We Have Bad Words All Wrong

When people become aware I'm a Christian some will curb, lessen, or apologize for their F-word or S-H word usage around me because they think it offends me.  I appreciate their consideration.  However, they'll go right on with their exclamations of "Oh my God!" and "Jesus Christ!" to indicate surprise, astonishment, or disgust - obviously not intending to invoke the Lord's help or reference him in any reverential way.  Sometimes they'll even use those words ("Oh my God!, "God!" etc.) and I'll have no idea why they're using them - other than perhaps as filler words.  Believe it or not, the typical "4-letter" swear words don't offend me at all. They're nothing but coarse and profane language - even though It's better not to use them in polite company.  Using God's name in an empty and/or flippant way however makes me wince.  It something's going to offend, it's going to be that.

I'm convinced many believe those empty references to God are totally benign, morally-neutral, and non-offensive - because after all, they don't "mean anything" by it.  That's precisely the point though: If they don't mean anything by their usage, it is a vain (i.e. empty, worthless) usage and thus a direct violation of The Third Commandment's "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."(Ex. 20:7)  Even when we remember the first part of that commandment, we tend to forget the second part, don't we?  The second part ("...for the LORD will not hod him guiltless...") should really drive home the fact that this is serious stuff; the words we use have consequences even if the people around us might not care.  

I have the same attitude and response regarding empty, ceremonial prayers.  I'd rather there be no prayer at all than it be one of these prayers.  Unfortunately this type of prayer is the preferred type of prayer by politicians and at political functions.  It's the PC prayer.  It's the prayer that by it's invocation of no God in particular in fact invokes no God at all. If you take Jesus Christ out, if you ignore the actual character of God and make him a bland old nice Grandpa-type God and ask His blessing on things and actions which Scripture clearly militates against - it can't be anything else than a stench in His nose and a heaping up of wrath.  It's using His name in a vain and worthless way - at the very least. 

Daytime TV and the general population now finds vain usage of the Lord's name perfectly acceptable - but in the final analysis it is a much more serious thing than the crude 4-letter swear words you think are so much worse.  Somehow even the Christian community has seemed to have forgotten this.  As for me, I'd much rather raise up children who occasionally use typical 4-letter swear words than children who think lightly of treading God's name underfoot and who think nothing of it when they hear it done.  American culture and even the church (generally) seem to care more about propriety and fitting in with polite society and current cultural mores than we do about the Law of God.  Christians, we need to reassess our commitments and attitudes.  We can start with ourselves and our families. 

The "Do Babies Go To Heaven?" Question

The "Do babies go to heaven?" question ranks up there with "Is my grandma/grandpa/mom/dad/loved one in hell?" as the most uncomfortable for serious Christians to be asked.  A common answer when the question is asked about unbelieving adults is "I don't know...God will judge."  While this is a true answer - as far as it goes - , it often ignores serious issues and the logical implications (if we trust Scripture) of things we already might know beyond a reasonable doubt, so in this way it's somewhat deceptive.  What's even worse is an assumption that the "good" unbelieving deceased is automatically is in a "better place" by virtue of dying - as if death itself is the only prerequisite for eternal happiness.  Well, the "better place" answer is used for just about everyone except really "bad" (as we deem them) people such as Hitler et. al. - as if the rest of mankind is basically "good" and surely have earned the right to eternal happiness/heaven - or at least "a better place."  We lie to ourselves so badly! Such answers may be comforting to the grieved, but when we are pretty darn sure the deceased had no love of God or trust in Jesus as Mediator/Savior/Lord our answers are non-thinking at best - lies at worst.  Does it really please God to ignore what we supposedly believe to be true about Scripture, death, heaven, and hell - and give ourselves or others false assurance?  For an issues as serious as God, salvation, and eternal destinies, I am convinced it does not.  

This is a indeed a very sensitive and emotionally-laden topic.  When the heaven question concerns babies and the unborn it is even more sensitive. We are faced with the difficulty of  these precious human beings (as far as we know) never having heard or accepted the gospel.  We sidestep this frequently sidestep this difficulty because we perceive them to be "innocent" - so they must go to heaven, right?  The big problem with this is that they're not innocent.  They are innocent on a human scale - but they are not innocent on a cosmic scale; they are not innocent before God.  If they are human beings, they are "in Adam" and as such have sinned in Adam and are guilty before God.  This is the doctrine of Original Sin I'm referring to.  Either Adam somehow represented all mankind in the garden as our federal head and thus we all not only inherit a sin nature but also guilt before God - or we (all humanity) were in some sense actually there in the garden, sinning with Adam and becoming guilty that way.  Many professing Christians today find this doctrine distasteful, but they can't escape the fact that it has been part of historical Christian belief since at least Augustine.  I would argue that it was part of Christian belief since Paul, and before that, Jesus - but the doctrine became more officially recognized with Augustine.  Since that time, those who would deny the doctrine of  Original Sin were seen as outside the faith and not Christian at all.  If, as a Christian you deny original sin and original guilt you must realize you are putting yourself outside the sphere of historical Christian orthodoxy and into a realm of thought both Catholics and Protestants have rejected throughout history.  This should at least give you pause. 

Another big problem with the "all infants and/or all aborted children go to heaven argument" is that it puts us into the position of either (logically) hoping to be barren (so that we are not bringing into the world any who will go to hell - OR (logically) hoping our unborn and born babies will somehow die so that they will have a 100% chance of going to heaven - since heaven is infinitely better than this life. This might not only be mistaken thinking, but also dangerous thinking. Think of Andrea Yates and the bathtub drownings of her infants for instance.  Thankfully, most parents who take this position are not as consistent as Yates! We have children and pray they will LIVE. We teach, train, and pray for them. We rejoice when they show reasoning capability to make important decisions rather than lament because this would mean a greater chance of hell due to greater accountability.  Do we pray that our children will be severely mentally disabled so that they will be "innocent" like a child and therefore go to heaven?  Concerning accountability, many Christians will also posit the idea of an "age of accountability" before which time a person is not accountable to God for their sins because of not having the level of understanding supposedly needed to be accountable for wrongdoing.  They say that those who die before this age (usually said to be thirteen) will go to heaven.  Biblical support of this is weak - and, furthermore the "age of accountability" doctrine should be suspect because it would necessarily compromise the more universally recognized and historic doctrine of Original Sin.  

