Prose, Politics and Piety

"Sharks And The City"

2012-01-03T21:59:00.001-07:00

It’s no secret that I don’t buy into the “theory” of evolution – except to admit that it is indeed a theory. It certainly hasn’t met the test of becoming a scientific law, even though modern science winks and tells us that…(whisper)…it really has.

Today, an article was published by AFP News Agency (that’s in France) entitled, “World-first hybrid shark found off Australia”. In this “news” story, they tell of a shark found near Australia which appears to be a breed combining two separate species of sharks. While very similar in size and appearance, the Australian black-tip shark is supposed to only tolerate warmer climates, while the common black-tip shark is found farther south and survives in cooler environments (that is, closer to Antarctica). What they found were at least 57 sharks in the warmer waters which had hybrid genetics from both breeds of shark. Put simply, at one time, some Australian sharks mated with some non-Australian sharks and they swam north, to be found in the warmer climate. In theory, these hybrid sharks might have the genetics in place to survive a wider range of temperatures (though nowhere in the article do they actually prove that this is true).

The writer of the article seems to have fallen completely for the modern evolution argument, and makes some very serious assumptions and errors. I feel compelled to point these out, because…hey…no one in the news world seems to challenge the modern “scientific method”. Here are some excerpts from the article, and my responses:

First – the title says “World-first hybrid shark”, but is that really the case? What should have been written is that these are the first to be discovered. The article actually later does say (near the bottom) that more than one generation of hybrid shark was found, and that testing could be done to determine if this phenomenon had been going on undetected for some time. But the title doesn’t really lead you to believe that, does it? It’s meant to be a little sensationalistic.

Second, the author says that this finding is “a potential sign the predators were adapting to cope with climate change”. Well, that is a real stretch. It implies that these sharks met each other at some halfway point, with knowledge of each other’s differing temperature capabilities, and struck a bargain. Something like this - “Hello, fellow Chondrichthyes! We sharks are all aware of the impending global warming crisis. You guys down south seem to be able survive at a wider variety of temps. Doesn’t it make sense that, maybe if we interbred, we might be able to transfer some of that temperature tolerance into our own genetic code? Then we sharks up north would be better prepared for what’s ahead! Just sayin'!” Um, I’m sorry, but I just don’t think sharks are that smart. What is more likely is that some northern sharks were down south at the same time that some southern sharks were up north, and they had a little “shark party”. Remember, their brains are not supposed to be very big, right?

Third, the researcher in the article tells us that “If it (the Australian shark) hybridises with the common species it can effectively shift its range further south into cooler waters, so the effect of this hybridising is a range expansion”. But isn’t that the reverse of the desired trait? If the earth is warming, why would they want to be able to expand their range into cooler waters? The researcher didn’t think through this statement when he made the claim attaching all of this behavior to sharks responding to global warming.

Fourth, the lead researcher for the discovery said, “This is evolution in action.” Again, I have to say, “No”. There is no evolving to a higher form that occurred here. Sharks down south already had the enhanced cold-tolerance. The mating of the two species simply transferred a trait that already existed in the species to a new hybrid. That is no different than breeding a curly-haired poodle with a straight-haired Yorkshire terrier in order to get a playful dog that doesn’t shed. Dog breeders do that all the time, but no one calls it “evolution”. It is simply breeding within species to express certain desired traits. Man has been breeding animals for this purpose...since the Creation.

Fifth, they write, “It means the Australian black-tip could be adapting to ensure its survival as sea temperatures change because of global warming.” What a leap toward the author’s conclusion – global warming! But let me ask - if “survival of the fittest” were truly in play here, wouldn’t it make more sense for the more temperature-tolerant shark to just wait around for the other sharks to die out when the environment becomes warmer? If the sharks are so intelligent about this whole thing, why would the hardier shark lend his genes to the weaker breed at all? The desired trait is already in place in the southern sharks. Why not just let things be, and move into the Australian waters later when the weak breed dies out? The researchers are attributing intelligence to the shark's behavior that is simply not possible.

Finally, I have to ask: What prevents the Australian shark from “adapting” by swimming a couple of hundred miles south (away from the equator) every hundred years or so (assuming the steady “global warming” theory is real)? Again, if they are so smart, this seems like a pretty viable solution – and much more believable than sharks having a genetics discussion and striking a bargain over some social wine and caviar.

Sigh…I read these things, and I wonder, “Does anyone else cry out for a little truth in the scientific process?” I think I was raised in a pretty rigorous classroom that taught the scientific method well. But articles like this tell me that our world is moving away from what makes sense…to a place where men seek to please their own itching ears. Hmmm…where have I heard that before?

Who Should Set Education Standards?

2011-09-24T11:50:00.001-06:00

In a rare moment this morning, I read anewspaper article in which I found myself agreeing with President BarackObama. Today’s newspaper article noteshow the President wants to give each individual state the ability to overridethe “No Child Left Behind” laws. Theselaws, in place since President Bush signed them in 2002, mandate a federal requirementfor individual student testing at the state level. The standards are left (somewhat) to thestates to create. In essence, theyrequire “bubble tests and dumbed-down standards that are based on arbitrarystandards of proficiency” (not my words, but actual words from stateimpact.npr.org). A great deal of time is spent getting everystudent up to the same basic level of proficiency, often at the expense ofexceptional students, who are not allowed to progress at a rate which matchestheir ability. Said more succinctly, thesystem “dumbs down” education standards to a lower level, in the hope thatevery student will be deemed “successful”. I have often called “No Child Left Behind” a misnomer for “No ChildAllowed to Get Ahead”.

Without a doubt,every student is different. And let’sface the fact that some students are more proficient than others. A system should be tailored both to help thelagging, and simultaneously allow the proficient to advance at an acceleratedrate.

”No Child” is one ofthe reasons that our family has been homeschooling for these past eight years. At a time when our second child was goinginto first grade in public school, we consulted with the school principal andteachers, who told us that their goal was to get the other twenty-four studentsin his class to an identical level by the end of the school year – a level thatour child had already achieved before classes had even begun. Consequently, they proposed that our childwould likely be put out in the hall during class time, armed with some “advanced”worksheets to work by himself (a story I love to recall when people tell methat public school is so much better for socialization than homeschooling!). It’s just one more example of godly,well-intentioned public schoolteachers trying to do the right thing, but whosehands are tied by a federal mandate over which they have no control. Our elementary school principal, in aGod-ordained moment, actually recommended that we home educate all of our children. In a leap of faith, we did just that, and wehave looked on that day as a watershed moment in our family history.

I have attempted tofind an exact measure of where the United States high-school ranking stoodamong developed countries in 2002 versus today, in an effort to see exactly how“No Child Left Behind” affected the relative quality of education. I’m unable to find the comparison (sofar). I wonder if it is because no onewants to talk about it. To be sure, USeducation in science and reading was scored as average this last year, and wereceived a “below average” in mathematics. All of these are far worse than we were ranked when I was in publicschool. Bottom line – the relativequality of US education is getting worse, not better. Federal and state oversight is notsucceeding.

