of morality if you have some time).

I find myself empathizing strongly with the standing guy.  Of all ways to die, how wonderful it would be to die while helping someone else, seeking justice and the glory of God and others' salvation, in an ending which the world might consider "tragic" but which God remembers with approval.  (Indeed God Himself experienced this... He died on our behalf while saving us from our sins...  He voluntarily submitted to death at our hands, so that He could save those of us who believe in Him...)  Truly "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."

Yet it is amazing to realize that I can glorify God even in the mundane, everyday moments of life... choosing to die to self and obey God's direction...  and amazing that God will not forget even the slightest act.  Not just the moment of our death, but literally everything is significant and will be scrutinized on that Day.

Soli Deo Gloria - To God alone be glory.   May God be exalted in my life.

Several fascinating articles I came across today:

1. This post by Al Mohler mentions the growing numbers of schools (and kindergartens!) allowing "transgendered" children in school, and catering to them extensively (essentially imposing their worldview upon the other children). The question that immediately comes to my mind is the age-old "Should we engage or disengage?" ...i.e., how much is enough, before one takes one's children out to homeschool them rather than leaving them in to 'have a godly influence'?

2. Another post by Mohler mentions that married couples are now a minority of couples in the USA. This is a thought-provoking milestone in our national moral decline, to say the least...

3. This article by Richard Fernandez (quoting Dershowitz and Arbour) contains a very insightful analysis of the current moral dilemma faced by the United Nations and by those who look to the UN to solve the world's problems. Most of the post is excerpted below:

"Is National Self Defense a War Crime?" Asks Alan Dershowitz in a op-ed in Canada’s National Post. The answer says Dershowitz is "yes" if you ask Louise Arbour, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and currently the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, for so long as national self defense entails the risk of inflicting collateral damage. Dershowitz rejects her position and goes on to argue that:

"Democracies simply cannot protect their citizens against terrorist attacks of the kind launched by Hezbollah without some foreseeable risk to civilians. There cannot be any absolute prohibition against such self-defensive military actions so long as they are proportional to the dangers and reasonable efforts are made to minimize civilian casualties."

Barbour's thinking has set up a wholly secular equivalent of the Problem of Evil. If we remove the term "God" from the standard proposition and replace it with appropriately secular terms we have this restatement:

Barbour's Dilemma is the problem of reconciling the existence of oppressive regimes, genocide and mass slaughter in a world governed by a wholly benevolent, pacifistic, nonviolent and impotent United Nations.

If the United Nations is benevolent then it cannot tolerate the existence of a Rwanda, Congo, North Korea or a Darfur. But if it attempts to stop these atrocities then inevitably it must inflict some collateral damage which will cause some people to die and that, according to Barbour, is a War Crime. There is no way out of the paradox and the system is in logical self-contradiction. Unlike the real problem of evil, a theodicy is not allowed as a solution to Barbour's Dilemma.because in a secular context, no meta-solutions are allowed by invoking a God who can make amends for everything or whose true nature we cannot completely understand. Those transcendant quantities cannot exist in Barbour's secular universe. They might exist in a religious universe, but not in the United Nations'.

There are also other problems with the UN hegemony...  where does the source of moral legitimacy for any enforcement arise, whether 'collateral damage' is done or not?   What right does any human have to 'impose morality' of any kind whatsoever upon a fellow human?   ...or, from whence does that right come?

There's another discussion I'm participating in at http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/537648500/item.html that is delving into questions of 'secular morality', if you're interested and have some time.

 

This post is a combination of two thoughts, both of which are rambling, so if you only have a little time, skip it.

1. Al Mohler clearly delineates in this article the emergence of yet another name for the same old people... the new name being "Middle Church, Middle Synagogue, Middle Mosque", and the same old people being "liberals."

Here's a question that has deeply intrigued me... why are liberals and conservatives so predictable?   Why is it that so many seemingly nonrelated issues/beliefs are so prevalently combined in the same groups of people?  Why is it the case that knowing what a person thinks about the proper interpretation of the book of Genesis or the most appropriate national welfare policies can correlate so highly with that person's beliefs about abortion pills, gun control, the fight against terrorism, or global warming?

I guess these things must be deeply connected somehow...?   Not only that, but in spite of all these "correlations," liberals and conservatives keep insisting "don't put me in a box!"   "I'm not a stereotypical blue democrat / red republican!  I'm purple!  Just like Jesus was!"

