The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm:

(1) write down the problem;
(2) think very hard;
(3) write down the answer.

American Express on How to Get out of Debt

My wife and I are...how do I say this...pursuing aggressive financial goals. Jessica is a stay-at-home mother, which means the mouth-to-job ratio is 3:1. At the same time, we're working to pay off debt accrued during the first few years of our marriage, and we are trying to pay it off at a torrid pace. This makes for a difficult position. We have had to learn to live well below our means and embrace a very simple lifestyle. I will spare you the boring details, but I would be willing to bet that most Americans would not sacrifice as much as we have. But then, perhaps most Americans don't have the singularly focused drive that we do, either.

Some people do have what it takes, though, and American Express found a few who fit the bill for a radio ad I heard tonight. They found five women who joined together to pay off a combined $50,000 in debt. Good for them, I thought. But in the ad they were extolling the virtues of having an AmEx credit card. With an AmEx card, they said, you can pay off your debt, still live the extravagant lifestyle you want and be able to "buy the things that you deserve." I could not believe what I was hearing! Here are these ladies who somehow managed to pay off a huge amount of debt and learn nothing while doing it. There was obviously no lasting lifestyle change. There was obviously very little thought as to why they were in debt to begin with. When the money they got to promote AmEx runs out, I would expect them to go right back into the hole--thus very likely paying back their patrons with interest.

I'm not saying that the approach my wife and I are taking to eliminate debt is the apex of human ingenuity, but we are at least trying to embody Proverbs 30:8, "Give me neither poverty nor riches." We understand that, much like trying to dig yourself out of a hole, using a credit card will in no way lower your debt. We understand that extravagant spending on a middle-class paycheck is foolish. (Remember Dave Ramsey's quote: "Don't try to keep up with the Joneses--they're broke, too!") And we certainly understand that on this earth we deserve nothing more than a handful of basic, God-given rights--nothing that can be purchased with a credit card.

As for us, we will continue to live the simple life, enjoying simple pleasures. We will pay off our debt and never return to it. We will continue to learn of the pleasures of faith and family that no amount of money could ever buy. And we will kindly show American Express what they can do with their precious plastic card.

The Conservative Bible Project

I'm not even sure where to begin on this one. If you haven't figured out yet, I am definitely a political conservative. You might even think that I have some wacky views (I do), but this is just plain bizarre.

I'm referring to the Conservative Bible Project (CBP). Run by a man named Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schafly), the CBP "is a project to render God's word into modern English while removing liberal distortions." Schlafly argues that professors are an incredibly liberal bunch (politically, not theologically), and since they are doing all of the Bible translating, then of course our English translations are filled with liberal propagandist translations. And of what are these sins against the original text comprised? The CBP lists 10 guidelines upon which a "fully conservative translation" of the Bible should rest, and which no English translation today meets. I will list them exactly as they are presented on the CBP website and offer up some commentary in red after each guideline.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

This has to do with versions translating "fishers of men" as "fishers of people" and using "laborer" rather than "volunteer." Never mind that "men" in the Greek New Testament usually refers to males and females both, or that the word for "laborer" comes from the root word meaning "to work," not "to volunteer." And apparently paraphrases (e.g. The Message) and word-for-word translations (e.g. NASB) are inherently liberal...somehow.

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)

Okay, I get that there has been a backlash against gender inclusive language, and some people don't like it. That's fine. There is certainly room for debate on that issue. However, I'm not sure what "other feminist distortions" they are talking about, nor have I ever heard of the NIV deleting references to unborn children. Granted, I only have a master's degree in biblical studies. Maybe someone with more gravitas could enlighten me?

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

The fact of the matter is, if you want to write something that most people will understand, you have to write at around an eighth-grade level. In any case, that's more formal education than the biblical writers had, and they come across as pretty erudite.

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[4] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

I don't even know what they are talking about on this one.

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

So ancient Israelites sought the will of God by going to Vegas? Seriously. The Roman guards did gamble for Jesus' clothes by casting lots, but lots were cast for other reasons than attempting to make a quick denarius or two--see Jonah 1:7, for example.

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

No translation I have read does this. People have decided to interpret such passages in ways that deny or downplay the reality of Hell and Satan, but the words are still in the text.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say that none of Jesus' parables is first and foremost about establishing a free market system. There may be elements of his parables that do support the free market, but these should be drawn out in exegesis, not during translation.

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

There are indeed passages of scripture that were added by early scribes. These are clearly indicated as such in modern translations. They are kept in the text due to their historical importance. See John 7:53-8:11.

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

I don't have a clue as to what they are talking about here.

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Liberal wordiness? I'm beginning to think this is a practical joke. Oh, and a word about "Lord" is in order. Lord is ba'al in Hebrew and kurios in Greek. LORD is a gloss of Yahweh, which is God's name. Jehovah is a later corruption of Yahweh. Lord God is a gloss of Yahweh Elohim, "Yahweh God" in Hebrew. Given the several different Greek and Hebrew terms, using the single English term "Lord" for each of these would be...an unnecessary ambiguity.

The bottom line is, this seems to be a group of people trying to make the Bible support a particular political view--modern American conservatism. I think also that the CBP is confusing what the text says with how people have interpreted the text. In any event, I have serious suspicions about this project or any other that attempts to conform the Word of God to their own preconceived notions. Last I checked, the opposite should be true.

Open Letter to President Obama on Climate Change

Here is the text of a letter to the editor (in the form of an open letter to the President) that I submitted to the Denver Post last week. It hasn't been posted yet, which I am assuming means it won't be posted at all. But that's why I have a blog!

---------------------

President Obama,

It has recently come to light that climate data provided to the U.N. by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the British Climate Research Unit (CRU) is suspect. The CRU, whose data is used by the IPCC, uses ice cores, tree rings, corals and thermometers to determine global climate conditions. Since 1960, thermometers have shown a steep rise in temperatures, while ice cores, tree rings and corals have not. The CRU has responded to these divergent data by only using thermometer data for this time period. In other words, they discarded the data that did not fit their hypothesis (anthropogenic global warming). Not only is this extremely poor science, it calls into question the very method the CRU is using to determine global temperatures.

Mr. President, I urge you not to agree to any global policy decisions in Copenhagen until reliable climate data can be obtained.

Respectfully yours,

The Reality of Reality TV

James Wolcott over at Vanity Fair has written a dead-on article about the various ways in which reality television is a cancer on society. Rather than recount his argument, it's better just to read it for yourself. What I like is that he separates bad TV from TV in general. I'm not a great fan of the medium, but I do like to watch good movies, and I enjoy documentaries, shows on nature and cooking, and even the occasional sporting event. I think these are good and proper uses of TV, when exercised in moderation. But let's face it: There is nothing redeeming about reality TV.

Does God Punish His People?

As you read through the book of Judges (and indeed much of the Old Testament), you will notice a theme: Israel follows God. Israel abandons God. God punishes Israel. Israel returns to God. Israel abandons God again. God punishes Israel again. And so on. This is the dance between God and His people that weaves its way through the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Many people, especially those antagonistic toward Christianity, have dwelled far too much on the “punishment” portion of the cycle. In so doing, God is seen as a capricious master who delights in tormenting those He “loves” when they have even the slightest slip-up. But is this really the case? Can God be so cruel? Or perhaps is there something else going on here?