So, do all children and unborn who die go to hell?  No, I don't think they do.  I can't prove it - but I would say "no."  The case of King David's deceased son "...I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam 12:22-23) might be evidence for babies (at least some) going to heaven.  I think that it is - but I don't think it provides airtight proof that all unborn, babies, or children do.  My wife and I have suffered a miscarriage - so the whole issue of babies going to heaven is not just an abstract and academic topic with us. It is emotional and personal as well. We hope that our miscarried child is like King David's young son that died by God's command and that we will someday meet our child in heaven. Even with this being said, I have to say the "all...go to heaven" argument has significant difficulties - and some caution and prudence is needed because of these difficulties.  We go to heaven because of the work of Christ - not our own work or any perceived innocence we could attribute to ourselves.  A heaven-bound baby who dies in the womb, in infancy, or later as a child will go there (heaven) because of the work of Christ.  The usual mechanism for being joined to His saving work is personal faith in Him and His work.  However, at the core, it is all due to Him - His work.  He saves us.  In the end we must simply trust in God and His Purpose - and that He will do whatever is right.  We do not see the big picture.  We see only part.  He however sees the whole picture - the whole plan.  He not only sees it but he made it.  His ways are higher than our ways. As God and judge of the whole earth and of all creation, He only does those things which are right.  It comforts me to leave it at that.

Why We Love Star Wars Stormtroopers

The Star Wars stormtrooper has a measure of popularity the clone trooper does not have. I think one of the reasons is that while the clone trooper is a genetically-engineered super-soldier, the stormtrooper, coming later at the time of the empire, is a more "normal" human conscript or volunteer - like you or I would be. He is not genetically perfect and he most likely doesn't like all of his job or the policies of the empire he works for - and from which he gets his paycheck. In comparison, the Jedi is awesome and has super-type powers. The sith is terrifically evil - and wields special power too. Most of us can't closely identify with either. The stormtrooper is like us - no special powers, imperfect aim, and just trying to make the best out of his respective duty station while keeping a clear enough conscious to be able to sleep at night.

Jesus the Sith Lord?

I'm a big Star Wars fan - a really big fan.  I have a large Star Wars collection, have seen the movies many times, and even have a big Yoda image decorating the hood of my car.  Make no mistake though.  Star Wars' Light Side and Dark Side are not comparable to Good and Evil in the Christian worldview.  The "Force" is not the Holy Spirit.  When I was a child and young teen, I thought it was kooky and extreme how some Christians would be critical of Star Wars, cautioning Christian parents against it by citing the Eastern mysticism and other non-Christian philosophies it presents cloaked in Jedi goodness.  As an adult, though still an avid Star Wars fan, I now see the reason behind their wariness.  Watch the following clip.  It is from the third prequel movie, one of the coolest lightsaber duels of the whole saga, but the thinking Christian should be able to detect some worldview problems:

[Be advised that this is not a G-rated fighting scene; it contains some scenes of anguish at the beginning and some slightly gruesome images toward the end]

If you know your Scripture well, you will notice that Anakin virtually quotes Jesus (Matt 12:30) soon after Obi-Wan confronts him:

[Movie dialogue is in bold]

ANAKIN: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." 

OBI-WAN: "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must." 

Again, here are Jesus' words in Matt. 12:30:

[Jesus' words are in red]

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Do you see how similar Jesus' statement is to dark-side-turning Anakin's statement?  The Jedi are supposed to be good guys - like disciples of Jesus or something.  Hmmm.  In the Star Wars universe however, thinking in black and white terms means you're thinking like a Sith - the bad guys.  Jesus would seem to be a Sith Lord!

As a matter of fact, Jesus issues many absolutistic statements in Scripture.  Here are several:

"I am the bread of life" (John 6:35,48,51).

"I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).

"I am the door of the sheep"(John 10:7,9).

"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11,14).

"I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25).

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

"I am the true vine" (John 15:1,5).

By Obi-Wan's standard, It seems like Jesus has the makings of a Sith Lord.

Later, same duel, Obi-Wan and Anakin do a philosophy reversal - and don't seem to be aware of it:

ANAKIN: "I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over . . . "

OBI-WAN: "From the Sith!!! Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil." 

ANAKIN: "From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. 

OBI-WAN: "Well, then you are lost!" 

OK, let me get this straight.  First, Anakin is told by Obi-Wan that only Sith Lords deal in absolutes - then when he reasons in a relativistic fashion and avoids absolutes, Obi-Wan issues an absolutistic statement about Chancellor Palpatine being evil and pronounces condemnation on him for the conclusion he had come to!  I hope you see the problem here.  

In short, the dialogue really shows both Obi Wan and Anakin turning to hypocrites before our very eyes.  I don't think that was Lucas' intention, but the critical Christian reader/watcher should be able to discern this even if others don't.  The original three movies (Episodes IV-VI) are much more philosophically consistent, and for this reason I enjoy them more - even though the lightsaber duels are not as cool.  In the original three I can make sense of the bad guys being the bad guys and the good guys being the good guys - and though the worldview of the old movies was not perfectly consistent with a Christian worldview, it was at least enough so that I could feel good about the Jedi being good and the Sith being bad.  

There is much more that could be critically examined about the Star Wars saga - and others have done that in great degree.  Much of this was done nearly 10 or more years ago when the prequels started coming out.  I wasn't much bothered by Anakin's virgin birth in Episode 1 ("The Phantom Menace") came out, but it still seemed to signal the establishing of parallels to the Biblical account of Christ where there should not be parallels.  After all, we knew Anakin later becomes Darth Vader.  The Jesus of Scripture never has a similar huge fall from goodness; he never falls at all because he was and is sinless!  Episode III ("Revenge of The Sith") is much more troubling in its more overt promotion of relativism and its philosophical confusion.  

 For me and my family, we still watch and enjoy Star Wars - but I am convinced that the saga needs to be enjoyed in the context of knowing what Scripture actually teaches about the universe, God, the Person of Jesus, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of Good and Evil.  In this way the movies can be a critical thinking tool as well as awesome entertainment.  When making comparisons and observing parallels we must also be able to make and recognize the contrasts.  Without a well-grounded knowledge of the contrasts, Star Wars could prove a stumbling block for a Christian who is more well-versed in the Star Wars universe and Jedi teachings than in the real (God's) universe and Christian Scripture.  Illegitimate parallels and comparisons could easily be made - leading to a non-Biblical view of goodness and of God.  Sadly, this would be the danger for many in modern watered-down Christian larger community.  As awesome as Yoda and Obi-Wan are, a Christian should not desire to be fully Jedi-like - or for that matter, fully Sith-like.  A Christian should seek to be Christ-like.

Old Catechism For The Young: Not Impossible At All

Since moving away from a somewhat conventional and broadly-evangelical seeker-sensitive church that never went too deep into historic Christian doctrine and into a more historically aware and doctrinally-defined practice and churches, I have come to appreciate the value of catechism.  Until that time, I had only heard the word "catechism" in the context of Roman Catholicism.  What a shame! I had no idea what it was!  Now, for my specific theological expression and practice I use the Westminster Shorter Catechism - a teaching tool composed in the mid-1600's.