Moving from afederal mandate on schooling to a state viewpoint is one thing. I’m very much in favor of the idea ofincreased power at the state level on certain freedoms, and less from thefederal viewpoint. It invokes a spiritof creativity and competition – no state wants to be ranked “number 50” in anycategory. But in my opinion, it stilldoes not go far enough. I am fully ofthe opinion that family-based education is the best way to ensure childrenreceive the best and most directed method of instruction. Wherever possible (and I realize that it isnot an option for every family), homeschooling succeeds because it permits the lowstudent-to-teacher-ratio, individual tailoring, and creative student adjustmentrequired to bring students along at a pace that matches their abilities. Moreover, as a Christian homeschooler, it allowsmy wife and I to positively teach God’s laws and ways as the fundamentalunderpinning, just as He commands in Deuteronomy6:7-9, when we are told to “Impress themon your children. Talk about them whenyou sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and whenyou get up. Tie them as symbols on yourhands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your housesand on your gates.”

In our eight-year journey, we have come more andmore to the conclusion that neither the federal government nor the stategovernment will have any influence over our children’s education. Though our children are learning math, scienceand history, it is through the worldview lens that my wife and I choose forthem, and the one that we believe God would have for their education. Again, put in very simple terms, it is theparents who ultimately should have that authority. And fortunately for us in the United States,we still do have that authority over our children, as homeschooling is stilllegal (and a growing movement) in this nation! But I worry about the day when this option might be removed from us, andthe concept of state-led or federal-led education are our only options. Some countries have already adopted thestance that parents cannot determine what their children learn, and so haveoutlawed home education in favor of a state-led platform only. Were that to ever happen in this country, Iwould fight it with all my being, to the point of leaving our country, ifnecessary. The state will never have mychildren. Again, fortunately, homeeducation is on the rise in this nation, and the results have been nothingshort of excellent.

Don’t Believe Everything You Hear

2011-03-19T08:52:00.001-06:00

I haven’t subscribed to cable television since 1987. That is nearly twenty-five years of avoiding such programs as The Sopranos, Sex and the City, and…..well, I don’t know what, because I never watch cable (except when our family is traveling, and the kids like to watch Iron Chef in the hotel room). Part of the reason I’ve avoided cable is that I can’t bring myself to pay for television. But the biggest motive is that I can’t bring cable programming into my house with a clear conscience. I know this opinion is not shared by everyone, but I am grateful for the time it has given me to pursue other interests. And I am deeply thankful that my children are largely unfamiliar with what is presented by cable or satellite.

I can’t seem to escape from cable at the workplace, though. Our office installed television monitors in various locations a couple of years ago and leaves them tuned all day to news stations. Non-stop talking heads. Seemingly ignorant, arrogant, opinionated “newscasters” who scare up stories, state falsehoods without reservation, and give their mostly liberal opinions as if they were reporting fact. Chris Matthews is my least favorite. He can accuse George Bush of something with obvious venom and hatred, and two years later praise Barack Obama for his leadership when he does the very same thing. I sit there and wonder – “Does anybody else notice what I just saw? Does anybody care? What happened to the desire for truth and unbiased reporting?”

Over the last week, I’ve been amazed at the coverage of the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in northeastern Japan. I know a little bit about nuclear power, and I did some study on the Japanese reactor design shortly after the accident. But what I saw from the newscasters and their guests was often incorrect, and there were several cases where two non-related facts were juxtaposed in order to make the situation appear much more dangerous than it really was - such as discussing the hydrogen explosions directly in conjunction with the need for a twenty-mile evacuation radius. These events are only loosely related – the hydrogen explosion was non-nuclear, and was largely expected when the engineers vented a buildup of gas in the reactor core, while the twenty-mile evacuation had to do with a future, possible safety zone in the event of a core meltdown. Though these items are unrelated in time and causality, the news channels made it seem as if they were directly related.

It was clear to me this week that the news channels and websites are not attempting to promote awareness or to disseminate facts. They have one major intent in mind – to promote fear and intrigue in the hearts of people who are watching or reading. And they do this so that ignorant people will come back blindly for more. No big revelation, I know, but the daily news is not about truth.

Here’s an example, with some basic questions. I refer to this article, written by the Associated Press. Some extracts:

1) The article opens with these words – “Japan tried high-pressure water cannons, fire trucks and even helicopters that dropped batches of seawater in increasingly frantic attempts Thursday to cool an overheated nuclear complex as U.S. officials warned the situation was deteriorating.” I have to point out the use of the phrase “increasingly frantic”. How exactly do the authors measure this? Aren’t Japanese officials just using every practical means at their disposal to be sure to get coolant to the core? Have the authors witnessed real panic in someone’s behavior? Is the dispatch of a helicopter made for transporting and dumping water on forest fires a “frantic” move? In this instance, shouldn’t those in charge be making quick decisions that more than compensate for the need? Is that frantic or overreactive? No, they should be doing everything possible – and I believe they are.

2) “Defense Minister Toshifumi Kitazawa told reporters that emergency workers had no choice but to try the water dumps before it was too late”. Okay, taken as-is, this sentence is probably true, but it is stated in such a way that it again implies desperation. If I were to drink a gallon of iced tea, I would have “no choice” but to go to the bathroom within an hour. But I go because it is a wise move and a natural result – I don’t say, “After drinking too much liquid, I had no choice but to go to the bathroom before it was too late.” Do you see the difference? The news sentence is written in the most distressed method possible, while still touching on the truth. It makes the reader worry and want to read more about the juicy details.

3) To restart the cooling pumps on-site, engineers were working to install a power cable over a mile-long. The article says this – “The interim power line would be a temporary but "reliable" way to cool down the reactors and storage pools, said Teruaki Kobayashi, a facilities management official at Tepco.” I ask – why is the single word “reliable” placed in quotes in this sentence? One reason – it casts doubt on the statement made – it’s as if the author is saying – “Yeah, right – reliable. Just like the generators were reliable when they shut down after the tsunami overtopped the containment wall.” Again, there are a couple of reasons to write this sentence in this odd way – to promote fear in the reader, and to cast doubt on those who are working “frantically” to prevent a worse situation.

4) “But experts said that anyone working close to the reactors was almost certainly being exposed to radiation levels that could, at least, give them much higher cancer risks. "I don't know any other way to say it, but this is like suicide fighters in a war," said Keiichi Nakagawa, associate professor of the Department of Radiology at University of Tokyo Hospital.” I don’t give a lot of credibility to most professors anyway, but Mr. Nakagawa’s statements border on irresponsibility. Everything I have read indicates that they are only sending in people when they will get a slightly elevated dose of radiation over the norm – absolutely nothing like what happened at Chernobyl, by the way, so please ignore those comparisons when you hear them. “Suicide fighters in a war?” – I think he needs to stick to facts. And why are they asking a professor sitting comfortably in Tokyo about the radiation levels at a plant two-hundred miles away? Doesn’t anyone question the veracity of his statement?