I think there is something else going on here, and in order to see it, we have to look at the idea of covenants. Covenants were quite common in the Ancient Near East, so it is no surprise that they show up in the Bible. A covenant is simply a formal agreement or promise. Usually covenants are made between a stronger and a weaker party (called the suzerain and vassal, respectively). For instance, a king might make a covenant with his subjects in which he promises to protect them as long as they pay their taxes, volunteer for the army and don’t cause trouble. In the biblical context, we see many different covenants that God makes with His people. One of these covenants occurs in Joshua 24. Under Joshua’s command, the people have entered into Canaan and have driven out many (though not all) of the people there. At the end of the book, God reminds Israel that He took them out of slavery in Egypt, guided them through the wilderness and gave them possession of the Promised Land. This is the backdrop for the covenant; God has protected and guided the Israelites faithfully. Then God, taking the role of suzerain, tells His vassals what He expects from them: “Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD” (Josh 24:14). This, to me, is a pretty fair deal: Yahweh will continue to protect and provide for Israel, but they must serve and revere Him in return. It’s nothing different than any king would ask of his people. But what if the people don’t hold up their end of the deal? “If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you” (24:20). The consequences of breaking the covenant are given at the outset: God will withdraw His protection and in fact bring disaster on Israel. He is letting Israel know ahead of time what He will do if they choose to violate the covenant.

My wife and I are currently taking a class on Love and Logic. Love and Logic is a method of parenting wherein the goal is to raise children who can think on their own, make wise decisions and generally contribute to society. One method that L&L teaches is to make enforceable statements. In other words, when a child misbehaves, don’t tell them what to do; instead, say what you will do. For instance, if a child is whining, a parent might respond, “I am happy to listen to people who can speak in a normal tone of voice.” L&L says this is a better response than “stop whining!” because a parent cannot control if his or her child whines. A parent can control how he or she responds to whining.

This is precisely what happens in the book of Judges. God has laid out His covenant with Israel in Joshua 24. God will protect and provide for Israel, and Israel will serve God. If Israel chooses not to serve God, then God makes the enforceable statement, “[I] will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you.” God knows that He cannot control humans. He didn’t make them to be controlled; he made them to love Him, and of course love is meaningless without the option not to love. In Judges, Israel decides to take the latter option: Israel chooses not to love God.

This brings me to the question, does God punish His people? I think punish is not the right word. In L&L, as a parent I am not punishing my child for disobeying me; rather, I am allowing him to experience the natural consequences of his choice. It is my duty as a parent to make sure that those consequences are uncomfortable for him at times. Furthermore, I don’t parent in this way because I am cruel—I parent in this way because I love my son! Consequences are a very real part of life, and he needs to learn about and experience them under the careful eye of mom and dad before he gets out on his own and it’s too late. In the same way, I don’t see God as punishing the Israelites in Judges; rather, he is acting on his own enforceable statement. Israel knew what would happen if they chose to forsake God, and they did it anyway. As a good parent, God allowed the natural consequences to happen, and he made things uncomfortable for His children at times. He did this because He loved them.

How do I know He loved them? Take a closer look at Joshua 24:20: “If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.” Did God bring disaster on Israel in the book of Judges? Numerous times. Did He make an end of them? No. In His grace, time and time again God raised up judges to deliver Israel from bondage and bring them peace. When Israel cried out for help in the midst of a situation of their own making, God had compassion and saved them.

And this compassion carries over into our covenant with Him, the covenant of the cross. We are all in a lethal mess, one we made ourselves by choosing to forsake God. God allows us to experience the natural consequences of our decision, and sometimes it can be quite uncomfortable. But in His grace, He sent His Son to die on the cross, to take our mess upon Himself, if only we will cry out to Him. When we do cry out to Him and accept His grace, not only does He take those consequences upon Himself, but He goes so far as to empower us to fulfill our end of the covenant. He gives us what Israel lacked—the gift of the Spirit.

Does God punish His people? I don't think so. Not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament. Instead, He shows grace time and time again. In Judges, God raised up human deliverers. With Christ's work, we are now delivered and empowered. If that is God's idea of punishment, I'll take all He's got!

And Yet...

That same night the LORD said to [Gideon], “Take the second bull from your father’s herd, the one seven years old. Tear down your father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering.”
So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime. In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal’s altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar! They asked each other, “Who did this?” When they carefully investigated, they were told, “Gideon son of Joash did it.” The men of the town demanded of Joash, “Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal’s altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.”
But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.”
So that day they called Gideon “Jerub-Baal,” saying, “Let Baal contend with him,” because he broke down Baal’s altar. – Judges 6:25-32

God had called Gideon to deliver the Israelites from the oppression of the Midianites. Israel had cried out to God in anguish for help, and soon, Gideon would provide it to them. He would route a seemingly infinite Midian army with a scant 300 men, delivering his fellow countrymen in God’s strength. But who were Gideon’s countrymen? What was Israel like? Who are these people on whose behalf YHWH himself fought through Gideon?

Before Gideon’s famous fight, God asked him to do some “prep work.” God told Gideon to desecrate his own father’s place of worship—the same place he himself worshiped as a child, no doubt. On God’s orders, Gideon killed his father’s best bull, destroyed his Baal altar and sacrificed the animal to YHWH using the Asherah pole as fuel for the fire. There is really no more blatant religious commentary one can make than that! “YHWH is God; Baal and Asherah his consort are destroyed in his presence! Their holy places are worthless scraps of kindling, only useful to be burned!” If YHWH was to save Israel, they needed to be reminded that He was in charge.

How do the Israelites react to this—the same men who had cried out to God in anguish for help? They are filled with rage. They see their holy places desecrated and destroyed, and they demand a hefty revenge—the blood of Gideon! The idolatrous Israelites demand death for the “criminal” Gideon, when in fact it is the two-faced Baal worshipers whom God should have pronounced guilty of the capital-offense crime of putting another god before Him! Israel has become a completely pagan nation—incensed that their idols have been struck down but uncaring that they have forsaken the one true God—whom they had actually had the audacity to petition for help!

And yet God still delivers them!

Is any culture, then, so far gone that God is not willing to deliver the people, if only they would cry out?

The Case for Intelligent Design

Toastmasters is great. No topic is off-limits when it comes to giving a speech. I'm currently working through a manual on persuasive speaking. One of the projects in this manual is to give a speech on a controversial and generally unpopular topic. This helps one learn the skill of addressing the opposition. I gave that speech last Tuesday, and I gave it on the most controversial and unpopular topic I could think of: Intelligent Design. I've posted the transcript of that speech below and added slides where appropriate. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything and everything I said, but please do keep in mind, it was a seven-minute speech by an admitted amateur, not a full-orbed scientific or theological treatise. But I do hope that at least it will provide some food for thought. Enjoy!

Charles Darwin published his seminal work, The Origin of Species, in November of 1859--exactly 150 years ago this month. And for those last 150 years, the theory of evolution has been the accepted scientific theory of the development of life. By evolution I mean the idea that all life has evolved from a single ancestor through slight, natural and undirected modifications. This idea has become the foundation for the scientific outlook on life. In recent years, however, a small group of scientists and others has challenged the idea of evolution and proposed a different outlook than Darwin's Origin of Species. They propose that some aspects of nature are best explained not as the product of blind, material forces but as the product of intelligence. You may have heard of their theory--it's called Intelligent Design.

As you can imagine, challenging the scientific consensus of evolution is not an easy task. Challenging the group kind of makes one unpopular by definition, which often results in one having to overcome many obstacles. One of the biggest obstacles Intelligent Design theorists have to overcome is confusion. There is much confusion about what Intelligent Design is and what it is not. Today I would like to clear the air regarding Intelligent Design by explaining to you what it is and what it is not. As I go through this explanation, I hope to persuade you to accept or at least consider the idea that Intelligent Design should be seen as a valid scientific theory.

Let's talk about what Intelligent Design is.

Intelligent Design can be defined as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity." In other words, the basic idea is that there are things in nature that certainly look as if they have been designed for a purpose--and both evolutionists and Intelligent Design proponents will agree to this. The eye has been constructed for the purpose of sight. DNA contains information for the purpose of building cells. The tail of a bacteria, called a flagellum, contains all the same basic parts as an outboard motor, both of whose purpose is propulsion. But while evolution says that these things only appear to be designed, Intelligent Design says that they really are designed. But this raises the question, how would we know if things in nature are designed or not?