A catechism is a series of logically-ordered questions and answers; each building upon the foundation of the preceding question and answer.  The mid 1600's saw the creation of both the "Shorter" and the "Larger" catechisms.  The "Shorter" was composed with the young and the (relatively) spiritually immature in mind.  The "Larger" catechism was composed for adults and the more advanced.  I like memorizing things - and I like to have answers to questions - so about a decade ago I started memorizing the 107 questions and answers of the Shorter Catechism.  This took me about two years.  Since that time.  For me and for many unaccustomed to specific, doctrinally-sound answers, the answers to many of these questions were not "short" at all!  However, they are very satisfying.

Here are the first seventeen (in bold):

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

Q. 3. What do the scriptures principally teach?
A. The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

Q. 5. Are there more Gods than one?

A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

Q. 10. How did God create man?
A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.

Q. 11. What are God's works of providence?
A. God's works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Q. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?
A. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Q. 15. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
A. The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created was their eating the forbidden fruit.

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, 

descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Q. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

I have found this kind of memorization very helpful in answering my own questions as well as answering the questions of others.  I can give the rote, memorized answer - or I can quickly mentally access and silently rehearse the rote memorized answer and then regurgitate it in a more simplified or modern-English version for the questioner.  

Early on, after I was convinced of the usefulness of the catechism, I started teaching the whole family these questions and answers.  All it took was carving out a little time each day for practice.  It doesn't take more than 15-minutes a day.  I also became aware of a more modern catechism versions specifically made for children.  My initial thought toward these versions was "why?"  That is, why create an even shorter catechism than the one already called "Shorter"?  Why create an even shorter and more simplified version for 20th and 21st century children when ordinary non-genius 17th century children were able to memorize the original "Shorter" catechism.  These are still my sentiments now!  

Here is my encouragement for you: You may look at the questions and answers and think they are long.  You may wonder how a young child can do this.  Let me tell you that both you and they can - if only you take the time.  I've successfully done so with my two oldest daughters - both beginning at roughly age eight.  I'm also currently doing so with my son (age seven) and my youngest daughter (age five).  They are both learning and progressing well.  We are currently at question 17, and we have been going at the pace of one question every 1-2 weeks. Two weeks for the longer questions and answers; one week for the shorter and easier ones.  What I am most impressed with is the ability of my five-year-old to memorize these questions and answers.  I did not even intend to formally catechize her until she was at least six - but since I was taking the after-dinner time to catechize her older brother (which also served as review for the older sisters who had gone through the whole thing already) she was being exposed to the information and hearing the recitation.  She eagerly expressed her desire to try answering the questions the rest of the family was getting!  So, I thought "why not?" She was four-years-old at that point.  It's been more than four months since I started including her, and since that time she has demonstrated her ability to memorize these questions and answers.  Needless to say, this has pleased and encouraged me.  To keep it low-pressure, I keep the time investment to about 15-minutes per day and I don't press her as hard as I press the older kids.  This keeps it a fun and do-able challenge for her.  

I encourage and recommend any and all my Christian brothers and sisters to start catechism practice as a family.  Just make it a habit and stick to it.  Before you know it, you will have 10+ questions and answers memorized and so will your kids.  Keep it low-pressure though!

Starting Points Matter In The Life Issue

In the Life/Abortion issue, recognizing starting points is vitally important.  Starting points can also profoundly influence the way words are used - so in this way words are important too.  One thing I always see as a red flag is the way words are being used.  When you see something like: "This is what people trying trying to restrict a woman's right to choose actually think and say."  It's the "right to choose" verbiage that I find so insidious - because at face value it sounds so innocuous.  The object of the choice is many times left out.  I suspect it is because it would quickly become apparent that this is not the "right to choose" which gas station to fuel your car at, which ice cream to buy, which clothes to wear, or even which health plan to select - but rather something much more serious.  Many times some detail is added, but it will be something like "...what to do with her own body" or something using the words "reproductive rights" or "family planning."  The word "abortion" (i.e. "...right to have an abortion") is even sometimes used.  The pro-choice side, in order to be intellectually honest, needs to be very upfront.  It needs to say "...right to choose death without a trial and without any means of defense for the little human being inside her."  That's pretty long, so maybe it should be "...right to choose death for an innocent human being."

Starting points.  What I said about starting points earlier amounts to this: The Pro-Choice side either denies the humanity, the personhood, or the equal value (compared to post-utero human beings) of the unborn human in the womb.  The Pro-Life side vigorously AFFIRMS those three things.  Given the starting points of the Pro-Choice side, whether it be one or all three, its easy to see why it thinks it is utter madness and ridiculousness for the Pro Life side to want to legally restrict or ban abortion.  It's also easy to see why the Pro-Life side will seek to legally ban abortion at any stage including abortion in the case of rape.  Some pro-lifers will waver at the "any stage" or waver in cases of rape, but I think this severely weakens their case against abortion in general.  After all, if the little human life is an innocent human being, why is it OK to put it to death for the crime of the biological father? Or, if  the little human being is very very small and/or undeveloped (think first few weeks of pregnancy) and thereby more OK to put them to death, then why wouldn't it be more OK to give less legal protection (i.e. permit the killing of) the Down-Syndrome (or simply less-intelligent or disabled) person to death?  For that matter, why wouldn't it be OK to legally put a senile Grandpa to death over you or me...or put me to death over a super-genius or super-athlete.  The examples abound.  So, keep starting points in mind when you analyze the statements or Pro-Life people, including bumbling pro-life congressmen who should have more polished answers.

Does it matter if a pro-lifer stumbles at or doesn't know the answer to why a woman would seek an abortion?  No.  Why?  Because, given his starting point (see paragraph above) the answer to the question is irrelevant.  In other words, if it is the legal protection of innocent human life we're talking about, knowing the reasons someone would want to take those lives is of 2nd order importance, not first.  Take this example: You want to give legal protection to children against adult-child sex and sex acts.  Currently (in the alternate reality I'm inviting you to for this example...or it could be ancient Greece) adult-child sex and sex acts is legal.  Many will say it's even a "good" thing.  You however, know it's wrong.  You believe that a child should be legally protected against the power and control of a sexually -hungry adult.  You see the harm and the wrongness of popular practice, but you have not seriously investigated why an adult might want to seek out children for sex and have sex with them.  The interviewer asks you "What do you think makes an adult male want to have sex with a child?"  You give a stammering "I don't know" kind of answer.  Well, now you're disqualified from legislating against things you don't understand, right?  Wrong!  In the same way, the congressman doesn't need to understand the motivations of the woman seeking an abortion.  He just needs to understand the status of the object he is trying to protect (i.e. why it should be protected.)   Granted, the congressman would do well to polish-up his interview skills and be ready for all types of questions likely to be asked, but a  bumbling answer to the question regarding a woman's situation or a woman's motivation does not disqualify the congressmen (or anyone) from the argument.

