Happy Earth Day!

In honor of Earth Day yesterday, I thought I would post some of my own ideas on the environment, or more particularly, on the environmental movement. While I do think stewardship of the earth is an important aspect of mankind's work--in fact, a divine command given to us in the Garden of Eden--I take issue with the environmental movement as a whole. It strikes me as a movement striving toward an earthly, man-made (and carbon-free) Utopia that is attempting to force the rest of us into submission in order to achieve that goal. It has moved from promoting healthy human interactions with our environment to a battle for political power, based on an anti-biblical worldview.

Therefore, I present to you the changes I would like to see in the environmental movement:

• Drop the "salvation" language. If I switch to a hybrid car or turn my lights off for an hour once a year, it is not going to "save the earth." There are billions of people in the non-West who are more than making up for me in the "Global Warming" game. Plus, since there are problems with climate data dating back to 1960 (see next), we must question the underlying proposition that the earth is heating up due to human causes in the first place.
• Admit that there's a problem with the data. With the recent Climategate scandal, we now know that much of the data that the UN (via the IPCC) is using to determine whether or not the earth is heating up was deliberately altered. Unfortunately, the original 40+ years' worth of data has been "lost," so we will never know what the real temperature data is. And even if we did have the original data, the manner in which it was collected has also been shown to be suspect.
• Stop using the environment as a motivator. Yes, the environment is important. Yes, bettering the environment for its own sake is a noble cause. But most people aren't going to get motivated and make radically life-altering choices because of "the environment." If you really want people to be environmentally friendly, make it cheaper than the alternative and stress this fact ad nauseum. The caveat here is that it has to be cheaper in the short-term; as a consumer, if I'm buying an electric car, for instance, I'd better be able to come out ahead financially in 2-3 years' time--not 10.
• Let the free market "do its thing." When cars came out, the government did not have to enact legislation to force people to switch from horses. The car was a better mode of transportation that was affordable to most people, so most people sold their horses and bought cars. The same could be said for ice boxes and electric refrigerators, land lines and cell phones. When consumer demand is high enough, someone will come up with an affordable product to sell--and that includes "eco-friendly" products.
• Quit the scare mongering and guilt trips. Fear and guilt are poor motivators. We all want clean air and water, and we all want to preserve forests for future generations. Making me feel like a jerk because I don't use Denver's inadequate public-transit system, or telling me that if I don't act in wild and financially irresponsible ways, the earth will be destroyed before my kids grow up, well, that's just irritating. How about some positive reinforcement every now and then?

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

Pro-Choice is Anti-Woman

Below I have posted an excerpt from the Constructive Curmudgeon. The entire article is worth reading, regardless of your position on the role of women in the church, but I think all sides in the debate can agree with this:

11. To be “pro-choice” is to be anti-woman. This truth was seen clearly by early feminists, but it is lost to the view of modern feminists. Nineteenth-century feminists sought to hold men accountable to moral standards for sexual behavior, and opposed abortion in part because it allowed men to escape their responsibilities. Modern feminists, however, have leveled the moral landscape by advocating sexual promiscuity for women as well as men—which has created a demand for the “quick fix” of abortion. Because abortion is now seen as the woman’s “choice,” pregnancy and parenthood are also seen as the woman’s choice. This puts the entire responsibility for children upon the mother, and relieves the father of any obligation to care for his offspring—which hardly works in favor of women’s social freedom and equality. The fundamental assumption of the abortion agenda is that women are not “equal” as women (a condition that can involve pregnancy); they must have the opportunity to be made “equal” (i.e., not pregnant) through invasive surgery, whenever the “man’s world” in which they live, and to which they must adapt, requires it. In advocating abortion rights, modern feminism betrays the premise of any liberation movement (namely, belief in the equal rights of all human beings) by denying the rights of preborn humans.

Cognitive Dissonance

When it comes to abortion, the government "has no right to interfere with such a personal, private decision" (i.e. the decision to kill an unborn person).

When it comes to health care, the government "has the right duty to interfere with such a personal, private decision" (in the form of a mandate to purchase health insurance).

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

Myth of the Modern Man

As many people come to the Bible, they bring with them a peculiar bias. It's one they probably don't even realize they have. Nevertheless, it's the starting point for a train of thought that casts doubt on the accuracy of Scripture and can lead one far from the path of God. I call it the Myth of the Modern Man.