Intelligent Design simply proposes that the natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry, should make use of the same methods that are already used in anthropology, archeology, and forensic science. For instance, say you're in South Dakota and you come upon this sight:

Would you conclude that this rock façade was designed or created by forces of nature? Okay, now say you're walking on the beach in Hawaii and you find some marks in the sand that look like this:

Is this formed from natural forces, or is it designed? Now, how did we decide these cases? What was it about them that told us these are examples of design and not just natural phenomena? Well, there are many answers, but they all boil down to two criteria. And these criteria are currently used by anthropologists and archaeologists all the time.

The two criteria are specificity and complexity. Something is specific when it conforms to a pattern. For example, this little guy (the smiley face) is easily identified as a smiley face--that formation of various lines forms a recognized pattern. This squiggly line, however, does not. It's not specific to anything. On the flip side, complexity is something that is not likely to happen by chance. Thus the sentence, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," is complex--a random typing of letters on a typewriter will not likely form that arrangement of letters. The word "cat," however, is not complex--it could fairly easily be found in a random string of letters. The end result is that Intelligent Design maintains that specificity plus complexity equals design.

Let's go back to Mt. Rushmore. It's specific--its shape conforms to the faces of four former presidents. It's complex--there are myriad angles in the rock surface have to be very precise. The same goes for the writing in the sand. It conforms to a known pattern--an English word and two numbers, in this case, and it's complex--it's unlikely that a piece of driftwood would wash ashore and leave those markings behind. So, specificity plus complexity leads us to conclude design.

Let's look at a few more examples.

DNA is formed as a large chain of four chemical bases: A, G, C and T. The sequence of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism. So do we have specified complexity here? You bet. DNA is specific--it always and only uses A, G, C and T--this is the DNA alphabet, as it were. It's also complex--how likely is it, for instance, that the 3 billion letters in a human DNA chain would have come about in just the right order through blind natural forces? Not very.

Another example is something called the bacterial flagellum. It's the tail of a bacteria, which serves to propel it to where it wants to go. As you can see, it has various parts--rings, a motor, a filament, a hook. Again, we see specificity--the flagellum has striking similarities to what we recognize as an outboard motor. It also has complexity. It is so complex, in fact, that if you were to remove any single part, the entire flagellum would cease to be functional. Thus we have specificity, complexity and therefore design.

These are the basics of Intelligent Design. If something is specific and complex, one can safely infer that that thing was designed. Now that we know what Intelligent Design is, let's talk about what it isn't. There are two main misconceptions about Intelligent Design:

The first of which is that Intelligent Design is "creationism in disguise." Creationism, however, begins with a religious text (Gen 1-2, for example) and tries to reconcile known facts of the natural world to that text. Intelligent Design does not in any way use any religious text in its arguments, and proponents of Intelligent Design come from many different religious backgrounds. So while it is true that Intelligent Design is complementary to creationism, it is not the same thing as creationism as the term is widely understood.*

Another common assertion about Intelligent Design is that it is an argument from ignorance--it's often called a "God of the gaps" theory. In other words, since we don't know how something could have evolved, well, God must have done it. But thankfully, this is not actually the case. Rather, Intelligent Design relies on something called inference to the best explanation--something that we all use every day. Given all of the facts at our disposal, if something appears to be designed (based on our criteria of specificity and complexity), it makes more sense to conclude that it is designed than to conclude that it got that way through natural means.

We have seen that Intelligent Design is a theory that looks for elements in nature that are best explained not by chance but by design. It seeks to do this using the widely accepted and testable criteria of specificity and complexity. It is not creationism, nor is it an argument from ignorance. Rather, it is a scientifically viable theory.

At this point, I concluded with a brief Q&A session in which I also mentioned the following resources:

*In the Q&A time afterward, I discussed that ID could be called creationism in a wide sense--it does argue for a Designer/Creator, after all--but the narrower sense of the term as I describe above is the one meant when this accusation is leveled.

Tolerance

I saw this bumper sticker on the car in front of us as we drove home from Costco last night. I’ve seen it before, and no doubt, you have, too. Ordinarily I would have paid it no mind, but I had been thinking about Nidal Malik Hasan earlier in the day. Hasan, of course, is the suspect in the Ft. Hood shootings earlier in the week. There are reports surfacing that Hasan held some pretty radical (and quite intolerant) Islamic views--views that likely caused him to kill fellow soldiers.

As I write about Hasan, I also think of Scott Roeder, the man who shot and killed abortionist George Tiller in Wichita earlier this year. Somehow he came to believe that killing the doctor was a justifiable act, even a righteous act—one that was presumably pleasing to God. I grew up in the Wichita area and knew much about Dr. Tiller. My dad took part in peaceful protests down at his clinic. But neither he nor anyone else that I knew would have ever considered killing Dr. Tiller to be even an option on the table, much less the right thing to do.

I think of the Columbine shooters, who killed fellow classmates at the school just down the street from where I used to live in Littleton, Colorado. I can’t even imagine the thoughts running through their heads that made them go on a shooting rampage.

The list could go on and on, but the point I am trying to make is thoughts lead to action. One's worldview shapes the way one acts. Our culture says that all worldviews are equally valid, none is any more or less true than any other. (One might say that Pontius Pilate is our spokesperson and his catchphrase is, "What is truth?") Since no one way of thinking is superior to another, of course we should be tolerant of all. But when tolerance is the supreme virtue, what do we do with men and women like Nidal Malik Hasan, Scott Roeder and the Columbine shooters?

How Difficult the Challenge

Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. For he says,

"In the time of my favor I heard you,

and in the day of salvation I helped you."

I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2; italics added (NIV)

The Forgotten Depression

Thanks to ChrisB for a link to an excellent article on the economic depression and recovery that occurred in 1920-21. It's a somewhat lengthy piece, but if you are at all cognizant of and/or concerned about the current stimulus efforts, it is well worth reading in its entirety.

Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920

Contentment by Oliver Wendell Holmes

Contentment by Oliver Wendell Holmes
"Man wants but little here below"

Little I ask; my wants are few;
I only wish a hut of stone,
(A very plain brown stone will do,)
That I may call my own;
And close at hand is such a one,
In yonder street that fronts the sun.

Plain food is quite enough for me;
Three courses are as good as ten;
If Nature can subsist on three,
Thank Heaven for three. Amen!
I always thought cold victual nice;
My choice would be vanilla-ice.

I care not much for gold or land;
Give me a mortgage here and there,
Some good bank-stock, some note of hand,
Or trifling railroad share,
I only ask that Fortune send
A little more than I shall spend.

Honors are silly toys, I know,
And titles are but empty names;
I would, perhaps, be Plenipo,
But only near St. James;
I'm very sure I should not care
To fill our Gubernator's chair.

Jewels are baubles; 't is a sin
To care for such unfruitful things;
One good-sized diamond in a pin,
Some, not so large, in rings,
A ruby, and a pearl, or so,
Will do for me; - I laugh at show.

My dame should dress in cheap attire;
(Good, heavy silks are never dear;)
I own perhaps I might desire
Some shawls of true Cashmere,
Some marrowy crapes of China silk,
Like wrinkled skins on scalded milk.

I would not have the horse I drive
So fast that folks must stop and stare;
An easy gait - two forty-five
Suits me; I do not care;
Perhaps, for just a single spurt,
Some seconds less would do no hurt.

Of pictures, I should like to own
Titians and Raphaels three or four,
I love so much their style and tone,
One Turner, and no more,
(A landscape, - foreground golden dirt,
The sunshine painted with a squirt.)

Of books but few, - some fifty score
For daily use, and bound for wear;
The rest upon an upper floor;
Some little luxury there
Of red morocco's gilded gleam
And vellum rich as country cream.