5) The photo above was lifted from a news article which claimed that the mannequin head was left in the streets near the nuclear plant by the retreating tsunami wave. But should I really believe that? Or is it possible that the photographer did a little bit of staging to get that shot?

You will also note the phrases “a far bleaker assessment”, “seriously at risk”, and “rapidly evolving crisis” which appear in the article. My point? Don’t believe everything you hear on television or on the web. There is a definite trend toward sensationalism in every media source I can see. Don’t fall prey to the scare-mongering anchors, who influence people in Kansas to buy potassium iodide tablets in bulk just in case the fallout from Japan comes their way. Better yet – dump your cable connection and do some real research on your own. Who knows? Maybe you’ll get interviewed by someone who thinks you’re an “expert”!

Addendum: My heart cries out for the people of Japan during this crisis. Japan is largely an un-Christian nation – 64% don’t even believe in God. I pray that they will find comfort and solace in coming to know God, even if it takes a catastrophe such as this to do so. Knowing God in any circumstance is superior to dying in relative peace without Him. While the media may be disingenuous, we can remember - only God has the truth (Soli Deo Veritas).

Sex Outweighs Religion In The UK

2011-03-05T09:47:00.004-07:00

The world is truly upside-down today. In a landmark judgment in the UK this week, a couple was denied the right to provide foster care to children – because their religious beliefs prevent them from telling a child that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable.

The battle lines between Christianity and humanism just got a little more clearly drawn.

The UK couple in this story are Pentecostal Christians in Derby, UK. They had previously provided foster care for fifteen children in the 1990’s, and wanted to return to that work in 2011. But something changed in the UK between that time and today. In short, religious “tolerance” is no longer extended to conservative Christian views in the country which produced the Mayflower Pilgrims and C.S. Lewis. And don’t forget the praise that was once given to Eric Liddell (Chariots of Fire), the famed Scottish athlete who would not run in the Olympics on Sunday due to his religious beliefs. Can it be that the world is turning from the God of the Bible as quickly as we are witnessing it?

To sum up the story line – sex is more important than religion in the UK. This trend against Christian ethics is not a far cry from the Hitler-style ethnic cleansing so reviled by the British themselves only seventy years ago. Does that seem overstated? It is not – here are some quotes from the BBC article. Read these, and ask yourself if they look eerily similar to something that might have appeared in Nazi propaganda.

‘…Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.’

‘They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex relationships, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of looked-after children".’

‘The court confirmed that the local authority is properly entitled to consider a prospective foster carer's views on sexuality when considering their application to become a foster parent and in fact, failure to do so would potentially leave it in breach of its own guidance as well as the National Minimum Standards.’

Don’t miss the import of that last statement – it boldly says that government “minimum standards” outweigh any religious belief, including the belief of parents. Make no mistake, the UK is now only one small step away from telling parents that they cannot teach Christian views on sexuality to their own children. In my lifetime, I now believe that I will be reading a BBC story where that very thing will happen – the UK government will remove children from their parent’s home because of their conservative Christian views, and place them in a state-run facility. And like Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s, millions will buy the lie.

God forbid that such a thing will be imported to our United States. But, of course, there are those in the high ranks of our own government who desire for our nation to be “more European”. But if they try to bring this intolerance to our land, I hope they will get a fight from the Christian parents here. Better yet, let’s make sure that we elect and retain leaders who will never go down this path.

Though I expect to read about and witness the decline of civilization, as predicted in the Bible, I am amazed at the speed with which it is happening. This story simply could not have happened in the days of the Cleavers on Leave It To Beaver, or even as recently as my own high school graduation. Something has changed – and it is happening very rapidly. The outrage of the Christian community should be loud and ever-present over this story. But do we see that? Have we given up on publicly championing the cause of Christ and the laws of God? Am I tempted to ignore this and just assume it is the status quo? May it never be…

For the BBC article, click here.

Birth Rate Swings – An Amazing Video

2011-01-22T16:57:00.001-07:00

My regular day job involves the analysis of lots of data. I love data. I know you can spin a great tale with amazing clarity - using data. You can also lie with it (not something I recommend).

I came across an absolutely amazing visual the other day – a time-lapse look at the birth rate and average life-span of the countries of the world. You can see this graphic at this link. You can hit the “Play” button and watch the entire fifty years before your eyes. Or, better, you can grab the slider at the bottom and move it around at will.

The graph plots three things – the average life expectancy in years of each nation (x-axis), the average number of births per woman for the year in question (y-axis), and the relative population of the nation (shown as the size of the bubble). Note that you can pause play at any point and hover over any bubble to see the nation name.

Here are some interesting things to note:

• The number of births per woman in China drops remarkably – from around six in 1966, to less than two by 1996. Think about that – the family culture in China changed that dramatically in a mere thirty years, primarily because of government mandates to plan and abort.

• Drag the slider from 1966 through 1977 and then on to 1990. Watch the little blue circle which represents Cambodia – this country goes from an average life expectancy of 45 down to a mere 33 by 1977 (remember, that’s the average at that time!) and then back up to 55. What happened during that time? The rise of the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, and the Cambodian-Vietnamese war.

• A similar thing happens to the little blue circle representing Rwanda – start the slider at 1983, where the average life expectancy is 47, then drag it to 1993, where the average person only lived to be 26! The speed of that little circle moving to the left is dramatic. During the genocide in Rwanda, it’s estimated that 800,000 people were murdered in under 100 days.

• Drag the entire length of the graph and watch the big orange circle (India) and the big blue circle (China) and how much bigger they get over the 50 year span. China doubles her population during this time frame, and India triples hers.

• Lest we forget things going on in our own country (the largest pink circle), my wife pointed out to me the dramatic decrease in births per woman in the United States – from 3.65 in 1960 to just 2.1 today. Drag the slider carefully around the year 1973 – what happened around that time frame? It was the passage of Roe vs. Wade in this nation.

The dramatic reduction in birth rate over this fifty year span has not “fixed” anything in our culture. Things continue to get worse. As I pointed out in my previous post, population control is not what God is about. The more people who are born with the chance to worship the Lord, the more potential for praise and glory are able to be given to Him. This graph is a sad testament to man’s attempt to “fix” what he thinks is broken with this world. But population isn’t the problem – sin is the problem. And the answer is not trees, birth control or family planning. The answer is Jesus Christ.

Which Is More Important – People, Animals, or the Earth?

2011-01-16T14:29:00.003-07:00

Man’s desire to worship something is seen throughout history. It would be a rare thing to find a period of history that was devoid of man putting his faith and desires into something – the God of the Bible, a carved god idol, the earth, other people, animals, man himself, etc. The desire to set something up as a higher authority must be innate in mankind.