It goes like this: Our modern society has mastered electricity, the combustible engine, canned foods, computer technology, the Internet, satellite television and many other advanced technologies. We've figured out human psychology to the extent that we've got it all documented in the DSM. We've mapped the human genome and can trace our DNA ancestry back hundreds of thousands of years. We no longer hunt and gather, engage in bartering or fight each other with pointy sticks (most of us, anyway). We are so much more advanced technologically and sociologically than other previous peoples that it follows that we must be vastly smarter than they were, too.

From this foundation proceeds the idea that the Bible just can't be right. After all, people back then thought that the gods controlled the weather and demons caused epilepsy. Since we who are vastly superior intellectually know those things can't be true, we have no reason to trust them to have gotten anything else right, either. Everyone knows that people don't get swallowed up by a fish and then vomited out three days later. There might have been a king named David, but most of what is written about him is legend, you see. Jesus may have been a nice guy, but he didn't really rise from the dead--these things just don't happen! Even though we are removed from the events of the Bible by many thousands of years more than the original authors, we second-guess them from our Modern throne and say, "But of course it didn't really happen like that."

A cursory examination of architectural and artistic history sheds light on the Myth of the Modern Man, however. The great pyramids, for example, are very large and intricate structures that are extremely precise in their layout. They still rank among the wonders of the world. They were made by humans long ago without the aide of computers, machines or even metal tools. Try making a pyramid using only your brain and a stone hammer--not so easy, is it? Much the same can be said for Stonehenge and many of the buildings erected by early peoples of the Americas. Machu Picchu's architects created an intricate system to provide the location with water from a nearby spring, and they devised an underground drainage system to prevent the torrential rains from washing the whole place off the mountaintop--a system which has been working quite well for the last 600 years. Artistically speaking, I will never forget an example I saw at a museum in Kansas City a few years ago. Archaeologists had found a piece of jade which had been fashioned into a 6" cube and had a 1" hole drilled through its center. Jade is a material that is harder than diamonds, yet someone thousands of years ago was able to drill a hole through six inches of the stuff (for merely aesthetic reasons, nonetheless!). To this day, no one knows how the feat was accomplished.

The examples go on and on, but the point is clear: Earlier peoples were just as smart and ingenuous as we are. They mastered the materials of their day (stone, iron, etc) and created wonderful and lasting works without the aid of our modern contrivances. They created such fundamental things as writing and philosophy, which are the building blocks of our own society. Their only tools were whatever they could find around them and their wits, and they used them skillfully. These were smart people. And if they were able to do all of this, does it not follow that they could perceive events just as well as we? And is not the corollary also true that they could sniff out a fishy story just as well as we?

And yet, unlike us, the early biblical writers did believe the stories they heard and documented. The stories made sense to them; something about them rang true. Maybe they even had a grandfather who told them what it was like to serve King David. Maybe they were well aware of a type of aquatic animal that could swallow a man whole. Maybe they knew some of the 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ with their own eyes. Maybe things did happen differently and for different reasons in another time and another place.

So the next time you are tempted to read the Bible and ask, "Did it really happen like that?" think about living without the benefits of modern technology. How long would you last? How observant would you have to be to completely sustain yourself and your family using only what you could hunt, trade or grow from the land? How long would you last in such an environment if you believed everything anybody told you? The answers to these questions might persuade you that those folks might have indeed known and recorded what really happened.

Today

The Winter Olympics are an amazing thing to watch. Here are people who have devoted their entire lives to a given sport (most of which are incredibly dangerous) and are now at the pinnacle of success. They execute triple lutzes, Double McTwist 1260s and 90-mph luge runs flawlessly, looming larger than life above us normal folk who work in an office for a living. We look at them and think, "I could never do that." And for most of us, we are right. We weren't privileged to be raised near a mountain range; our parents didn't start us in competitive skating at age 2; and, most importantly, we don't have a natural inclination to cheat death on a daily basis.

But think of successful men and women in other areas. Businessmen, speakers, teachers, singers and songwriters, moms and dads. Whatever it is you aspire towards, whatever personal or career goals you have, you no doubt have your role models, your idols. "The best." Those people about whom you think, "I could never be as good as him." The difference between these cases and those above is that in these cases, for most of us, we are wrong to think in this way. Each of these people is most likely just like you, dealing with the same issues, the same circumstances, the same constraints. In many cases, Fortune did not smile upon them; success was not given to them on a silver platter, nor did where they were raised come into play. (And thankfully, death-cheating was rare.) What does set them apart, in large measure, is their attitude.