Busts, cameos, gems, such things as these,
Which others often show for pride,
I value for their power to please,
And selfish churls deride;
One Stradivarius, I confess,
Two Meerschaums, I would fain possess.

Wealth's wasteful tricks I will not learn,
Nor ape the glittering upstart fool;
Shall not carved tables serve my turn,
But all must be of buhl?
Give grasping pomp its double share,
I ask but one recumbent chair.

Thus humble let me live and die,
Nor long for Midas' golden touch;
If Heaven more generous gifts deny,
I shall not miss them much,
Too grateful for the blessing lent
Of simple tastes and mind content!

Discipline

Discipline. Now there's a word for you. Who wants to be disciplined? The very word connotes a lack of spontaneity that sucks the life out of you. And discipline won't get you on television. Think about it. Who are the sports players who get a majority of the media's attention? The ones who aren't disciplined; the ones who do dumb and provocative things (like Plaxico Burress, who recently shot himself in the leg). Who gets to be on reality shows? Typically only complete imbeciles make for "good TV" nowadays, and the less they can control themselves, the better. And why are there so many home foreclosures out there? Among other reasons, many people weren't disciplined enough to only buy as much house as they could afford.

Discipline. My family's recent income adjustment (taking the form of a 10-month-old boy) has made us become much more disciplined financially. As a result, we have a strict monthly budget that we follow, and if we want to make a major purchase, we have to figure out a way to save up the money for it. Instant material gratification is all but gone at our house. We have chosen to be disciplined financially to allow for my wife to stay home and raise Brodie and to better our financial position at the same time. Let me tell you, that requires lots of discipline!

Discipline. One of the distinctive features of Denver Seminary is their mentoring program. All students are required to do a number of learning contracts in which the goal is to become better in an area of spiritual formation or at a ministry skill. Students are required to write out a needs assessment, a goal statement, and at least six specific actions to take to achieve the goal. Students then meet with mentors and small groups for accountability.

Discipline. I used to be a competitive runner. I ran some pretty respectable times and placed in some pretty tough races. To get to that point, though, required running, on average, 8-10 miles per day, every day, whether I wanted to or not, year-round. There were countless days where I was tired, or weather conditions were extreme, or I simply didn't want to run. But I did anyway.

Even though living a disciplined life isn't always fun and usually very hard, it is also very rewarding. I think about our financial discipline. Through it, God is teaching us how to rely on him and helping us to reevaluate what we really need and what we can live without. And you know what? We are just as happy now as ever. When I performed what seemed like countless learning contracts, it was those disciplined times the Spirit used to lay a strong spiritual foundation in my life (one that has been put to the test on many occasions!). I was able to be highly competitive as a runner solely because I put in the countless miles of hard work to get there, and I have some great memories and experiences because of it.

In short, the best and strongest parts in my life are due to discipline. Through dedicated, structured, purposeful and hard work, God has allowed me to achieve some pretty impressive things, and I truly think my family and I have a great life due to the fact that we have learned to be disciplined. But I never wanted to be on TV anyway.

The Shack: A Book Review

I like to tell people that I read boring books. They’re not actually boring, of course (far from it); they’re just highly specialized. Let’s face it, when one has (paid a lot of money for) a master’s degree in biblical studies, it’s only natural that he will keep up on the subject. So I read “boring” commentaries, histories, and the like. Very rarely do I read modern-day fiction. Every now and again I will pick up a blockbuster novel, though, usually because I’m curious about why it is circulating so well. This was the case with the latest “must read”—The Shack by William P. Young.

After a long wait, I finally got a copy from the city library last week and got started reading. I had heard various friends talk about it, and I had read various book reviews, often with very different takes. Very interesting, I thought. What will my take be? I worked my way quickly through the novel, which I found to be an easy and pleasant read. I don’t really have much to compare it to in this genre, but I felt that the book was fairly well-written and the plot was very creative. It was definitely a page-turner, and reading it was enjoyable. Furthermore, it is obvious that Young is using his own story as the basis for the novel. In the novel, Mack (the protagonist) must face the grief and pain of his daughter’s murder head-on. The liner notes say that something horrible happened to Young not once but twice in his life, and whatever they were, he pulled from those experiences deeply in crafting his novel. Consequently, his description of theodicy is excellent. He goes to great lengths explaining how God can be good and sovereign and yet still allow evil to occur. He rightly points out that although God uses evil actions by humans to further his own plans, he does not require those actions to achieve his plans. He also correctly states that God may allow for bad things to happen for reasons that are incomprehensible to us fallen humans, but are good reasons nonetheless. Young’s portrait of a man struggling with the reality of evil and the goodness of God is a masterpiece, and he should be commended for it.

Unfortunately, that is where my commendations for Mr. Young’s work stop. The Shack has serious theological issues and errors related to the Trinity, Christology, ecclesiology and personal eschatology. Let us look at each in turn.

Most of the negative reviews I read about the book focused on Young’s portrayal of the Trinity. I found that the book portrayed God’s three-in-oneness well, but not necessarily the three persons’ relationships with one another. At one point, Papa (representing God the Father) tells Mack that no hierarchy exists within the Trinity—each person is fully God, and each submits to the others. While it is true that there is no ontological hierarchy in the Godhead (or, in plain English, each person is indeed fully God, and there is one God), there does exist a functional hierarchy (a.k.a. functional subordination). In other words, the Father sends the Son; the Son creates through the Spirit; the Father does not submit to the Son, but the Son submits to the Father; and so on. Each person has a distinct role, and some roles are “above” or “below” others. Young seems to be confused about the manner in which the Father, Son and Spirit relate.

Young also has an incorrect Christology in some places. He does agree with the orthodox view that Jesus is fully man and fully God, but he maintains that Jesus never does anything out of his God nature. The miracles, the healings, the resurrection—all these point to Jesus acting as a man who is dependent upon God (the Father). The problem is that the Jesus of the Gospels didn’t act in that way. He healed the paralytic in Mark 2 to prove to the doubters in the room that he could forgive sins, something only God has the power to do. He also speaks at length in Matt 25 of his future judgment of the world. If at any time he is drawing on his divine powers, surely this is it! The reason the Jews wanted Jesus crucified, in fact, was because he acted as if he were truly God, with all the powers and privileges thereof. Thus Young has misunderstood what the kenosis (Jesus’ emptying himself in Phil. 2:6-8) was all about. Jesus as God did limit himself, but he didn’t pull the plug completely, as The Shack would have you believe.

Young also has some very postmodern, although very wrong, ideas about the nature of the church (ecclesiology). His Jesus states that he never created the church as an institution. Instead, the church is exclusively about relationships. Organized religion is something created by humans so that they can have power over other humans. While this may be true for some religions (and political structures, etc.), it is not true for the church. In speaking to Peter, Jesus did establish the institution of the church (Matt 16:18), and the organized church took root and grew under the leadership of the Spirit-filled apostles (cf. book of Acts; the Epistles). To be blunt, if Young is right, Paul is wrong! The church is not just about hanging out with a fellow believer at Starbucks, although this is an important aspect of it. The church is also about having an organized and regular meeting of believers. Closely related to this lax view of church is Young’s lax view of Christian duty—or lack thereof. In the book, Papa says that to be in a relationship with her has nothing to do with expectations or responsibilities, but rather expectancy and an ability to respond. But then what does one do with Jesus’ statement, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15)? Although salvation is not based on works, scripture is clear that once the Spirit indwells the believer and he is able to do good works, those works are very much expected out of him (e.g., John 15:2).

Young seems to have universalist tendencies when it comes to personal eschatology. In other words, although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he seems to indicate that everyone will one day be reconciled to God through Christ. Late in the book, there is a colorful, heavenly reunion between Mack and his abusive father. Shortly thereafter, Papa indicates that the man who killed Mack’s daughter may very well come to God as well. The two worst characters in the book end up reconciled to God, which insinuates that everyone else will, too. Young cites Rom 14:11, “Every knee will bow before me,” as scriptural support. But acknowledging that Jesus is God at the final judgment only serves to further condemn those who refused his Lordship in this life, as the second half of 11 implies (“so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God”). While I do not wish to underestimate God’s grace, unfortunately universalism is not compatible with biblical teaching.