About "Reproductive Rights" language:  Legal rights should not include the right to kill an innocent human being who has committed no crime.  All the pregnancy hardship and other womens' hardship cases in the world don't change the fact that the Pro-Choice side favors taking away legal protection of life from the most innocent of human beings.  I shudder to think that this is supposed to be subsumed under the umbrellas of "Reproductive Health."  Health?  Seriously?  Whose health?  Abortions "safe" and "rare"?  Whose safety?  Even if the mother is kept safe 100% of the time (which won't happen - even with the best technology), a 'successful' abortion results in the death of an innocent human being 100% of the time.  Again, starting points are important.

A Short Easter Message

Whether you call today's holiday "Easter" or whether you call it "Resurrection Sunday" - or even if you follow the Puritan example and don't celebrate a specially designated day at all, the message I want to share and celebrate with you is the same - and it is appropriate for every day of the year:  He is risen!  Jesus rose from the grave and lives forevermore! He conquered Death!  

The message of the resurrection was so central to the apostles that Paul vigorously argued in his first letter to the Corinthians that their faith was "vain" (i.e. empty, useless, without worth) if indeed Christ was not raised.  Yes, both they and we who trust in Him are still dead in our sins if he is not in fact raised. Truly, this stuff is important - because if we are still dead in our sins then there is no hope for escaping the just wrath of a Holy God.  Christ is the Last Adam - not a failure like the first.  He is the Perfect Prophet, Priest, and King.  He is the Unblemished and Perfect Lamb.  He is also the Lion.  He is the Bread from Heaven.  He is the Good Shepherd.  He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  He is The Resurrection and the Life. (John 11:25).  Right now, he stands at the right hand of the Father and makes perfect intercession for His sheep. 

I encourage you to read through the gospel accounts of His death, burial, and resurrection.  If you don't read all four, read at least John's Gospel.  I also encourage you to read 1 Corinthians 15 - where Paul labors the point of the importance of the resurrection.  May you find perfect peace and rest in Jesus Christ.

Simple Words We Shouldn't Hold Back

There seem to be a significant number of people who don't say "you're welcome" after "thank you" or "thank you" after a sincere compliment. I think doing both of these things make both the giver and the receiver feel good - and both benefit. I will add to my list "I forgive you" after someone says they're sorry. Of course there will be those times when you really don't forgive them or don't think you should forgive them - and that whole subject is another discussion in itself.  For right now though, I'm referring to those times when you do (or at least should) forgive them. Saying "Oh, I've moved on...why are you still worrying about that?" Is really not a good substitute. In fact it can be belittling. Why do we keep back the open and spoken forgiveness? Like the other things, I am convinced this helps both sides.

Some more expanding on this:

Misplaced humility in the case of "you're welcome" and "thank you" may be the culprit when these things are not said.  I suggest that you can still be humble and nonetheless acknowledge that you did something to help someone (in the case of someone saying "thanks" to you) and you can also still be humble and nonetheless acknowledge a compliment.  How?  In doing so, you're not necessarily saying "I'm so great!" - but you are in fact validating the other person's statement and thereby you validate them.  Trust me, they want to hear these things.  Don't you like to hear these things?

Forgiveness really is really hard to give sometimes.  If someone is asking for your forgiveness they are opening themselves up to you; they are acknowledging something they did wrong or felt they did wrong.  If nothing else, something they had done against their own conscience.  Give them the forgiveness.  Don't hold it back.  Don't blow it off with the typical "oh, I've forgotten about that..." or "I've moved on..." response.  I cannot stress deeply enough that this makes the person asking forgiveness feel very small.  As I mentioned before, it can be belittling because you're basically telling the person what he finds important enough to open himself up to tell you is actually not important at all.  It is also somewhat implied that he thinks about petty and unimportant things but you yourself think about serious and important matters - and that you're superior to him.  Don't just forgive him in your heart.  Forgive him openly with actual words.

The Useful T Jefferson

It's funny how both Democrats and Republicans try to claim Thomas Jefferson. (They so the same thing with Lincoln -but regarding different issues.) Democrats, when Jefferson agrees with them, will note that "Jefferson was a Democrat." I've seen the bumper sticker - as well as other permutations of that attempt of position-bolstering. Of course when his views are compatible with the Republican Party or some conservative group he is instantly disowned and it is quickly noted that he owned slaves - (as if that disqualifies him from saying or thinking anything GOOD). Party names stick along much longer than the actual substance of what they represent and espouse. I don't think Jefferson would find a ready home within the establishment GOP. He also wouldn't find agreement with the likes of conservative Christians like me on a number of things. However, where he's right he's right - and I'll support him and publicly agree with him when I think so. I think that he'd find friends both within TEA Party and Libertarian circles.

Being In Adam

[Note: I made some minor changes (links to cited Scripture and better explanation of the participation concept) the morning of 4.6.2014]




Several nights a week after dinner I lead my family through catechism practice.  We use the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and have been taking 1-2 weeks for each question.  This evening we started a new catechism question, question 16: 

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

This question is perhaps one of the most significant questions out there - and when explored beyond a surface level, the most enigmatic.  The question is important because if not all mankind fell, then "The Fall" was not as significant an event as Christianity historically posits it to be.  Why?  Because if the The Fall did not involve all mankind (i.e. was not universal) then there is the possibility that there are some people out there who have not sinned - and thus would not need a savior.  I will not explore all the necessary implications of this, but suffice to say it would change our view of mankind, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  

I said in the previous paragraph that I will not explore all the implications of a non-universal fall, but I will touch on one: If there are some people out there who do not share in the sin nature and indeed have not sinned, then the problem of evil and the problem of pain becomes much trickier.  The "thorns" of daily life and toil, the presence of death and disease, and the pain, suffering, and sadness these non-sin nature sinless people experience (like the rest of us do) would be unjust.  We could justly ascribe unjustness to God for causing all these things - since these things would affect the unfallen person as well as the fallen person.  For God to be just, the presence of the little "thorns" in life as well as the great calamities needs to be deserved.

We might resort to postulating that while Adam's posterity might not have automatically fallen at his fall, none of his posterity would be able to live a sinless life in thought and action.  That is, just like Adam, they would have to choice whether to choose Good or Evil but would, like Adam, not be able to withstand the temptation of evil.  This sounds good - until you think about babies, severely mentally-deficient people, and the unborn.  How could any sort of pain, sorrow, death, or calamity be "deserved" for these types of people?  If we say they are not deserving of it, we immediately are confronted with creepy solutions of the Andrea Yates variety (i.e. killing them while they are "pure" to ensure they go to heaven.)  Yes, this is creepy stuff - but how do we escape the seeming rationality of that kind of 'solution' unless we posit that we are all fallen and that there is not one innocent among us?