The current prevailing philosophy of our culture is to downplay the Biblical pattern and place the good of “the earth” above all else. The roots of environmentalism go back many years, but the trend seems to gain followers every year. Al Gore and the concept of global warming may be damaged goods, but our society has not replaced the radical environmental movement with anything much different than what has gone before. Indeed, whether the fear is global warming, or the coming of a new Ice Age, the environmentalist cry is still the same – mankind is messing up the earth, and should be stopped.

I was very disheartened to read the following editorial in our local paper last week. I think it is indicative of a spirit of misunderstanding that troubles our nation:

Dear God, when you told us to “be fruitful and multiply”, did you intend for this multiplying to go on, unchecked, forever?

Perhaps it’s time for new orders, like “Stop! Enough with the multiplying! I gave you brains to figure out family planning. By now you should have had the sense to use it.

“You humans are spoiling my beautiful planet. You’re using up all the resources and filling the land and seas with garbage. Your wars wreak havoc on everyone and everything in their paths. Your greed and your sheer numbers are pushing my other creatures into extinction. Enough, already!

“You could have limited your numbers humanely, but you chose not to. Now I’m turning this over to Mother Nature, who will reduce your numbers the old-fashioned way – through war, pestilence, famine and disease.”

We have seen a lot of wars, famine and disease lately, along with earthquakes, floods and tornados. The threat seemed a little light on the pestilence, but now, here come the bedbugs. (The Fort Collins Coloradoan, January 12, 2011)

All of this makes me want to ask the writer a few questions:

1) God told us to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:28) He has given us no instructions to do otherwise (in fact, He appears to counsel against “family planning” in the Bible – Genesis 38:8-10). So, what makes the writer think that God now has new orders to give? Who decides when it is “time for new orders”?

2) “You humans are spoiling my beautiful planet.” To me, using natural resources to make goods and to improve our living state is exactly God’s design. What does the writer mean by “spoiling”, and by what authority do we choose “spoiling” above “stewardship”? Is drilling for oil inherently “bad” when the result of energy exploration is fuel to keep people warm and the ability to move great distances – in minutes or hours, on only a few gallons of gasoline? If, instead, the resources were to stay in the ground forever, and man decided to live in cold caves, eating uncooked vegetables – is that better for everyone? Is that what we really want?

3) The author of the editorial seems to feel that too many people are getting in the way of some greater good – the common myth of population explosion. So, whose children does the writer propose to eliminate? Mine? The children of the person reading this article? Their own? Where would they start? Is human life really that cheap? So cheap that they would place it below the worth of creatures and the environment?

To truly answer the question about what is more important, we have to realize that someone must have authority over the decision. Mankind cannot and will not ever agree on the hierarchy of worth between man, animals, and the earth. Is the ultimate authority going to be me, my congressman, or the President?

For me, the only answer to this question is that there is one, and only one, ultimate authority – God – and His words on this question are the only ones that matter. Mankind may try to argue that someone else has the authority. For the Christian, the answer must be God. And if we choose an authority – God – we must endeavor to find out what He thinks about the value of human life versus the value of animal life or the environment.

1) God set up man to be above all creation - Genesis 1:26, Genesis 9:2 and Psalm 8:5-8 make it clear that man is above the earth, and only a little lower than the angels. If God placed us over the earth, then I have faith that He gave us ample resources to survive until He decides to send His Son back for us. He even left many “closed-loop systems” in place to compensate for our resource use – systems which are self-sustaining, such as the conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen by trees and algae, and the obvious observation that trees and plants can spring up and grow anew from where they have been harvested. Scientists continue to “discover” and marvel at how resilient and self-repairing our ecosystem proves to be. They should – God made it that way.

2) Preserving the earth is not the ultimate goal of God - Ultimately, the earth will be destroyed. 2 Peter 3:10-11 says, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives”. God has not intended for the earth to survive in some model, pristine way for all eternity. He has something better coming. He intends to destroy by fire all of these resources that our society holds so dear. The fact that He will destroy the earth, but take His people to live with Him for eternity, is clear evidence of God’s priorities. We do not abuse or show poor stewardship of this planet, but we keep it in perspective to God’s eternal plan.

3) The purpose of man is to honor God - Revelation 4:11 says, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” See also Psalm 86 and Psalm 16:5-11. So, it stands to reason that having more people on earth brings more opportunity to glorify God. Conversely, limiting the number of children born into this world is simply a way of removing glory from our God. That is a hard concept to swallow in today’s culture. But God told us to “fill the earth and subdue it”. He has not yet told us to do any differently. Why would we presume to know better?

The increasing population of the world is not the cause of death, destruction, famine or pestilence as our editorial author suggests. The cause is sin. God has provided us with resources to use for His glory. Bringing glory to God is the one, ultimate goal which overwhelms everything else. I wonder – would our culture like to see that concept printed in our local editorial section? We need to pray for a world that is still trying to function apart from God. Without Him, all we would have left is people, animals and the planet. Hmmm….

****************

If you want to read more about how environmentalism has replaced God in our culture, please visit my Radical Environmentalism series.

Communion Meditation – “My Son, My Son”

2011-01-09T13:40:00.004-07:00

The relationship between fathers and sons is very special. I pray every day for the safety and well-being of my own son, and I think I would be lost without him. I know most fathers can relate to this very feeling.

In Genesis 22, we see Abraham being tested by God. God tells Abraham in verse 2, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.” And Abraham obeyed God, even though he had been made to wait until he was a hundred years old to have a son. Because Abraham was faithful, the story has a good ending. As Abraham raised the knife to slay Isaac, the angel of the Lord called out to him in verse 12 and said, “Do not lay a hand on the boy…Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

King David had many sons. His third-born was Absalom, and while Absalom made some mistakes, it is clear that David loved him deeply. Even though David had demanded protection for his son, Absalom was killed by the commander of David’s army. And when David heard the news, we see his heart-rending reaction in 2 Samuel 18:33. It says, ‘The king was shaken. He went up to the room over the gateway and wept. As he went, he said: “O my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you—O Absalom, my son, my son!”’

Stories of a close son, or of an only son are abundant in the Bible. Jeremiah 6:26 says, “Put on sackcloth, my people, and roll in ashes; mourn with bitter wailing as for an only son, for suddenly the destroyer will come upon us.” Amos 8:10 tells us, “I will turn your religious festivals into mourning and all your singing into weeping. I will make all of you wear sackcloth and shave your heads. I will make that time like mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day.” And we even see Jesus involved in the story of an only son in Luke 7:11-13 – “Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him. As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, “Don’t cry.””