In the end, William P. Young’s The Shack is a wonderful story about a man trying to reconcile the reality of unspeakable evil with the existence of a good God. In that respect, Young does a superb job. Unfortunately, along the way he commits grievous theological errors about the Trinity, Christ, the church and eschatology. Would I recommend this book? Yes, because there is much good content in it. But I would add the caveat, “Don’t believe everything you read.”

Why the Bible is Still Relevant Today

Theological and Practical Implications of Judges 3:7-11

...When people abandon Yahweh in favor of any other allegiance, they absolve him of any obligation to them. In fact, they render him their enemy and may expect his judgment. On the other hand, when an individual who has been called by God into his service challenges the forces of evil and darkness in his [God's] power, the hosts of heaven and earth are dethroned. Herein lies the hope for the moribund church today. In the words of Yahweh himself, through his prophet Zechariah, victories are won "not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit" (Zech 4:6).

NAC: Judges, Ruth by Daniel Block, pp. 155-6.

The Question

I sometimes listen to local pastor Gino Geraci (local pastor and radio talk-show host) on the way home from work. I have to say, when it comes to the Bible and religion, the man knows his stuff. Most of the time I agree with what he says, but two days ago I had to take issue with him, albeit on a minor point. But, being a seminary grad, minor points are my specialty!

He fielded a question from a caller on the ending of Mark. If you turn to Mark 16, you will find that, after verse 8, the NIV states, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." The caller was curious about Gino's thoughts on what is the true ending of Mark. Gino did a good job explaining the issue, citing evidence from all sides of the debate along the way. But then he asked the caller, "What happens if Mark ends with 16:8?", to which the caller responded, "It just doesn't make sense." Gino agreed. I disagree.

Mark 16:8 reads, "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." The women had just seen a young man in a white robe (an angel) who had told them of Jesus' resurrection and had given them explicit instructions to go and tell this incredible news. What did they do instead? The exact opposite--they fled and kept their mouths shut. Now if you think about the immediate context, no, it doesn't make sense for Mark to end this way. But what was Mark trying to communicate here? I think he is ending his story with a hanging question for a reason. All throughout his gospel, we learn of this extraordinary man who claims to be God. He performs miracles, heals the sick, feeds the masses, and he even claims to forgive sins! He performs actions that fulfill Old Testament messianic prophecies, he identifies and equates himself with God, he winds up on a cross, yet his tomb is found to be empty. The reader takes part in this journey for 16 chapters, and Mark hopes that by this time he has fashioned a new disciple for the kingdom. But there is one question that remains, and it deals with identification. For the reader who believes, with whom will he or she identify? Will I go and tell, or will I flee and keep quiet? This is the same question that all believers must answer, often on a daily basis. Will I obey the young man's command, or will I follow the example of the three women at the tomb? This is why ending Mark's gospel at 16:8 makes perfect sense. The shorter ending forces the reader to look within, to answer the hanging question for his or her own life. It is really the question, the answer to which is the foundation for all else: What will you do with the message of Christ?

Christianity Without Church?

Why does organized religion matter? Isn't faith a private, personal, subjective thing, after all? It's a relationship with Jesus, so who cares about getting all gussied up and driving to a building every Sunday morning? This is the kind of thinking Kevin DeYoung examines in a Christianity Today interview about his new book, Why We Love the Church.

DeYoung points out that while the term church can refer to believers in general, two Christians meeting at Starbucks does not constitute a true church, i.e. a defined local community of believers. Why not? DeYoung says that the church as an institution has a structured litugry (teaching, singing, praying, ordinances) and offices (pastor/elder/bishop and deacon/deaconess). This is another important meaning of the word ekklesia. Coming together in a regular, organized manner is essential, he says, to have a lasting impact. (It's also commanded of us in Heb. 10:25.) Furthermore, he claims that many of those who care decrying the necessity of an organized church are, quite simply, immature in the faith. I tend to agree with this assessment. Organization, structure and even routine are extremely necessary for Christians. Let me explain.

Imagine that a group of Christians decided they were no longer going to celebrate Christmas by purchasing gifts, decorating, caroling, seeing family, etc. After all, December 25 isn't really Jesus' birthday, and we all just do the same things over and over again, year after year. Besides, what do any of those things have to do with one's relationship to Christ? They're just external trappings, so it is asserted. This, of course, is missing the point. All of those activities are part of the tradition of Christmas. Giving gifts reminds us of Christ's ultimate gift. Family get togethers provide a structured, planned time of fellowship with kin, something we need to stay connected to one another for a lifetime. And perhaps this is the only time each year when Luke 1-2 is read.

Tradition, organization and structure allow for remembering, learning and growth opportunities over the long term. There is certainly a place for spontaneous meetings over coffee, but this alone will not contribute to lasting growth. Fellowship, teaching, congregational singing and prayer are all part of the essential dynamic called the local church, the involvement in which is expected by all beleivers. One should question its necessity ony with great care.

A Concise History of Beards--Mine, Too!

Ever since I was 18, I have almost always sported a goatee or a full beard. Periods of clean-shavenness have been exceedingly rare and short-lived. I recently started thinking, why do I prefer having facial hair? An interesting question, one which I will answer shortly. Before I do, though, I thought I would share a brief pogonological comment or two. So here it is, ladies and gentlemen: A concise history of the beard in Western civilization.

The oldest flint razors that have been discovered thus far date to around 30,000 BCE. This means that men living prior to this date had no choice but to walk around fully bearded, wearing the skins of saber-tooth tigers they killed themselves. After that, the history of facial hair gets a little fuzzy (no pun intended) for about 27,000 years. Enter the ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans. The Israelites, of course, all had beards, since Leviticus 19:27 forbid shaving (or so it was interpreted). Thus growing a beard was a God-honoring prospect, a profoundly pious act. The ancient Greeks also revered the beard, considering it a sign of wisdom and virility. The most famous Greek of all, Alexander the Great, changed the social norm when he commanded his armies to enter battle cleanly shaven. Why? The enemy could grab one's beard during hand-to-hand combat, putting oneself at extreme disadvantage! The Romans, too, preferred the clean-cut look (at least after 300 BCE, which is when the first barber reached Rome), considering facial hair to denote slovenliness.

After these ancient societies collapsed, Europe descended into the Dark Ages. Apparently pogonologists were in short supply, because I could find no information about beards during that time (can you believe it?). We can, however, pick up in our history of the beard in the Middle Ages. 15th-century Europe was a beardless society; the fad was reborn in the 16th century. At this time, the first association of beards and politics appears. Catherine the Great did her best to do away with beards, because to sport one was to protest the religious climate of the day. In fact, priests who had traditionally been clean-shaven as a show of their celibacy, grew out their beards (and got married) to send a message. This love affair with the beard was short-lived, however; by the 1600s, they were no longer in vogue. That this was the case can be seen in Peter I. He wanted to be like the West so much that in 1698 he forbade his fellow Russians to grow beards, and by 1705 he was exacting a 100-ruble tax on men who defied his orders.

Beards were by and large out of style from that point until the Civil War (thanks to a little help from men like Abraham Lincoln and Ambrose Burnside). The mantra of the day, of course, was "the bigger, the better." But the mighty beard took another downturn in WWI. Soldiers were required to shave, since a grizzly face would inhibit gas masks from sealing tightly. Also during that era, movies were becoming more and more popular, and of course, many flicks were about the war, featuring actors portraying soldiers--sans beard for authenticity's sake. Concurrently, major ad campaigns by razor companies emphasized the importance of a good, clean shave. Thus from 1920-1960, beards were virtually forbidden. The arrival of the Beatnik movement in the 50s led some members to grow beards just to be nonconformists. The hippies of the 60s picked up on the habit from them, but they used the beard/long-hair combination as a means of protest against the US government and the Vietnam War. By the 70s, however, this look had become mainstream and carried with it no political baggage. The 1980s saw a return to the hairless face, which persisted until the 2000s, where the trend has been to grow sideburns, goatees and pencil-thin beards.