I love my seven-year-old son, and I love his questions.  He's a very thoughtful boy.  He immediately had questions of his own when I introduced WSC Question #16.  He wondered how we could have sinned "in Adam."  He wondered how we know we would do the same thing as Adam if we had been in The Garden.  He was pretty sure that he (my son) would not disobey as Adam had.  Isn't that the way many of us think? I tried the best I could to explain that he in fact would do the same thing - that in fact we all would.  I mentioned the fact that he does and thinks things everyday that he knows are wrong - and so do his parents! With this obvious fact in front of us, what makes us so sure we would be able to withstand the Serpent's craftiness and be perfectly obedient in that context...continually and forever?

I also explained the concept of representation to him.  This can be found fairly clearly in Romans 5:12-21 as well as 1 Corinthians 15:22, although it is also implicitly found throughout all of Scripture. Adam perfectly represented us.  As our congressmen and sports teams represent us and we necessarily share in both their victories and their failures, Adam perfectly represented us.  However, Adam perfectly represented us - because he was specially appointed by God to be our representative.  Our sports teams and congressmen are chosen by us - fallible human beings who do not possess all the facts and who also have very uncertain and fickle judgment.  I explained the concept of God standing outside of the timeline yet acting freely at all points in the timeline while we ourselves are time-bound and cannot do the same thing.  God, standing outside the timeline, possessing all the facts, knowing the end from the beginning, and working all things according to the counsel of His will, appointed Adam as our representative.  We, those of us who lived at any point in subsequent history, in some mysterious but nonetheless very real way, were so perfectly represented by Adam that in the main current of Christian theological history we have been said to be "in Adam" and to have sinned "in Adam."  This identification is so close to actual participation that the "Realist" view (i.e. that we and all mankind were in fact there and participated in Adam's sin) was formally postulated by St. Augustine and has been a viable and orthodox interpretation throughout Christian history.  Whether federally imputed to mankind by perfect representation or whether by some mysterious kind of actual participation, both views leave us with a fallen nature and thereby make sense of all the trials and tribulations we face - which would in either view be perfectly just and perfectly deserved.  This is deep! This is the stuff that makes theology so exciting for me - but also the stuff that makes things very frustrating for a seven-year-old boy.  

I did not have all the answers though.  No one does except for Him to whom we owe worship and all adoration and thanks.  Things are the most interesting when we don't have all the answers, but do have enough to understand the problem and make sense of some kind of solution.  When we don't understand the problem and have no answers it's boring - especially when we're not even able to identify that there is a problem at all.  When we have (or think we have) all the answers to something it becomes uninteresting and boring as well - because there is nothing left to explore; nothing to investigate.  I love my son.  I love him all the more because he cares about stuff.  He identifies weighty issues and he seeks to investigate - as I am convinced we all should.

Distance and Difference Quiet the Conscience

A comparison: With abortion, the killing is made easier because the object of the violence is not seen - or at least not clearly-seen. The same thing applies for wartime high-altitude bombing/firing missiles as compared with hand-to-hand combat on the ground.  When close proximity cannot be avoided, and just like in wartime, dehumanizing the target of abortion violence quiets the conscience and makes the killing easier.  This is why persistent attempts are made to deny the humanity and personhood of the pre-born human life.

Anakin re-classified the innocent objects of his violence.

Eschatological Wars

A picture is worth one-thousand words - figuratively speaking.

Shortly into the Bible study, Greedo discovers that Han doesn't agree with his eschatology.

Why All The Focus On The Abortion Issue?

Friends, here are some simple thoughts that need to get out.  They might need to get out over and over again in fact.  "Why all the focus on the abortion issue?" many may ask.  Many may ask why I, a Christian conservative white male focus on this issue - as well as many others who fit that description do.  At the outset, I'll tell you that I think the second question is a smokescreen.  It's often an attempt to divert attention away from the real issue (i.e. abortion) and attempts via a kind of genetic fallacy to prejudice all those who don't fit the said categories (i.e. Christian, conservative, white, male) against the position I or others who do fit those categories hold - in this case, a Pro-Life position on the issue of abortion.  It should not matter whether one is Christian or not, politically liberal or politically conservative, white or non-white, male, female, or two-gendered.  Enough said about that.

I'll focus on the #1 question: "Why all the focus on on the abortion issue." This issue is focused on so intently because that's where the fight is.  What do I mean by "fight?"  I mean that there is not cultural consensus that abortion should be illegal and that unborn humans should be protected by law just as born humans like you and me.  There is not even broad consensus that the unborn is even human. The reasons for this non-consensus are many.  I will not get into these reasons other than to say that I believe there are many on the pro-choice side that are mainly there because they themselves have been subject to the effects of smokescreen tactics like the suggesting the issues is more about womens' rights than the protection of human life.  As I indicated, the reasons for the divide in the abortion issue are many.  Since there is a strong division between proponents of legal abortion and those against legal abortion (who are of course against all types of abortion too), this would be the "fight."  It is a battle of ideas.  As a soldier for any kind of cause, you go to where the battle is - thus the focus on this issue.  There is indeed a battle.

You may ask: "Why is there not similar fervor among you people (Pro-Life advocates - especially of the Christian conservative white male type) about and focus on other evils such as spouse-beating, infidelity, theft, child abuse, child-molestation, and rape?" The answer is simple: There is already broad cultural consensus that those thing are wrong.  Yes, they occur, but you will not find much open support for those things - and you will definitely not find support for government (i.e. taxpayer) funding of those things.  Stated another way, there is no significant "fight" about those issues; there is no significant battle about those ideas - at least not to the extent there is with the abortion issue.  Yes, we (at least the overwhelming majority of us) Pro-Lifers do find spouse beating, infidelity, theft, child abuse, child-molestation, and rape to be reprehensible - but we focus on the abortion issue because that is where the battle is.  Each changing of the mind toward our side is a victory.  When enough victories occur, then legal protection for the unborn will not be long in coming: First change the minds, then the law will follow - and it will follow without an autocratic dictatorial coercion.

I, and many others like me, are personally passionate about this issue because we DO see it as a "black and white" issue.  Yes, I hold other divisive opinions and stances, but those ones are on positions far less clear than this life issue.  For this reason, I generally don't post nearly as far and wide on Facebook (for example) about my other strongly-held positions.  Concerning the abortion issue though, especially with the advent of 3D sonograms, but also with the simple scientific fact that the unborn human - regardless of stage of development - is in fact HUMAN, people from all walks of life, liberal and conservative, should stand united!  If human life in the earliest stages of development is not legally protected then it logically takes away the  firm foundation for protection of human life (and human rights) at all other stages of development.  We currently tend to take our own legally protected status for granted.  We should not.  Humans have been designated non-humans before in our history.  Need we revisit the history of the Jews in Nazi Germany?  This is only a recent example.  It has happened in other places and times as well - among different people. We should want iron-clad reasons and protections for our laws - especially those involving human life and human rights.  We are all put in a much more dangerous position when the legal protection for our particular life or stage of life depends more on subjective evaluations like"quality of life" or more quantitative determinations based on majority opinion (i.e. "the tyranny of the majority").