Losing a son is a heart-breaking experience for a father. It is perhaps the greatest sacrifice that a father can make, as history continually shows. And that is why we come together weekly to think on these things and we turn our thoughts to our Heavenly Father, who is Almighty and All-Powerful…and we ponder these words:

John 3:16 - “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

And from 1 John 4:9-10 – “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

And so, we see that though God stayed the hand of Abraham and prevented him from taking the life of his son, Isaac, He did not stop the events that led to the death of his own Son. And we remember.

Is Homeschooling Still An Option In My District?

2010-11-20T18:37:00.003-07:00

The superintendent of schools for Poudre School District (where my family lives) recently sent us a large packet of material in the mail, explaining all of the educational choices that our family has in our district. Curiously, though I looked at every paragraph of the ten-page glossy brochure, plus the three loose pages that were included, there was not one mention of homeschooling as an option in our district. I decided to write and send the following letter.

*****************

Dear Dr. Wilson,

While I appreciate your attempt to inform me of my educational options in the Poudre School District through your recent mailing of “Educational Choices”, I note that you left off one very important option – homeschooling. While it is true that this option requires very little of your staff or time, I think it should be made a visible option to those parents who are considering both the education and the maturation of their children.

Our family is now in our seventh year of homeschooling. It has been the single best decision that we have ever made as a family. Our children continue to amaze and bless us with their growth and leadership – both academically and emotionally. While we sent them to public schools for the first six years of their academic journey, we eventually decided to keep them at home and educate them ourselves.

I humbly ask that you consider the following reasons why homeschooling should be on your list of options for parents in our district to consider:

1) Academics – while this is actually not the main reason that we homeschool our children, I recognize that academic achievement is the first and foremost goal pursued by PSD. Our children have enjoyed a three-to-one student-to-teacher ratio for some time now. As I get more involved with the higher subjects along with my wife’s daily teaching duties, this ratio is approaching three-to-two. You simply can’t argue with the results and efficiency of what is essentially a private tutor – and one who is emotionally invested in the children for the long run. Though we add many non-traditional subjects to our class list – such as Bible, Scripture memorization, and Biblical manhood/womanhood courses – our children still score in the ninetieth percentiles on the standardized tests for math, science, reading, etc. Per district requirements, these tests are administered every other year. Our oldest daughter is now taking college credit courses as a high-school junior and is achieving the highest grades in the class. You may be aware of the National Home Education Research Institute’s study showing that homeschooled students score a composite 87th percentile on standardized achievement exams, compared with 50th percentile for public-schooled students (see the graph above).

2) Maturing – our primary purpose for homeschooling is to give a very specific focus to education – one seasoned with the spiritual beliefs shared by our family. Our Christian faith is important to us, but it is unfortunately not allowed to be taught in the public school setting, so we choose to spend time doing so in our living room. Each day begins with Bible reading, Scripture memorization, and Christian topical discussion. Our children can quote whole chapters of the Bible, but more importantly, they can apply what they read and memorize to situations that they encounter each day. This is the single most important reason that we choose to educate in our home. I know many good and faithful public school teachers who would love to lend aid and wisdom to their classes using their Christian faith, but they are unfortunately not allowed to do so. I find it curious that our society accepts this model as more “correct” than a simple sharing of faith and truth. If we were to speak in a completely candid fashion, you and I both know that “political correctness” and “religious tolerance” are the reasons that our public schools have arrived at this state. Our founding fathers would be appalled.

3) Miscellaneous Benefits – There are so many other reasons that district parents might want to consider homeschooling as an option. As parents, we have been able to spend literally thousands of additional hours with each child before they leave the home. This has cost our family many dollars – both in a lost second income for the family and in the expense of home teaching materials – but we would not trade the outcome for any amount of money. Additionally, we like to start school a little early each year, and we rarely take school holidays off in our homeschool so that we may vacation in the fall. You would be amazed at how empty Disneyland and other resorts are in October. We’ve had some of the best vacations we could ever imagine because of this option. Finally, we have met some wonderfully mature children in the various homeschool programs and circles which are available. Our family has been blessed by these interactions.

I respectfully ask that you consider placing a paragraph about homeschooling in your next “Educational Choices” issue. In addition, I would like to volunteer myself and my wife to be “consultants” for the district if you would like to have someone to contact parents who are considering the homeschooling option. Homeschooling has blessed our family richly – and we would like to share this discovery with others.

Respectfully yours,

Alan Metzger

No Time For Compromise

2010-11-06T08:36:00.006-06:00

The mid-term elections are over. The result has pretty much been declared a total victory for Republicans and a repudiation of Democrats. But if you’ve read my posts over the last couple of years, you know that the terms Republican or Democrat mean very little to me. Let’s face it – the previous Republican administrations are just as responsible for overspending and for underwhelming important social issues as is the current Obama staff. On matters which I consider far more important than economic policy – abortion, for example – the Bush administration did nothing to help overturn this grievous and sinful law. A quick glance at my Facebook profile has always shown that I list myself as neither Republican nor Democrat, but as “pro-life”. I would support a politician of any party, regardless of his economics, if I truly felt that he or she would make a run at overturning Roe v. Wade.

I could dwell on the fact that our country elected a president two years ago who claimed to be post-partisan – the majority thought that he would be a uniter and would rise above petty politics. As I predicted, he has been exactly the opposite – polarizing the nation even more than his predecessor and driving his own personal agenda without apology. I could also comment at length on my belief that most politicians who find themselves winning their election will abandon the strong anti-tax, anti-spending and anti-abortion positions which they once took in order to get elected. Their campaign promises will be the very definition of the term rhetoric – “the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast; the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience”.

So, I find it very interesting that the buzzword in the headlines this week has been “compromise”. Will Obama compromise with the new Republican-controlled house? Will the Tea Party learn to compromise with the establishment in Washington in order to “get something done”. I heard one Colorado state legislature leader say that it will be important for the new members coming in to learn the art of compromise in order to succeed.

And this is exactly where I differ with most people on the topic of politics and Christian principles. I am not interested in compromising on topics which I consider inviolable. I will support leaders who go after Roe v. Wade with everything they have. For me, that law is the major reason why God would remove his blessing from our nation. God shows His unwillingness to compromise on issues in Revelation chapter 2, when Jesus tells the church at Ephesus in verse 5, “If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.” All of this took place because they had forsaken their first love (verse 4). Could God actually consider removing His blessing from this nation? Has He already?

At times such as this, I am not looking for compromise. Some would say that “compromise is for losers” – there is an element of truth in that. Compromise is something you seek when you finally realize that you might not get your absolute wish – just as the Democrats are feeling this week. And yet they will hope to maintain a foothold on their gains by claiming that others are suddenly intolerant or unwilling to compromise. I would point out to them that they were the intolerant ones over the last two years.