The beard has been around as long as men have. Over the last 6,000 years or so, men have been shaving their faces and growing out their beards for various reasons--sometimes social, sometimes political, sometimes religious. The beard continually rises in and falls out of style, again, for myriad reasons.

With the prolific history of the beard now stated, I can answer my initial question: Why do I have one? For me, there is no social, religious or political reason. I think, rather, that it comes down to the issue of fatherhood. You see, I have never seen my dad without a full beard. (In fact, in 30+ years of marriage, neither has my mom!) My dad's beard is his most distinguising physical characteristic. I can't imagine him without it--nor do I want to. I suppose his genes allowed me to grow a beard in the first place, but there's more than reproductive biology at work here. Having facial hair just feels right. Being clean-shaven just feels wrong. I don't know how to explain it; I don't know why I feel this way. Perhaps I am trying to emulate him, but especially now as a father myself, I can't imagine taking a razor to my entire face. I can't imagine going through life with a smooth chin. It just ain't right.

For more information on the history of beards, check out the following links:

• The Troubled History of Beards - damninteresting.com
• Beard - Wikipedia
• A Brief History of Beards - The Brooklyn Rail
• Growing a Beard: The History and Philosophies Behind the Current Trend - Associated Content
• Beard: Encyclopedia II - experiencefestival.com

Laboring in Vain?

“Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:58

Such is Paul’s climactic application for 1 Corinthians 15. He has just argued for the reality and centrality of bodily resurrection for the Christian, how we will one day receive a new, glorious body and live forever in perfect fellowship with God and others. Therefore, because of that great reward which awaits us, we are to stand firm in our faith. Okay, I can see that. An eternity of bliss is worth a few years of enduring hardships. That makes sense well enough. But then Paul adds one more sentence in which he states that our “labor in the Lord is not in vain.”

This is another case where it seems that doctrine and experience are at odds (at least for me). Let me illustrate. I always seem to get the tough nuts to crack, so to speak. The non-Christians in my circle of friends historically have not been all that interested in adopting Christianity as their religion of choice. By and large, they enjoy discussing religion and spiritual things, they have no qualms listening to my point of view, and I get the impression that they might even respect me for believing as I do and living out that belief system. But they have no interest whatsoever in becoming a follower of Christ. The usual culprit is their intellect. They are held prisoner by the idea that things just aren’t that simple as the gospel message would claim. The Bible wasn’t written to be taken so literally. What can we really know about this Jesus guy, anyway? There are so many different religions out there, how can there be just one that’s correct? And the list goes on. Although I know arguments to counter each of these questions, I have also learned that often they don’t do much good. This is what I have come across as I do the work of evangelism: Lots of prayer, lots of good discussions, lots of good friendships for which I am thankful, even, but ultimately no decisions for Christ.

It’s hard to look at this situation repeat itself over and over again in my life and believe that the work is not in vain. What am I accomplishing? What good have I done? How am I screwing up? Perhaps I am being too pessimistic. Perhaps one day I will find out that I did more than I thought. But I won’t know until that day.

I suppose in the end, I have to accept the fact that I did what was asked of me—I have tried, in the power of the Spirit, to be faithful. The results are not up to me. But when one labors long and hard with nothing tangible to show for it, the word failure does crop up in one’s mind.

Am I a faithful failure?

Karma: Garbage In, Garbage Out

Karma is ubiquitous in today's American culture. I hear this term bantered about on the radio, on TV and in conversations. For some reason that, quite honestly, escapes me, people actually believe in karma. I wish to show two reasons why the idea of karma is not viable.

Karma is the idea that moral actions are rewarded or punished through an impersonal system, whether it be some kind of law, or the universe itself, etc.* Let us note first of all that, in order to believe in good and bad actions as the inputs to the karmic system, one must hold to some standard of Good. After all, how can good behavior be rewarded--and more importantly, bad behavior be punished--if there is no standard on which to judge? Karma without the idea of the Good is like a capricious master, deciding your fate on a whim. This is hardly a fair scenario, and if karma isn't about fairness, then what is it about? But this idea of the Good must also be a universal standard, if the universe or a universal law is responsible for punishment and reward. Now, every good postmodernist knows that the first rule of postmodernism is "there are no moral absolutes." So the relativist who believes in karma (and I have yet to meet, see or hear a karma-espouser who is not a moral relativist) is faced with a contradiction--there both is and is not a universal standard of Good.

Now I myself do believe in a universal standard of Good. Should I therefore admit that karma is at least possible, given my worldview? Not quite. Karma runs into another issue when one recalls that it is believed to be an impersonal system: Put a good action into the system, get rewarded; put a bad action into the system, get punished. Here's the rub: How does an impersonal system differentiate between good and bad? Good and bad are moral categories, and only persons have an understanding of moral actions. If, for example, I were to use my computer to hack into Wal-Mart's customer database and steal all of their information, my computer would not stand in my way. It would not send me an email letting me know it disapproved of my actions because they were morally wrong. But were my wife to walk in while I was breaking into the database, she would immediately let me know that what I was doing was wrong. For her, the distinction would be immediate and obvious. For my computer, no distinction would ever be forthcoming. Karma is an impersonal agent, just like a computer. Therefore, karma is not able to know the difference between good and bad.

To reiterate, karma presupposes an absolute standard of Good, which contradicts postmodern moral theory, and it posits the existence of an impersonal agent that can differentiate between good and bad, which is another contradiction, since only persons understand this distinction. This leaves the believer in karma with an untenable assertion on two counts.

In other words, in postmodern America, karma simply cannot be.

*Let us put aside the fact that American karma is a bastardized version of the actual Hindu/Buddhist doctrine. I am only discussing the American version here.

Something Seems Fishy Here

I received an interesting link from my father-in-law this morning, which I think is very much worth sharing.

Like I said, interesting. Then I stumbled across the transcript of President Obama's weekly address, given today (emphases added). Here are some excerpts:

So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance.

We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care...

We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history...insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who has become seriously ill. Your health insurance ought to be there for you when it counts – and reform will make sure it is.

Insurance companies will also have to limit how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And we will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime...

Maybe I should email flag@whitehouse.gov--Obama's words seem awfully fishy to me.

Begging the Question

I typically let most grammar and usage mistakes slide. Mind you, when I find one in print or hear one spoken, it still makes me cringe. I have learned, though, just to let it go, except when I think that pointing it out would be beneficial to all parties involved (for instance, when I am grammarian at a Toastmasters meeting). I come across a few mistakes, however, over and over again, and sometimes I must comment.

The particular oft-misused phrase stuck in my craw at the moment is begging the question. Countless times have I heard or read something like, “The Rockies have been on a tear since firing manager Clint Hurdle. That begs the question, why was Hurdle not fired sooner?” The fact of the matter is Hurdle’s firing does not beg the question of timing. It raises the question.

Begging the question (a.k.a. petitio principii) is a logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. Note that in the phrase begging the question, beg does not mean “plead for” but rather “assume” and question does not mean “a sentence in interrogative form” but rather “the thing one is trying to prove.” Thus, begging the question literally means “assuming the thing one is trying to prove.”