While this is a multi-faceted topic, of course, I think I have identified a key aspect of this attitude (or at least I'm hoping so!). Like most of us, I, too, have personal and career aspirations. And because I am an overachiever, I set the bar high for myself. Without going into details, I want to be the best that I can possibly be--all the time. And when I do less than my best, it really grinds me. I can't stand it. Unfortunately, one cannot be at his best all the time. Perfection is a goal which can never be achieved. I have tried to come to grips with that. I understand that I will never reach perfection this side of the grave; I will not reach all of my goals tomorrow, or next month, or next year. And as I get older I am learning that I can't even do all of the things I should be doing to achieve those goals. It's just not possible. But what I can do is ask myself a question. Every day, I can ask myself, "What can I do today?"

What can I do today to move one inch closer to my goals? What can I do today to become a better, healthier person? What small thing is in my power to control that I can change for the better today? Asking this question is enormously freeing and gratifying. Will I be out of debt tomorrow? No. But can I make a good financial decision today, one that will help me become debt-free? Probably. Will I ever know everything there is to know about the Bible? Not a chance. But can I take a few minutes to become more acquainted with it today? More than likely, yes. Am I the world's best dad? Despite what any coffee mug or t-shirt I may someday receive might say, I doubt I am. But can I take Brodie for a few minutes to give his mom a well-needed break? Well, it doesn't take a genius to answer that question.

Am I great? Am I among those to whom people refer as "the best?" I would highly doubt it. Will I someday become noticeably successful? I'll leave that question for others to decide (they'll be the ones who would have to notice, after all). Will I at least achieve my own goals? That's the plan. And when I do achieve those goals, I'll know that it wasn't because I won the lottery, or because the Spirit miraculously endowed me with a Blombergian knowledge of the Bible in my sleep, or because I was visited by the Dad Fairy. I'll know that it was because each day between now and then, I made the decision to do something small, something positive, something today.

C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy: A Review

The words "philology" and "exciting" are seldom used in the same sentence. In fact, one would imagine that a trilogy of books whose protagonist was a philologist would be tedious and downright boring. If the author of that trio of novels were C.S. Lewis, however, one could not be farther from the truth!

I speak of C.S. Lewis' epic Space Trilogy, which I just completed reading. The hero in all three books (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength) is Dr. Elwin Ransom, who begins the series (in Out of the Silent Planet) as a mild-mannered linguist. While on a walking trip in Europe, he stumbles upon two scientists (named Devine and Weston) who end up kidnapping him and forcing him onto a spaceship headed to Malacanrda, a distant planet. Ransom soon learns that he is to be handed over to the Sorn, whoever that might be, and in all likelihood, killed, upon their arrival to the planet. In a daring move, Ransom escapes his human captors soon after they touch down and must survive on his own in a distant world. He meets several races of sentient beings along the way, befriending them and learning their language. He eventually finds himself face-to-face with the spiritual being (called an eldil) who protects the planet and, well, to say any more would spoil the story!

The saga continues with Perelandra. Ransom, who, along with his original captors, travels back to Earth at the end of the first book, is now summoned by an eldil to travel to another planet, Perelandra. Once on the planet, he meets a green woman who he learns is that world's "Eve." Furthermore, "Eve" has been separated from her "Adam," and Ransom teams up with her to look for him. By a stroke of luck (if one believes in that sort of thing), the language Ransom learned on Malacandra turns out to be Old Solar, the same tongue spoken by the green woman. Ransom does not succeed at finding the green woman's husband, but he does succeed at finding Weston, who has traveled there from earth in his spaceship. But this is not the same Weston he knew before. This Weston now takes on the role of the Serpent, trying to trick "Eve" into disobeying the command of the great Maleldil. Ransom realizes it was for this that he has been summoned to Perelandra, and so he does battle against Weston--a gripping tale that comprises most of the second half of the book. To tell more, again, would ruin this story for you. Let it suffice to say that Ransom does make it back to Earth again.