For me, the Christian attitude which I choose to adopt is found in Jesus’ own words in Matthew 10:34-36 – “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’”. I don’t believe that, as a committed Christian, I should be a flower-carrying, peace-loving bringer of hugs and warm feelings to those who oppose godly principles. We are in a spiritual battle of epic proportions (Ephesians 6:12). Furthermore, my wife and I are teaching our children to see this battle and pursue it with directness. While we are to remain respectful of others, and we promote the idea of educated discussion, it is our desire to see God’s will done above all else. And sometimes that means that compromise is out of the question.

I will think of this every time I see the word “compromise” over the next two years. Today we fight!

Why I Don’t Do Halloween

2010-10-29T20:36:00.004-06:00

Here I go again – possibly raining on people’s parade. But as before, I feel compelled to stand for something in which I believe strongly – and for something to which God has opened my eyes.

I was out with my son at a fast-food restaurant earlier this week. The place was decorated with leering pumpkins, spider webs, and ghoulish faces. After a few minutes of sitting amongst all of this, Noah looked at me and said, “I can’t wait until Halloween is over.”

Remember, this comes from a thirteen-year old. But he, like me, is genuinely fearful of this season. It wasn’t always this way for us. I grew up enjoying Halloween, thinking it was about the candy and not much else. Early on, my kids enjoyed it as well. But about four years ago, our eyes were suddenly opened in a remarkable way to the evil associated with this holiday (see a previous post). I don’t care what others may think – it is not harmless, and it is not all in good fun. It’s a dabbling in evil.

Our society makes fun of death at this time of year – but God tells us, “All who hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36), and that God’s real desire is that “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4). Death was not God’s plan, and it should not be toyed with or taken lightly. Rather, death is the result of sin (Romans 5:12).

We see people dressed as witches and demons. Does it bother us? It bothers me greatly. From Ephesians 6:12 – “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Is it harmless? Consider this – King Saul was put to death by God because he dabbled in spiritual hypocrisy by visiting the witch of Endor (1 Chronicles 10:13-14). Of all the wrong things that Saul did in his life, it was this event that was mentioned on his “tombstone” in Chronicles. Do we think that playing at witchcraft or related topics are just good fun? We should think again. God has made his position on this clear.

I know – it may seem crazy that some of us see this holiday as evil. It would be easy to view it as simply dressing up in a fun costume, or to say that it invokes a spirit of generosity when neighbors hand out candy to kids. But I think there is a deeper theme running on this subject. Is this world completely separated from the spirit world – where we can play with “spiritual” activities in isolation? Again, consult the verse above from Ephesians 6:12. If our struggle – in this life – is against the powers of the dark world, then that means it is here and now. The spiritual world crosses over into our existence today. A big part of the spirit world is evil and belongs to Satan. Is it such a stretch to think that Satan might be using this holiday as a tool to tempt parents and children into believing that we can make light of death and witchcraft and demons? I beg others to consider this.

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

As always, I write these things not to offend or point a finger of blame. During my college years, I did some things at Halloween that those who know me would not believe. I’m not proud of that. But God, in His infinite grace and wisdom, has led me to this point. Consider carefully your ways.

**************

In the same vein, here’s a good post I was led to – “While you are trick or treating, a child will be sacrificed”

Communion Meditation – The Simple Gospel Story

2010-10-16T07:41:00.003-06:00

When preparing the communion meditation, I often go through a thought process that says, “How can I tell an interesting and unique story that will grab people’s attention and make them focus on Jesus’ death?” Today, I decided not to go down that path.

Instead, I resolved to simply remind us of the gospel story, and to recall God’s desire for what to do at this time in our worship service. This story is all we need to grasp the basics of God’s plan for mankind. This story would be enough to tell a neighbor about God’s good news. Simply put, the story goes like this:

About 6000 years ago, that is, around 4000 B.C., God created everything that we see around us in only six days. Most importantly, he created man, and he created him to be special – because he was made in God’s image. Man was destined to have a unique relationship with God, unlike any other element of His creation. The special bond between God and man exists even today.

The ultimate purpose for man is simple – it is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. To that end, God gave man some rules to live by, and the free will to choose his own path. It didn’t take long for man to violate God’s direction – and through Adam, the first man, mankind fell from a position of a guaranteed eternity with God. Man sinned, and God’s promise of death and punishment had to be carried out.

For 4000 years, man lived under a system of laws that gave him some relief from sin’s punishment, but these laws were imperfect. God had said that sin could only be forgiven through a blood atonement, so man labored under a legalistic system of rules and animal sacrifices. This was not the system under which God wanted man to live.

And so, 2000 years ago, God sent his only Son to earth. His ultimate purpose was for His Son to die – and shed his blood to be the blood sacrifice that God demanded. Jesus Christ became the one blood sacrifice to cover the sin of all men who would accept him and proclaim him as their Lord. Jesus’ blood has the power to cover the sins of men in the past, present, and future. Through it, we have the ability to undo the damage done by Adam and by our own sin.

God had promised that sin must be punished by death. And He knew that all men would sin. We were under a curse, and it seemed that there was no way out – we were doomed to die apart from God. But thanks to God’s infinite wisdom, and His new and perfect plan, He provided a way for His words to be true and for us to be saved. The death that had to occur as a penalty for our sin was taken on by Jesus himself. Romans 6:23 tells us, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Simply put, because of Jesus and that moment on the cross, we can look forward to eternal life. The story gets even better, because Jesus Christ, after dying a horrible death on the cross, was raised back to life after three days - to show that God is stronger than even death itself.

Finally, God asked us to remember this story - the sacrifice and death of His Son – each week, so that we would never forget what He did for us.

It’s that simple.

“How Could Anyone Desecrate My Lord?”

2010-10-07T19:56:00.005-06:00

Our county is famous for some odd things lately. Last year, it was “Balloon Boy”. This year, it is upheaval over a controversial work of art.

The Loveland Museum/Gallery, which I have frequented in the past, made national news last month when they opened the display of a lithograph featuring Jesus Christ performing a homosexual sex act. Naturally, there was a great deal of uproar over the display, from both sides of the issue. City council members demanded its removal, while others called for tolerance of differing views. A lot of print ink was used to discuss the issue – which is precisely what the “artist” was hoping for.

Yesterday, a 56-year old woman from Montana entered the gallery with a crowbar. When the area around the work was clear she removed the crowbar, broke the Plexiglas surrounding it, and then tore up the lithograph. Afterward, she waited calmly for the police to arrive. While ripping up the artwork, she was heard to say, “How could anyone desecrate my Lord?” She is currently under arrest, facing charges of criminal mischief.

So – two questions. First, should Christians feel compelled to argue against artwork and Christian desecrations of this nature? And, second, should our argument turn to acts of vandalism when we are offended as deeply as some of us were over the display in Loveland?