For example, the famous zinger, “When did you stop beating your wife?” begs the question. It assumes that you have been beating your wife, even though no evidence has been produced that you do in fact beat her. Another example is, “OJ could not have killed his wife, because he just wouldn’t do that sort of thing.” It assumes that OJ could not have killed his wife because he would not kill his wife. No evidence is produced to suggest why he would not perform such an act other than “he just wouldn’t.”*

Perhaps I am being way too anal about this, but I believe that clear and cogent thinking is extremely important, and an important part of solid thinking is having a solid understanding of the words and phrases used. Furthermore, not only is the phrase begging the question often misused, the real fallacy of question-begging is common, as well. Thus knowing the true meaning protects you from misusing your words and your logic.

So the next time you read, “The economic crisis begs the question, when will things turn around?” join me in cringing in your chair. Let out a good, hearty scream while you are at it. And then relax by chanting this mantra: It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It'll make you feel better. I promise.

*Apologies for the misogynistic examples; ladies, please do not take offense!

A Challenging Legacy

I never realized what kind of a man he was until it was too late.

I last saw my grandfather a week ago Sunday. It was my birthday, and Jessica, Brodie and I had traveled back to my hometown in Kansas for a long weekend. All of the family was supposed to come over to my parents' house at 5 PM Saturday to see us and celebrate. A little before 5, Grandma called and said that Grandpa was running a fever. It was decided that they would not come, since there was a baby at the house. A little after 5, Grandma called back and said that Grandpa had fallen. My dad, aunt and cousin left the party to go to my grandparents' house to help out. My cousin, an RN, decided once they were there that Grandpa needed to go to the hospital. That is where he was the next day when I saw him.

I walked into the room, and Dad introduced me to him. Grandpa, whose mind was failing him, said, "I remember Jon, but that's not what he looks like." (I can't blame him for that; I have changed my looks quite a bit over the years.) After we assured Grandpa that I was his grandson Jon, he turned and looked at me and asked, "Are you a Christian?"

This is when I realized what kind of man my Grandpa was. Here he lay dying in a hospital bed. His body was failing him; his mind already had. He wasn't even really clear about who I was. Yet he wanted to make sure that I believed in Christ. His faith somehow, miraculously, was still strong.

I assured him that I was a Christian and introduced him to his newest great-grandson, Brodie. In the course of our short conversation, he repeatedly told me to raise Brodie up to honor his father and mother and as a Christian. Again, I witnessed a man at the end of his days--so weak he couldn't stand--and his primary concern was to make sure that my family and me (who were, for all he knew, strangers) loved Jesus.

He soon fell asleep and I left the room. That was the last time he was lucid, and although he lived for a few more days, that was when I said goodbye to Grandpa. That was also the moment that his legacy was crystalized in my mind. He was a man of faith.

My dad told me about the last thing Grandpa said. He had spotted a new doctor, one he hadn't seen before, and in a garbled mumble, said to him, "Do you believe in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?"

A man of faith to the very end.

TV or Not TV, That is the Question

I get it. I've read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. I've sat in many lectures and read many blog articles by Dr. Douglas Groothuis. I understand the reasons not to watch television. Glorified violence. Gratuitous sex. Triviality and banality. And I completely agree that many, if not most, shows on television are a complete waste of time and perhaps even sinful to watch, which is precisely why my wife and I do not watch those shows.

But what about that minority of shows that don't focus on these things? For example, I like to watch cooking shows. Why? Because I like to cook, and I learn new things by watching the professionals in action. My wife and I also like to watch documentaries like Nova or Secrets of the Dead. (Recently, e.g., we just finished watching the BBC documentary The Human Face on Netflix.) Again, these are shows in which you can learn something about science or the humanities and actually feel edified after having watched them. And, of course, I do like to do battle with the contestants on Jeopardy every now and again.

Now this isn't to say that I always watch high-quality shows like these. I do confess that sometimes, after an especially long day at work, I do crash in front of the tube and watch fairly trivial shows. But usually when this happens I am so mentally drained that I would be hard-pressed to pick up a book or have an enlightening conversation anyway. I have had to come to grips with the fact that I just can't be productive all the time.

So I pose the question, is some TV okay, if those shows are actually edifying in some way? Or is TV such a wasteland that one should avoid it at all costs?

Paul's Letter to the Roman-Americans

I just finished preaching a month-long sermon series on Romans at my church. I have to say, I was really struck by Paul's thoughts on what the gospel is and the impact is has on Christians. Romans is, in essence, Paul's grand treatise on the gospel--his sales pitch to the Roman church, as it were, whose support he was trying to obtain for a trip he had planned to spread the gospel to Spain. As one goes through the book, one sees the contrast between Paul's gospel and the gospel too many of us in the church today (including myself, far too often) live out:

Paul: Humans, left to their own devices, are under for God's wrath. (ch. 1-3)
Us: Humans aren't that bad; most people are good at heart.

Paul: Humans who try to find righteousness by adhering to a set of rules (the Jews, in Paul's case) are under God's wrath. (ch 1-3)

Us: Yes, Jesus died for our sins, but we've still got plenty of unwritten rules, don't you worry!

Paul: Salvation can only be found in Christ. (ch 3)

Us: Salvation can only be found in politics.

Paul: Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? No way! (ch 6)

Us: A little sinning here and there isn't really a sin at all, as long as it doesn't violate one of our unwritten rules (see above).

Paul: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel us to spread the gospel! (ch 9-11)

Us: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel someone else to spread the gospel!

Paul: The gospel should cause a transformation in every area of our lives: Our church life, our citizenship to the state, our interactions with family, friends and strangers, etc. (ch 12-15)

Us: What I do outside of church is my own business.

Paul: We should put aside our freedoms in nonmoral areas for the sake of unity and peace. (ch 14-15)

Us: I'm an American; I have rights and I will use them!

I wonder what Paul would tell us today. How would Romans be different if we were his original audience? Would he have to change his message? Or would it be much the same, stressing the same things, since the Romans were humans just like us, too, struggling with the same issues day in and day out? I think the latter might be more likely. Preaching through the book, one finds Paul's letter to be extremely relevant today. In it we see our sinful nature. We see our redemption in Christ alone. We see the model of Christianity to which we strive to adhere.

I wonder if Paul knew how timeless his letter was when he wrote it...

On Being a Dad

I have learned a lot about what it means to be a father in the past six months. By no means would I consider myself and expert, but I have figured out a few things:

• Changing a diaper is not as bad an experience as I thought it would be.
• Sans diaper, baby-boy poop can travel as far as baby-boy pee.
• You can understand a fair amount of what a baby is trying to tell you if you're around him long enough.
• You can eat very quickly while only using one hand.
• Not much beats coming home from a long day at work at having your son smile at you.

As I ponder this experience of fatherhood, I remember a quote from a book by one of my college professors, Dr. Rodney Reeves. In his book A Genuine Faith: How to Follow Jesus Today, he writes,

Jesus cannot teach me how to be a good father because he was never married,
and that is too bad--not just for him but also for me. If he had been married,
if he had fathered many children, then his example would provide another model
of Christian behavior.

Jesus wasn't a father, he was a son. He can't teach me (at least not by example) how to be a dad, only how to be a son to my own dad. But God the Father knows exactly what it means to be a dad; after all, it's in his job title! Through his loving patience with the nation of Israel, I learn how to be patient with my own son. The sacrifice he made for me by sending his son to his death shows me the radical nature of sacrifice I am to provide for my own family as a father. God the Father instructs, exhorts, disciplines and provides for his children out of perfect love, giving me an example to follow as one whose task is the same--being a dad.

May I ever learn from his example!

Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction?

Belief in Bigfoot is logical.

I know what you are thinking right now—I am crazy. Look at the crazy guy who thinks it’s perfectly sane to believe in Bigfoot! Let’s all laugh and point! All right, all right, get it out of your system. Better now? Good.

Seriously, though, I believe that Bigfoot exists. Let me explain why. First, the discovery of animals once thought mythical is not unprecedented. At one time gorillas were considered mythical creatures. The kraken was thought to be a figment of frightened sailors’ collective imagination until someone brought in a colossal squid. Similarly, the coelacanth was thought to have been extinct for millions of years until a fisherman caught one in 1938. And of course previously unknown fauna are being discovered all of the time.