The stridency of the world is so immensely wearying sometimes.

2. Closely related, the heartbreak and the grief (for me), of/on-behalf-of so many of my friends (especially my Christian friends) struggling through (for lack of a better term) "reactionary postmodern angst".

It's one thing when you see "the world" yelling against God, striving constantly to contradict and circumvent His truth and His beautiful pattern for us, boiling/teeming/laboring like ants to invent "whatever is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:10).

But it's another thing when close friends go through these struggles...  when close friends reject God and the teaching of the Bible, not because they've found something better, nor because they have solid reasons for their rejection, but for various paltry motivations (that we flesh-bound humans are so notorious for)...

"... it doesn't satisfy me emotionally ..."

"... I've just been burned too much in the past by hypocrites who taught this doctrine but lived in sin and selfishness..."

 

Extending C.S.Lewis' famous quote: "...We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us. Like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot understand what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea."

It's as if the ignorant child, when I sit down to explain to him how wonderful the beach really is, replies to me: "Oh yes, I know all about it.  I saw a movie once about the beach.  But the theatre was hot and smelly and the people around me were loud and obnoxious.  Not for me, thanks.  I'll just stick with my mud pies."

I am currently empathizing more than usual with Paul in Romans 9:2...  "great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart..."

Part of it, I am hoping, is the age of my friends - perhaps they are young and inexperienced, and after another decade or two has rolled over them, they will come to their senses and cling wholeheartedly to the truth.  Yet I know that many older people have simply become set in their liberal mindsets, irrevocably.

Even more the problem, most likely, is the "spirit of the age" we live in....  Oh, the pain of seeing my dear friends "infected" by the (postmodern, "spiritual", anti-reason, anti-doctrine, cynical, relativistic, emotion/experience-driven, scoffing, sensual, reactionary, nauseating) spirit of the age.

I can't convince them - they won't listen.  I can't laugh at them - the love of Christ constrains me.  I can't ignore them... splagchnistheis in action.   Prayer, patience, acceptance-with-joy the only options.   1 Corinthians 1-3 an encouraging stay.

The recent New York Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of homosexual marriages is extremely fascinating.  Here are some excerpts from the decision.  What are your thoughts?

 

We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.

...

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

...

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

...

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

An American?  Yes.  I am an American.

But first and dearest, I am a Christian - an adopted son of the Creator God.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus was right when He said -

"See to it that no one misleads you.
For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.
You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.

For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.
But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold.

But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."
Is this morbid of me?  Am I improperly focusing on the "dark" that is in society without properly seeing the "light" in every person?  Ought I to follow the Buddhist path and ignore the evil, unrest, wars, and riots that are happening with increasing frequency around the world?   Shall I believe the liberal/Eastern "peace and safety" myth, as in the following poem, that peace is actually attainable without God's Messiah?

(keep in mind that this poem was written the day after September 11, 2001)

Wage peace with your breath.

Breathe in firemen and rubble, breathe out whole buildings and flocks of red wing blackbirds.

Breathe in terrorists and breathe out sleeping children and freshly mown fields.

Breathe in confusion and breathe out maple trees.

Breathe in the fallen and breathe out lifelong friendships intact.

Wage peace with your listening: hearing sirens, pray loud.

Remember your tools: flower seeds, clothes pins, clean rivers.

Make soup.

Play music, memorize the words for thank you in three languages.

Learn to knit, and make a hat.

Think of chaos as dancing raspberries, imagine grief as the outbreath of beauty
or the gesture of fish.

Swim for the other side.

Wage peace.

Never has the world seemed so fresh and precious:

Have a cup of tea and rejoice.

Act as if armistice has already arrived.
Celebrate today.

- judyth hill

No.   No!   and with much weeping I say... No.
Flowers, tea, and knitting, wonderful as they are, will never bring us peace!
I say this not because I am a pessimistic person, but because I am a realistic person.  I say this because God has pronounced, very clearly, that there will be no peace until Jesus Christ returns to reign on earth forever.

Evil is not an illusion (and should not be treated as if it is such), chaos is not "dancing raspberries".

Rather, evil is real.  Sin is the darkest of abhorrent twistedness, a screaming-in-the-face-of the Beautiful One.