Our society continually talks of tolerance. Often, the standard is inequitable. While this art depicting Jesus Christ was allowed to stand, there have been instances in our country where similar characterizations of Allah are removed, because they are deeply offensive to other religions. That may not seem fair – but I think I know why. While we are not typically portrayed as such, Christians tend to be more tolerant of religious desecration than the people of some other religions, such as Islam. Of course, there are extreme examples – in both directions - where this has not been true. But let me point this out – only last month, President Barack Obama made a public statement against a Florida minister who planned to burn the Koran on his church property. I heard no such plea from our president over the Loveland art exhibit and its visual portrayal of our Lord. Why not? Christians – by now, we should expect this inequality of response. Christianity has always been the underdog in arguments such as this. It’s okay, though – truth is on our side.

Should we argue? Should we commit acts of “vandalism”? Jesus himself provides a whole spectrum of answers. When the crowd was demanding the stoning of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), he pretended not to hear them, and finally gave a gentle answer – “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Yet when he caught moneychangers conducting business in the temple, he overturned their tables, obstructed people from carrying merchandise into the temple, and drove out the moneychangers (Mark 11:15-19). If he had done that in my county this week, Jesus would have gone to jail, just as the lady from Montana did.

So what is right? And what goes too far? How far should I defend my faith? Should I “tolerate” the despicable depiction of my Lord committing a sin? I’m thinking about it. What do you think?

There Is a Boy…

2010-10-02T10:46:00.002-06:00

There is a boy who nearly died in the womb. This was a situation entirely unknown to his parents, and it caused them to think more about the preciousness of life. But the boy held on to that life, because God knew there was something special about to happen.

If that was not trial enough, that boy was born having been starved of oxygen during the birth. His face and fingers were blue, and he was rushed to a table by doctor and nurses for revival methods. His mother and father were overwhelmed with doubt about what to do, and could only watch helplessly from the corner and pray. And again, God stepped in and made sure that there were no ill-effects.

There is a boy who smiled and laughed through his infant childhood. As a baby, he was truly inseparable from his mother, and he could tell when she was not physically near. He was even able to sense when his father tried to kiss his mother in the next room, and would immediately begin crying, because for that moment he was not the object of her primary attention. Mother and father marveled at his sensitivity.

As he grew, this boy once gave nearly all the money he possessed to a church missions effort, because he was deeply moved by the plight of others and because, as he said, they needed it more than he did. He never told anyone that he did this, but it was observed from across the room. His mother and father watched in wonder at his selfless heart.

There is a boy who gives unselfishly of his time to others. While the temptation of self-centered youth is great, this boy spends hours doing precious and meaningful things for a neighbor, with absolutely no thought for compensation. And when that neighbor insists on a generous reward, this remarkable boy refuses over and over. When he finally loses the argument, he is truly overcome, because he gave those hours for the simple purpose of blessing another person with his gifts. One of his first thoughts is of the tithe he will give to the church.

This boy’s mother and father watch these things and they store them up in their hearts. His father, who is not known as an emotional person, is brought to tears one night when he observes the unselfish actions of the young boy. He knows that the boy is a far better person than he was at this young age. This realization makes him sad for his own selfish youth, and yet exceedingly grateful that the next generation will serve God in deeper and more wonderful way. The father realizes that his own life is but a stepping stone to something more eternal and consequential than he ever dreamed. It breaks the father’s heart to see that it took him so long to understand this purpose. But it gives him satisfaction to see God’s work being carried out with increasing desire and humility. Both mother and father are forever changed because of what they see in their own offspring.

Now, there is a young man. What will he do next?

The Democracy Dilemma (Part 2)

2010-09-09T15:14:00.003-06:00

In my last post, I considered the following scenario – if two candidates were running for President of the United States, and both of them supported abortion, what would you do?

The dilemma here is that we can: 1) vote for the least offensive candidate (assuming he/she has a more “agreeable” stance on the topic, like only supporting instances where the life of the mother is threatened) and still be a party to the murder of innocent children, or 2) don’t vote for either candidate, and leave the election to others. My point in the previous post is that there is no call in the Bible for Christians to be politically active in all instances – Jesus seems to be rather ambivalent about politics altogether (Matthew 22:15-22). The failure to cast a vote for either candidate still leaves the issue in the capable hands of God alone. Do we trust that He has a bigger plan?

This very scenario confronts us in our gubernatorial race in Colorado this November. Democrat John Hickenlooper will face the Republican candidate, Dan Maes, in the election. I’ve seen Dan Maes speak at the Christian Family Conference in Denver this summer – he seemed like a standup guy, supportive of so many of the sides of issues that I favor, like homeschooling and smaller government.

Most importantly, Dan Maes is pro-life. While politics covers many issues, I am most insistent on two topics alone – 1) a firm stand against all forms of abortion and a commitment to overturn Roe v. Wade, and 2) a clear statement that the candidate will not support any legislation that legitimizes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Any candidate who doesn’t support these two points should not bother to seek my vote. They will never get my support, under any circumstances.

But the state gubernatorial race, like the Presidential race, does not contain just one name in each spot on the ballot – there are two. One is for governor and one is for lieutenant governor. And Dan Maes has chosen his lieutenant governor to be Tambor Williams – a clear, pro-choice candidate. Williams does not support the Colorado Personhood Amendment, she has urged former state governors to send funds to Planned Parenthood, and she has voted to oppose a ban on partial-birth abortions (for more on Williams, visit this Colorado Right-to-Life page).

Is Dan Maes committed to a pro-life stance? Consider his words, spoken recently to a pro-abortion outlet:

“People are overestimating the personhood amendment. It simply defines life as beginning at conception. That’s it. Who knows what the intent of it is? They are simply making a statement. That is all I see it as. Do they have another agenda? I don’t know... Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and people tend to forget that. I would not try to undo that.”

And then, shortly after making this statement, he claimed that he misspoke and “took it back”. I have to ask – how can you misspeak by so great a margin? Could it be that Dan Maes, like so many other politicians, is simply saying whatever he must in order to get elected? In a recent newspaper article, other “conservatives” make it clear that the end justifies the means, when they say that Republicans may have to make compromises if they want to win back the governor’s office.

As a Christian, I am not in a position to make compromises where God’s Word is concerned. And God’s word is clear on the topic of the sanctity of life – “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb…your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139:13,16). If Dan Maes does not have the moral character, nor the tenacity to name a pro-life running mate, then he does not get my vote. It appears that Colorado Right-to-Life is withdrawing their earlier support of Maes. In their words, “the only justifiable abortion policy is zero tolerance for child killing.” I agree.

And this brings me back to my earlier point – I believe there are times when we are called upon to vote, and there are times when we are not. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. In November, when I reach the gubernatorial part of the ballot, I will leave it blank – and I will, instead, take a moment to pray – and trust that God is bigger than anything I can do with my elective right. Does God need my vote to make things happen? No. Prayer, and God's leading, will trump mere politics. Isn’t that the very definition of faith?

A time of prayer, instead of political involvement? Think about it – what would Jesus have done?