So, we are passionate and fervent because there is a battle - and the battle is an important one because it is not about which TV we could get or what color the carpet should be.  The battle is one over human life and its legal protection.  We are not talking about condemned criminals and the death penalty.  Please do not attempt to use that smokescreen.  We are talking about the legal protection of judicially innocent human beings - those who have committed no crime.  Among humans, who can be more helpless and innocent of crime than an unborn human?  Yes, this is a life and death issue.  Our passion is further fueled by the sad fact that many of our own friends and family are fooled by the tactics of the other side.  We want to turn them.  Our passion is further fueled - and our hearts are grieved by - the fact that many on our own side simply keep their mouths shut about the issue.  I can only suspect that the reason is fear of others' opinions about them and the potential loss of friends and relationships they would have to face.  I exhort and encourage these beloved team members to reexamine the stakes and to be bold.  Risk the friendship.  Risk ridicule.  Risk the alienation you may get from your chosen political party for standing up on this most important issue.  If the unborn is not human, then no justification should be needed for its destruction; it would just be a medical procedure one should be able to get with no stigma attached.  If the unborn is human, then no justification for its willful destruction is sufficient; willful destruction of it would be murder - plain and simple.  Isn't this a truth worth speaking about?  Isn't this battle worth some personal cost and perhaps some friends?  You know the answer.

Health and Happiness

What I have to say here originated as a response (commentary) to someone's Facebook post.  The post was a brief statement pointing out a correlation between poor heart health and hostility, patience, and holding grudges.  Some thoughts immediately came to mind.  The following paragraph is just a minor edit of my Facebook commentary.

 I think it has to do something with being comfortable in your own skin - and your heart is like your life-force.  It is your primary pump.  If it ceases to function, you die.  Also, activities that strengthen it also strengthen and improve the health of the rest of your body. You're with your body 24 hrs a day, and are especially aware of it during waking hours. If you have a malfunctioning and/or sluggish and inefficient body, this has got to be more frustrating than driving a put-put unreliable engine-stalls-on you kind of car. After all, you can easily remove yourself from the car and get back in. You can't do the same with your body. The frustration and misery must be compounded if the situation is such that you KNOW you could do better and that much or all of the blame points to yourself. This has to be a terrible feeling!  People who have an unavoidable disease or unavoidable physical hardship are in a completely different category.  I don't think they would become nearly as negatively affected (i.e. hostility, impatience, holding grudges) because they know they've done their part; there is no personal gnashing of teeth regarding "coulda's" and shoulda's." They can even look upon their hardship as a challenge to be fought valiantly - and in doing so can be an inspiration for others. 

For most of us, we know we can do more.  We know we can take better care of ourselves and honor our God-given gift of life.  Far from being just a selfish pursuit or something that just affects you, taking care of yourself is a way to make things better for others - and in some way take care of them too.

My Christian Testimony

I thought it may interest some to hear about my Christian testimony.  I'll try and be brief - but I don't think I'll succeed in this brevity goal...

From my earliest memories I remember some kind of knowledge of and affection for Jesus.  I can't remember a time in which I came to believe in God or trust in Jesus.  From my earliest memories, I always did.  There was no "I was saved" moment for me. This is perhaps one of the best gifts parents can give a child - to be brought up in "...the nurture and admonition of the Lord"(Eph. 6) in a way that Christ was always in his mind as the Savior, Lord, and also his Friend.

As a child, I thought of my mom as a spiritual rock.  She constantly exercised what I later came to know as Christian virtues.  She was and still is a kind of human "Giving Tree"(remember the Shel Silverstein book?)  She also defended the faith.  I can remember arguing against divine creation and FOR naturalistic Darwinian evolution after reading much from our copious collection of Time-Life books - all coming from naturalistic presuppositions.  Mom patiently and lovingly listened to my questions (while she washed dishes) and responded with reason and Biblical faith.  Her answers are not the intellectual debate-winning type I seek and try to use now, but they are the type that demonstrate conviction and ones I still respect.  I admire her for the way she lovingly dealt with my bouts of near-agnosticism.

My dad modeled all the Christian virtues, but I later came to discover he probably didn't have the faith in the One who is the Foundation for these.  My dad was and continues to be something of an enigma concerning his spirituality and spiritual convictions.  Possessing orthodox Christian faith or not, my dad was an is as close as many will get meeting a Jesus - type man.  I don't mean to flirt with blasphemy when I say this.  All I'm trying to say is that as far as his character and actions are concerned, people are hard-pressed to find fault with him.  His honesty and integrity is undeniable, and I love this about him.  I want to be like him.  Even if I were not a Christian, the compelling influence of my dad and the character he possessed would push me to live as a Christian should - but many fail at.  I continually pray he will come to know, love, and cling to Christ.

Mom always made it to church if she could.  It was pretty much expected and required I go to.  This was just normal.  I didn't consider questioning it! We attended two different First Baptist churches during my youth.  Dad didn't attend most of the time; most Sundays he was working - putting food on the table and presents under the tree by his hard work.  Of course, as I alluded to earlier, he might not have preferred to go to church anyway.  I actually don't gravitate towards churchiness myself - but I understand it is a good thing to go and congregational worship is not only assumed but also commanded by Scripture.  Dad and I share a certain uncomfortableness being in groups and crowds - so if I wasn't convinced that church-going was a good thing, I'd probably lead a more monk-cell-type worship life.  Anyways,  I was baptized at age 12.  I know this pleased my mom, but it was not just to please her.  I had and continued to have a real faith in Jesus Christ the Savior.  I met my future wife (the one I'm married to now) in church.  It was the 2nd of the two First Baptist churches I attended as a youth.  We were married at that certain First Baptist Church.

My Christian faith was real, but it was not particularly theologically deep.  I didn't know it then, but I later came to discover the type of worship and type of teaching I was getting at the churches I grew up in was not particularly deep either.  I always had Christian faith, but it would be weak at times.  I know I frightened my wife a little with my interest in reading Isaac Asimov's Guide To The Bible as well as my 'Devil's advocate' type of questions I would frequently bring up early in our marriage.  I was reading solid and dense stuff from non-believers but had been fed less substantial stuff from a believing (Christian) perspective.  Early in my marriage my wife and I were invited to attend some meetings with some friends I met from work.  They were very friendly and as far as I knew, the teaching was Biblical.  However, I wanted to make sure I knew what we were getting into.  This concern was the initial catalyst, providentially-ordered, for a major strengthening of my faith and a renewing of my way of thinking.