The final book, That Hideous Strength, continues Ransom's story, but in a most different way. This story is set on our own planet--Britain, in fact--and it centers on a "sinister technocratic organization" that has great plans for the human race. The organization, called the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.), is most intent on purchasing Bragdon Wood from the local college who owns it. The woods are thought to be the burial place of Merlin the Magician, whom N.I.C.E. wants to resurrect and use for their own evil ends. Ransom, now the Director of a small band of men, women and animals, must determine what exactly N.I.C.E. is up to, which he accomplishes with the help of a clairvoyant woman named Jane, and put a stop to it. Ransom finds additional help to do this in some unexpected (and some quite expected) quarters.

Overall, the trilogy was a delight to read and hard to put down. Although Lewis mentions that each book may be read alone, the true beauty of his story can only be seen by reading them all consecutively. Lewis' ability to write both fiction and nonfiction is, of course, extraordinary, and the Space Trilogy is as equally good as the Chronicles of Narnia. (It is important to note, however, that the former is written for adults, and the latter for children. The Trilogy is definitely a tougher read.) A few things stood out to me as I read that are worthy of mention. First, I found his take on myth to be fascinating. He contends (at least in these books) that ancient myths are not mere fables but are in fact usually rooted in history. Furthermore, things may have happened very differently thousands of years ago than they do now. One thinks of the plethora of flood myths found in ancient civilizations around the world--is this evidence that a global flood really did occur? Lewis might have thought so. Second, Lewis' ability to create evil characters is almost diabolical itself. These characters (Weston in the second book, and quite a few characters in the third) are evil for the sake of being evil. Especially frightening is Weston in Perelandra, who uses intellectual arguments, school-boy taunts and everything in between for his vile tools. In him is no appreciation for anything for its own value, but only for how it might advance his evil ends. There were times when I literally had the "heebie jeebies" as I read. Finally, That Hideous Strength is Lewis' attempt to put the ideas of The Abolition of Man into novel format. This leads the reader to realize that this story is not mere fiction; it embodies what could happen to a society that embraces total moral relativism. In that vein, one could construe this book as a prophecy--what the future might hold for us.

If you have not read C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, I highly encourage you to do so. As fiction, it makes for lighter reading than his other books, but one sees some of the same themes. It is also a captivating read--you'll find yourself sacrificing sleep, because you just can't put the books down! And finally, it may awaken a desire to read some of his other works, all of which are worth the effort.

Look Who's Talking Now, or Thoughts on Leviticus

I'm currently reading through that great and exciting tome, the book of Leviticus. What a joy it is indeed! In all seriousness, many people get bogged down when they reach this book. How many people (myself included) have had their "read through the Bible" campaign halted when they reach this seemingly dry, boring and utterly inapplicable book? Why is it still even in the Bible at all, we surely wonder. This time 'round, though, I have been reading Leviticus through a different lens, and although it cannot take all of the dry, technical writing out of the book, it has been teaching me about God--knowledge that is well worth the work.

What is this lens, this magic magnifying glass through which I am observing the text? Perhaps it is best expressed through the title of Francis Schaeffer's book He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Most people in the Ancient Near East (ANE) worshiped local gods, who were represented by idols. These idols were carved by the hands of men. They did not speak; they had no power. They were, in reality, nothing at all. Yet a group of former slaves from Egypt do not need idols carved by men. They don't need a silent representation of God; they hear His very voice. In the ANE, this is unheard of (pardon the wordplay)! What's more, this God is very, very powerful. He spoke the universe into existence, and now He speaks to them personally. He provides structure and order to their fledgling country. He describes in painstaking detail how to build the tabernacle, how to construct the priests' garb, and how and when to make sacrifices and have feasts. He gives them a civil law code, so they can know how to act, and a dietary law code, so they can know what to eat (quite a helpful thing in an age without refrigeration!). The maker of the universe condescends to talk to a rag-tag group called Israel, and even goes so far as to help them set up their government and cult, so that they might be an established nation.

Is Leviticus dry? Unless you enjoy reading blueprints and law textbooks, yes. Is it boring? When you remember that God is doing most of the speaking, it becomes much less boring. Is it inapplicable today? God is shown to be personal and to desire orderly worship. Furthermore, He wants our total devotion to Himself in all areas of life--civil, religious, even in what (or how) we eat! These truths alone will take a lifetime (and then some) to apply. The bottom line? Don't discount this admittedly hard-to-read yet enormously important book of Scripture. After all, God is there, He is not silent, and he wants to speak to you and me--even through Leviticus.