Second, there is possible physical evidence to corroborate the existence of Bigfoot. Hair and fecal samples of unknown origin have been collected near alleged sightings. Piled rock, stacked wood and damaged trees—all seemingly intentionally done—have been reported in those areas, as well. Of special evidential import, however, are films, pictures and footprints. The famous Patterson-Gimlin film has been subject to intense scrutiny, but it has never been proved to be a hoax. (Indeed, if it is a hoax, it is one of the best ever done.) Various pictures, including the recent “Jacobs creature” photos, show something very primate-looking. (The Pennsylvania Game Commission said that the picture was of a mangy bear. Decide for yourself.) There have been many footprints discovered over the years. Some have proven to be hoaxes. Some, however, seem to be genuine, to the point of having possible dermal ridges.

Third, there are thousands of reported sightings of a large, hairy primate in North America. All throughout the continental United States and Canada, people claim to have seen such a creature. One can even find reports dating back nearly 400 years to the native peoples of the Northwest. In many cases, the eyewitnesses are of reputable character (not mentally ill, not known to be habitual liars, not seeking fame, etc) have no reason to lie, are experienced woodsmen[1] (many sightings occur deep in the woods where few urbanites would venture), do not know and therefore cannot collaborate with other persons who report sightings, and simply cannot come to any other explanation of what they saw. Furthermore, the details of the sightings are very often extremely similar. The object of the sighting always has a human-like face, very broad shoulders, hair of roughly six inches in length, a height of 7-9 feet, arms that extend down close to the knees, and so on.

The logic of my belief in Bigfoot (meaning an undiscovered large, bipedal, North American primate), then, can be represented by the following inductive argument:

1. Animals not thought/known to exist are often discovered.
2. Physical evidence exists that may corroborate the existence of Bigfoot.
3. Therefore, the existence of Bigfoot cannot be rejected a priori.
4. Many sightings by reliable people of reputable character occur, most of which contain extremely similar details describing a large, bipedal primate.
5. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are lies or fictional accounts.
6. Many sightings are reported by experienced woodsmen.
7. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are misidentification of known animals.
8. Some sightings have been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
9. Some sightings have not been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
10. Sightings have been reported over a vast amount of North America for hundreds of years.
11. It is not likely that a vast network of Bigfoot hoaxing has been in existence for hundreds of years.
12. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are the result of hoaxing.
13. Not all sightings have been identified as lies or fictional accounts, misidentification of known animals, or hoaxes.
14. Therefore, it is likely that some sightings are real and reliable accounts, the object of which is a large, bipedal, North American primate.
14. Therefore, it is likely that a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
15. Therefore, a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
16. Therefore, Bigfoot exists.

In the end, I suppose, belief or disbelief in Bigfoot is trivial. In fact, I prefer that most people disbelieve in its existence; that means fewer people are out there trying to bag one. But one day, when you take your kids or grandkids to the zoo to see the gorillas and the sasquatches in the primate enclosure, remember me. I’ll be the guy in the corner thinking to himself, “I told you so!”

[1] Many such people, in fact, have often seen bears in the wild and are adamant that what they saw was not a bear. Thus the misidentification of known animals cannot account for all reported sightings.

Gratuitous Lesbianism

This post isn't about homosexuality.  I promise.  This post is about a trend I have noticed in the land of Television.  Over the past several months, I have thrice had the occasion to be watching network television when, out of nowhere, for no reason, one of the characters is announced to be gay.  Each time it has been the same.  A female character's love life is brought into the show, and lo and behold, she's in a relationship with another woman, and there's always a man who thinks he can bring her back.  The women, of course, are portrayed as beautiful, happy and smart, and the guy is always of the "handsome but full of himself" variety.  

Now I can understand that some might think of this as a good plot twist or sub-story (indeed, Seinfeld had a quite funny episode devoted to the topic), but the problem is, each time I have seen this idea used, it is completely out of step with the rest of the show.  There is simply no need to make one of the characters a lesbian.  It does nothing to further the story line; indeed, it's not related at all.  It's like someone down at the station inadvertently stuck a scene from some other program into the one I was watching.

Of course, I know what's going on here.  It's the land of Television's way of saying, "Hey, everybody, look how cool and sexy and smart these lesbians are!  Isn't being gay great?"  Fair enough, I guess it's their show.  But it seems to me that they are sacrificing their show's quality by inserting random pro-gay commercials into the plot.  

At least when I preach, it's in context.

Bound to Burn?

I like the earth--it's where all my stuff is. I'd like to keep it lookin' good for my children and grandchildren. So I recycle. I also try not to waste energy or throw litter out my car window. I even like that plasticware is now designed with a certain amount of negative space to reduce the amount of material required per utensil. What I don't like is much of the current fad of "saving the earth." Ever since it started, I get the distinct feeling that I'm being had, that there's something someone isn't telling me about here. You know, like when Hollywood's elite tell me not to air condition my house or to take the bus to work instead of drive, or else life on earth will cease to exist, even though they have mansions to cool and private jets to fly.

One particular area in which things just don't feel right to me is the idea of a "carbon footprint." We're all supposed to reduce our carbon footprint, but I have to ask, who is "we?" This is precisely the point in Peter W. Huber's article that recently appeared in City Journal, entitled "Bound to Burn." Huber argues that for us rich Westerners to lower our carbon usage and output is just fine and dandy--until one looks at things globally (isn't that what we are supposed to be doing anyway?). His main point?

We rich people can’t stop the world’s 5 billion poor people from burning the
couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We
can’t even make any durable dent in global emissions—because emissions from the
developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity
desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same
global economy.

He goes on to say that even though we rich-types out there burn more carbon per capita, there are a lot more "capitas" in the world's poorest countries. Thus, "the 5 billion poor...emit 20 percent more greenhouse gas than we do." To make matters worse, as the richer countries reduce their demand for carbon-based fuel, the price for said fuel goes down as well. This, of course, means that for countries like China, who burn massive amounts of coal, they can burn it even more cheaply than they already were. These countries are also increasing their rate of fuel usage at a much faster rate than can be offset by our carbon-reduction efforts.

Huber makes many other thought-provoking points in his article--too many to mention here--but in the end, he takes a realistic look at the situation and realizes that on a global scale, humanity is not going to stop using carbon-based fuels anytime soon, regardless of the amount of reductions in Western countries. Therefore, he reckons, we ought to focus our efforts on getting that carbon out of the atmosphere once it has been released. And what is the best way to do that? Things no one disagrees with. Planting trees, which beautifies our cities and keeps them cooler to boot. Using land wisely and improving agricultural tactics, which can result in greater prosperity. Ideas that benefit both humans qua humans and nature, instead of ideas that villify human use of resources and deify Mother Nature.

So why are these ideas not at the forefront of the environmentalist movement, but riding the bus to work is? I think the leaders of the movement don't really care about the environment, at least not as much as they care about having power. Think about it: How much power do you exert over people when they plant a tree? Not much. How much power do you exert over people when you fundamentally alter the manner in which they travel? Quite a bit more. I think this also explains a lot about the misinformation we receive. For example, in his famous documentary, Al Gore showed an ice berg losing massive chunks of ice into the ocean. He neglected to mention it was computer-generated. To take another example, we are told we need to "save the earth." Since when did it need saving to begin with? Is it misguided hubris to suppose that we can destroy a planet billions of years old by driving to work? Or is it intentional misinformation: If the earth is to be saved, then there must be a savior--a savior with enough political power to make the necessary changes.

This is why I sit uneasy with the environmentalist movement sweeping through our nation. It has nothing to do with treating the earth well. It has everything to do with feeling underinformed, misinformed, and being extremely wary of anyone in pursuit of political power.