My concern for finding out what we were getting into launched me into finding out about the historical tenets of the Christian faith I had always professed.  I immediately began reading from authors defending and explaining the Faith; I became immersed in books of the Apologetics genre - the defense of the Christian faith.  I cut my teeth on R.C. Sproul.  I also read some other Christian apologists and writers and thus broadened my perspective a little more.  This was also my introduction to historically "Reformed" Christianity; the Protestantism of the Reformation.  I really hadn't known what a Calvinist was or what an Arminian was before this point.  Now I did.  As it turned out, I was attending a theologically Arminian church (not "Armenian" but "Arminian") which espoused a futuristic dispensational eschatology.  However, I was not these things - or at least was now not these thing.  No matter, I would still attend because it was still a Christian Church - just with some non-essential differences.  By the way, my personal reading and study shortly convinced me that the group we had been meeting with was a group I did not want us to meet with any longer.  I don't know whatever happened to those friends.  We lost touch.

A turning point soon happened which caused us to leave the church we had been attending.  The church was allowing a woman to guest-pastor on Sundays the regular pastor was out.  The reading I had been doing for many months by that time had convinced me that Scripture teaches a certain division of labor and a certain order to the way a church runs and who holds office.  The fact that our church was letting a women guest-pastor when I'm pretty sure there were men who were Biblically-qualified to do it was a problem for me.  I sent a lengthy e-mail to the regular pastor regarding my problem with this.  I used Scripture, reason, and asked questions.  He didn't give me the sort of thoughtful and careful response I was looking for.  Without waxing long about this, his apparent lack-of-concern for the question caused me to look elsewhere for a church home for me and my young family.  We soon found one.  I now knew how to theologically describe myself.  I was Christian, but I was also Reformed, Presbyterian, and Postmillennial.  The most important thing though is that knowing God and Scripture had become important for me - and important for my wife.  I will call many non-Reformed, non-Presbyterian, non-Postmillennial Christians "brothers" and "sisters" in Christ - but I cannot honestly regard a "Christian" who doesn't care or who is indifferent about the Scripture or knowing God as real Christian.  We may come to some different conclusions about certain non-essential theological and eschatological points, but can a true Christian be indifferent about knowing God or Scripture?

Though admittedly a little Spock-like much of the time, I also have some inherited emotional tendencies I think come from mom.  I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.  It's actually a good thing when it's governed by the bedrock of Scripture instead of governed by our own sinful and deceitful hearts.  When I first began to explore and realize the majesty of God, His sovereignty, His depth, his Tri-Unity, His Awesomeness, the loftiness and Authority of Scripture, the multi-dimensional aspects of Jesus and richness of His teaching, the profundity of Love - and how it is much more and much deeper than the type taught and absorbed by popular culture - well, I would frankly have weeping moments.  I still do. I would have them while driving and doing other solitary things - not around others.  Mom is a weeper too.  What joy it was to imbibe God's word!  What a joy it is to trust in God's Providence!  I would read the Bible, memorize Scripture, and read books about the Bible as much as I could. Whereas I always had Christian faith, it felt stronger and more meaningful at this point.  My wife's own faith changed and strengthened too.

In order not to make this blog post into a super-long entry, I'll close it up now.  My wife and I are Christians.  We can talk about deep issues together and with our kids.  Our kids profess trust in Christ.  I have no reason not to believe any of them.  This is a wonderful comfort and happiness for me.  I love the Faith and the life that God has given me.  It is all His gift - not something I have earned or merited in any way.  Man is fallen and has a sin problem.  We are separated from God.  God has provided a Perfect Savior in the Person of Jesus Christ the Son.  He stands in for those who trust in Him.  He stands in for sinful me who would never have a relationship with the Father if it wasn't for the work of the Son.  He lovingly sustains us and causes me to joy.  He causes me to consider eternity and not be afraid.  He gives purpose to my life, my marriage, and my family-raising other than the empty and fleeting goals of materialism and, "having fun."  I have plenty of fun, but it's a better and richer type of fun than I think I would have had otherwise.  Perhaps one of the most important things I've come to understand is that life is not all about me or about you; it's about God and His Glory.  This is really key, and it's what I think enlightened saints through the ages have come to understand.  Paradoxically, if you understand that life is about God and His Glory, you will end up having more joy yourself!  In fact, you will have more joy than if you focused on your own joy.  I hope this helps you on your journey.

Painting The Other Side

Have you ever thought about our choice of words - and how we can be so blind about ourselves, even willingly so?

• You are principled.  The other side is ideological.
• You honor tradition.  The other side is stuck in the past.
• You follow the rules.  The other side lacks flexibility.
• You are practical.  The other side lacks vision.
• You are spiritual.  The other side is religious.
• You made a mistake.  The other side sinned. 

This is only a short list.  If I was all into numbers and numerology - I'd add one more to make it seven.  I'm sure I could come up with more.  Let us examine ourselves and eliminate the kind of double-talk which really are just attempts to discredit our opponents and those with whom we disagree.  

That's it for today.  I just felt like getting some thoughts out.

Ham-Nye Creation Debate Thoughts

No, I don't personally want to debate the issue right now - especially on something like Facebook.    Go on a run with me and we'll debate...while you're in oxygen-debt.  LOL. No, seriously, I would first debate more fundamental issues regarding how we know what we know and what the nature of evidence and proof is before debating the Young Earth Creationion vs. Neo-Darwinian Evolution question.  Philosophy matters.  In any event, Christians of good will can and do disagree on Old Earth vs. Young Earth Creation, but the disagreement is particularly vehement and full of caricature, ill-will, and vitriol when it comes to Christians and Secularists debating the very validity of the Young Earth Creation view.  Christian and Secular names and groups are all abuzz about this debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye - so it's somewhat of a big deal.  It touches the popular consciousness and popular culture.  I'm not going to listen real-time tonight...there's no rush.  However, I plan on listening later.  I will predict a few things though:

1. If Ken Ham wins the debate the other side will immediately attribute the win to his debating skill, debating "tricks", and the fact he, in essence, had the "home field advantage."

2. If Bill Nye wins the debate Secularists will be happy and attribute it to the superiority of the conventional Neo-Darwinian view as well as of science unhampered by supernatural presuppositions.

3. If Ken Ham wins the debate, those of the Young Earth Creation view will be happy and attribute it to the superiority of what they consider not only the obvious understanding of the Genesis creation account, but of science unhampered by naturalistic presuppositions.

4. Most people will not have their minds changed.

From what little I've read, it seems that Nye's side is preparing for a debate defeat.  Many of his ideological kindred strongly object to his even taking part in the first place  since they feel it lends validity to the opposing view - Young Earth Creationism.  Sorry, that objection is weak.  If Young Earth Creationism is such a weak and outlandish view, then why fear debate?  If the position is so unassailable then why attempt to make it (Neo-Darwinian Evolution) the winner even if Nye loses.  I weary of excuses like this.  If creationists are such boneheads, and Creationism such an unworthy and silly position, then don't fear discussion and debate.