But God...   But God is there, and He is not silent... He has not left us alone...  He has acted...

Evil is temporary.  Our bottled tears will soon be wiped away, and death will be no more.

You who are grieved at the evil in the world, turn to the Loving Creator!

Please don't ignore Him, don't pretend that He doesn't exist - don't pretend you don't need Him.   Accept the forgiveness He offers you in Christ's substitutionary death-for-us!  Please accept it before it is too late.

Turn to Him in wholehearted repentance... in a 180 degree reversal of your past self-worshipping life...  turn to Him in devotion and allegiance - worship Him alone.

Then, and only then, go make some soup.

 

    For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult,
And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
Isaiah 9

 

Interesting article about beauty...  although I think he delves too much into philosophical speculation, and not enough into scripture.  In fact, I sometimes wonder if Edwards and Augustine (whom he quotes) do the same thing.

And now I may be accused of the very same thing, as I propose something (which, nonetheless, is, I think, at the very least "countenanced" by Scripture) - about a related topic/question - "What is art?"

Most people consider Rembrandt's, Da Vinci's, Michaelangelo's work to be "art."  A relatively smaller number consider Marcel Duchamp's work to be "art".  And a much smaller (though growing) number of people consider Marina Abramovic's work to be "art."

And if someone tries to tell one of Abramovic's fans that her work is "not art," they'd better be prepared for a rabidly indignant excoriation in which one is informed that one has no right to impose one's own aesthetic standards on other people.

So here's my thought on this (though it's probably not original)...  the question ought not to be "What is art?"  but rather, "What is good art?"

I.e., related to Mohler's article referenced above, there exists morality in this world, based on God's ultimate/transcendent standard.   Art that reinforces/corroborates/gives-glory-to/affirms God's own standards of truth, morality, beauty, and that promotes worship of God Himself, is "good" art, and ought to be supported.

By "supported," I mean not only that we should buy/listen-to/watch/absorb this "good art," but also that we should actively seek to have this art promoted in the world around us.  We ought to seek to reduce the prevalence of pornography in our nation/world (though carefully, so as to avoid censoring other things like the Bible itself).  We ought to lobby public art museums to sponsor good art.

If someone tells me that I'm "imposing", I can reply, "Well yes, actually, that is part of my job description, to be "salt of the earth" and "light of the world."  And if you are telling me that I 'ought not' to do this, then you're imposing your morality on me.  May I ask what moral basis you have for doing so?"

So that's some of my thoughts on the matter.  Here are a few corollaries...

Are Thomas Kincaid's paintings "good art?"   There is a fierce reaction among Christian youth, I've found, that decries the "plain, simple, beautiful, sugary" in favor of the "stinging, shocking, noir, acidic."   It seems that there is definitely plenty of wiggle-room for "taste", within the morality provided by God's word... e.g. many different types of music recorded in the Psalms, all of which presumably are glorifying to God.   And sometimes the "shocking" is powerful good art!  E.g. many of Jesus' parables... very shocking in their original cultural context.  But never shocking in morally-wrong ways... only in against-the-grain-of-the-culture-but-with-the-grain-of-God's-Law ways.

Next, does art have to be "purposefully good" to be considered good art?  If a sweet old christian lady writes a poem and accidentally uses a phrase that is vulgar in youth-talk, does that make it bad art?  Or if a hard-core secular band writes a dark/nihilistic song that unwittingly/accidentally opens thousands of peoples' eyes/hearts to the message of the gospel of Christ, does that make it good art?  There would seem to be a two dimensional gradient (at the very least!)... both "morality" and "skillfulness"...  the best art is both moral (affirming the truth, glorifying God, explicitly or implicitly) and also skillful (i.e. baby Johnny's stick figures with "God is good" scribbled above may not deserve a place in the world art museums, though of course God Himself may be delighted with Johnny's motives and final product).

A final gradient is the actual lifestyle of the artist... some of the world's finest "art" has been produced by men and women with very low moral standards...  should that factor in to our own valuation of what "good art" is?  I think so... not exclusively, certainly, but it is certainly a factor.

"Soli Deo Gloria."   His glory is all that really matters... we're just passing through this earth briefly.  What, of all our works and words, will last through eternity?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.... For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said.

Good old Netherlands... testbed of all secularism and tolerance...