Because I know some out there will suggest doubting Neo-Darwinian Evolution is like doubting gravity, let me say a few words.  Doubting the Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary model is not akin to doubting gravity.  The evolution we actually observe happening is not the same as the evolution we postulate happened but did not in fact observe.  They're different - so let's not use these types of objections which are used primarily to make the Creationist look silly.

As with all debates, I hope that both sides respect the humanity and dignity of their opponent.  I hope both sides start with the assumption that their opponent comes in good will and wishes only to promulgate and support the truth - whatever it is. This is the same attitude we should have regarding anyone with whom we disagree.  It is especially at attitude that someone called by Christ should have.

Exercise: The Good Alcohol

Please know that I am of sober mind and body as I type this; I am not in a state of exercise-induced intoxication.  Perhaps this may post might be better if I had just been on the rower.  At least I came up with the idea after being on the rower.

Exercise can be like alcohol.  No, this is not drinking a beer for each lap or a beer for each mile.  No, in fact this does not have anything to do with the type of alcohol which can result in a DUI.  It does, however, have much to do with a freeing of the mind and a freeing of the mouth.  In running, it is often referred to as "the runner's high." It has this in common with alcohol:  It is a type of liberation quite refreshing to those of us who are either naturally or by force of habit or by force of will rather self-restrained.  I think I am one of these.

I first learned of the intoxicating effects of exercise while running with the Woodside Striders, a competitive running club.  Running was the vehicle, and running with the Striders gave me a very strong dose of the drug!  It is one thing to do gentle exercise; to do a 20-minute brisk walk or easy jog.  There is no doubt that such exercise is good for the health and good for your general mood.  20 quarters (400 meters) at a hard running pace with only 100-200 meters JOG recovery is another thing altogether!  This is not all.  Imagine the workout began with a 1-mile warmup and will conclude with a 1-mile cooldown.  Imagine that after finishing the 20 quarters, you are informed (surprise!) you will complete 10 x 200 meters at a hard pace (nearly a sprint) with 100 meter JOG recoveries between each...THEN you will have your 1-mile cooldown jog.  Yes, that is a different kind of thing altogether.

The kinds of workouts I referred to in the preceding paragraph illustrate opposite ends of the spectrum.  At one end of the spectrum is the healthy feeling and slight buzz that often occurs as a result of mild and moderate exercise.  At the other end is the relative drunkenness which results from a very hard workout.  It really is intoxicating, and it really does free up the inhibitions.  I was a fairly shy and reserved teen, especially with those of the opposite sex.  Running was my alcohol.  If I wanted to be able to look a girl in the eye and feel confident - or speak to her and not feel uncomfortably self-conscious, a hard workout was my drink.  A race was good too.  These things gave me the confidence to be bold - or at least to THINK boldly...because the opportunity to say and do those things I felt so free to do were often not conveniently there.  Maybe that was a good thing.

As a teen it was about girls and the means to overcome my shyness and lack of confidence.  As an adult it is about much more.  Not every workout should be super-hard, but there needs to be some which are.  It is good for the soul.  It is good as a mirror to discover who you really are and who you really desire to be.  Can you overcome the natural wimpiness and timidity that urges you to stop short of self-realization and victory?  Each unwarranted abandonment of an otherwise good workout is like a surrender to timidity.  Each unwarranted surrender changes you into that person you really don't want to be - the timid and wimpy person who restrains himself not out of a real prudence and good sense, but instead out of shameful pain-avoidance and timidity.  Surely we don't want our self-realization to come that way - with self-defeat.

Rowing on my Concept 2 rowing machine has been a real truth-tester for me.  Do I really have the guts to slave away at sub 2:00/500m for 20 minutes - staring at a tree?  Running and cycling workouts are made easier by the fact that much of the time I am miles away from home; I have to at least get back home to experience creature comforts.  On the rowing machine I am 20 feet from the sliding glass door to the house; 20 feet from food, drink, toys, loving smiles, happy laughter, and all the comforts...well, all the comforts a hobbit (this is for you, Tolkien fans!) could want.  The mind battles itself during these trials.  The stiffer the pace is, the greater the internal struggle.

I'm off topic a little bit, but it's all related.  Enduring the struggle not only makes me progressively more and more the person I want to be, but it probably makes me more and more the person my family wants me to be...and maybe more the person I (in a cosmic sense) SHOULD be.  Aside from the struggle and victory components, there is the very real reward of the mind liberation I referred to earlier.  Problems and issues which felt so hazy, difficult, and unapproachable become surmountable.  If there was something bold and true I should have thought or should have said, this comes to the fore of the mind with crystal-clarity as an unavoidable must-do.  Indeed, the clarity is such that I wonder why I would have every thought otherwise.

Make no mistake, hard exercise is no substitute for God, prayer, or proper theological or other type of study.  I am not advocating some new exercise "religion."  I am convinced though that it (hard exercise) does help with these things.  In past centuries the exercise was much easier to come by; now many of us have to force it - find time for it.  I am convinced that it is indeed worth it.  It is the "good" alcohol.  It releases inhibitions not through muddying-up the mind, but by giving clarity and by both requiring, giving, and promoting a good and right boldness.

The Romans 12:2 Change

"And fashion not yourselves like unto this world, but be ye changed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what that good, and acceptable and perfect will of God is." (Romans 12:2, GNV)

Some thoughts on the passage:

This command for the follower of Christ is so simple - yet very radical at the same time.  It is "simple" in the sense that a renewed mind will automatically think differently than a not-renewed mind...so this should work to guide the actions.  However, it is "radical" in the sense that actions coming from a renewed mind, will necessarily clash and conflict with the thinking and actions of the "world" (i.e. the thinking and actions of those people whose minds are not renewed).  So, to "this world" the thinking and actions of the follower of Christ will be radical and strange.  No, not because of different clothes, hairstyle, or speech pattern. These things may indeed change with the new birth - but in many cases they won't and don't need to.  Instead, "...be ye changed" has to refer to the fact that the true follower of Christ will be characterized by trustworthiness, integrity, and unflinching adherence to truth - even when it would seem to not be in his best interest.  A Christian however must be committed to such changes - and indeed make it a lifestyle - because his Master is the very definition and embodiment of Truth (John 14.6) - and Satan conversely is described as "the father of lies." (John 8:44)

Don't misunderstand me.  Christians are not universally trustworthy, full-of-integrity, and honest.  There is not one of us who is! However, this is what we should strive for (by God's grace) and it is what our lives should be characterized by.  May God grant both me and you the renewed mind and the boldness to be different - to be not conformed to the world.