The Democracy Dilemma (Part 1)

2010-09-07T20:49:00.003-06:00

The world of politics grows steadily more frustrating to me. Increasingly, it seems to be a circus, not a legitimate authority. With headlines ranging from Rod Blagojevich’s hung jury to the finger-pointing about the Ground-Zero mosque, I have to ask - is there a good politician left out there? Is there a politician that actually cares to govern for the right reasons, apart from the constant desire to posture and accuse in order to get re-elected? So, I recently pondered these questions: As a Christian, am I under obligation to support and vote for the least offensive candidate, in order to do my part to “turn the tide”? Do I have to be politically active with my vote in every circumstance?

Put another way, if we are told to choose between the lesser of two evils, should we choose at all?

My strong answer to this is “No”, and I’ll tell you why. The argument is often made that Christians cannot withdraw from their political duty – voting – unless they are willing to abandon our nation to the worst possible leaders. Common sense says that if Candidate “A” is more godly than Candidate “B”, then a vote for the lesser of two evils – for Candidate “A” – at least tempers the outcome in favor of Christian principles. Failing to vote at all removes one vote from the “good” candidate and swings one more vote in favor of the “bad” candidate. More often than not, this results in Christians simply voting straight Republican on the ticket, sometimes for candidates of which we have absolutely no knowledge. I know, because I’ve done this very thing in past elections.

But I believe there is a third alternative – leave it to God.

This choice may seem uninvolved and escapist. But I ask – does God really need my vote to see His will done? Obviously, he does not. Romans 13:1b says, “for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” This verse specifically refers to our political and governmental leaders – this chapter even tells us to pay our taxes. So, if I believe that God is ultimately in charge, then I also believe that He is in control of the elections and leaders in our nation. One could make the argument, “Doesn’t God then use my vote for the lesser of two evils to do His will?” Perhaps, but can’t a similar argument be made that God is in control, even if I choose to abstain from voting for a candidate? The verse tells us that it is God who puts authorities in place – not my vote.

I believe that we need to trust in God – not in democracy. Does that seem un-American? Perhaps it does. But is such a view un-Christian? I don’t think so. Do we have faith in democracy and God...or in God alone? And think on this – isn’t a vote for the lesser of two evils still a vote for evil?

Here is a true dilemma – if two candidates were running for President of the United States, and both of them supported abortion, what would you do? See my answer in the next installment – using a real-life, current example in our upcoming Colorado election.

********************
To Part 2 of The Democracy Dilemma

Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 12)

2010-09-05T15:25:00.004-06:00

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series reminds us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation. The following questions provide material for homeschool and public school teachers to share, discuss, and test their students on each of the nine topics. The link to each article is included, or you may start through the series beginning at Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum (a nine-part series, originally published in January/February 2009). The discussion questions are divided up into three installments, beginning here.

********************

7. Banking and The Federal Reserve Act (Part 7)

· What is the difference between a Silver Certificate and a Federal Reserve Note? [A Silver Certificate was backed by real silver, and could actually be exchanged for the amount in silver at the treasury. A Federal Reserve Note is not backed by precious metal or anything of value, but is only worth the face amount because the government says so.]

· What was the purpose for the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913? Did it work? [The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 with the purpose of being able to expand or contract the money supply if the government decided it was needed. They feared that people might place a demand for their money or that the stock market was too volatile without this “control”. Unfortunately, it did not work, because the stock market crashed in an historic manner just sixteen years later. The economy continues to fluctuate as much or more than it did before the Federal Reserve was created.]

· What economic occurrence happened after the Federal Reserve was created, one that had not happened before? Explain what this occurrence does to prices. [Inflation occurred after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Prior to this, the prices of goods remained essentially the same for over a hundred years. When the Reserve was given the power to print money, the supply of money goes up and the value of each dollar goes down. This causes prices to rise. This continues to happen today.]

· Extra – Go to your library and check out an 1897 Sears catalog or an 1895 Montgomery Ward catalog (these are readily available at most libraries) or locate other old catalogs from department stores. Compare the prices of similar items from back then to prices today. Calculate the percentage rise in prices for different items. Do you observe the effect of inflation?

· Extra – Do you believe the economy would be better served with more or less government intervention? Do you think a return to the gold or silver standard would be beneficial or harmful?

8. (Mis)interpreting the General Welfare Clause (Part 8)

· Where does the General Welfare clause appear in the Constitution? [It appears twice – once in the Preamble and once in Article 1, Section 8.]

· Does the Constitution explicitly give the federal government the ability to collect taxes and distribute them to states for road construction projects? [No, the Constitution is fairly silent about what the government may spend money on. From a previous lesson, we see that they are directed to fund the military for the protection of our nation, but there is little else that is named specifically in the Constitution that the government may fund.]
· In today’s federal government, is there very much debate about whether or not the government should be involved in a spending program? [We still see some debate in a couple of areas – most notably in the areas of gun laws or abortion. People feel passionately about these topics and so they still make arguments about whether or not the government should be involved. But by and large, most people now raise no questions about whether or not the government should be involved in spending for road construction, healthcare, etc. It’s become a foregone conclusion. However, in the era of the founding fathers, there would have been much debate over these issues and whether the government should participate.]

· Extra – How do you feel about the topic of government spending on various programs? Consult today’s news media and make a list of programs where you see the government spending tax money. Are these areas listed in the Constitution or the Amendments?

· Extra – In your opinion, did most founding fathers intend for the amount of government spending and involvement that we have today? You might look up some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and Patrick Henry.

9. The Birth of Judicial Activism (Part 9)

· When Marbury brought his case before the Supreme Court, what exactly was the purpose of his case? [It was simply to get Hamilton to sign his commission, so that he could take on the role of a federal judge. Marbury cited the Judicial Act of 1789 as the basis for his lawsuit.]

· What was the unprecedented (and some would say shocking) thing that the Supreme Court did regarding Marbury’s case? [They referred the case back to a lower court, but at the same time declared that the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. This was never before done – that is, the Supreme Court had never before declared something to be unconstitutional (nor had they been asked to rule on the constitutionality of something). The shocking part was that the Court decided on its own that it had the authority to make this judgment.]

· State the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint. [Judicial activists believe that there are implied powers in the Constitution and that the document is up for changing evaluation and interpretation as the times change. This results in the government expanding its powers over more and more topics as time goes on. Those who believe in judicial restraint believe that the Constitution is very explicit about areas where the government should be involved. They believe that where the Constitution is silent about a topic, the government likely has no authority.]

· What fictitious human right did the Supreme Court refer to in the Roe vs. Wade case? [The right to privacy was the basis of their argument. While most people may agree that privacy is a good thing, there is no mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution. The word does not even appear in the Constitution.]

· Extra – What is your opinion on judicial activism versus judicial restraint? Do you believe in one over the other? Give your reasons.

· Extra – Do some research on Justice John Marshall. How do you think he was viewed by judicial restraint advocates such as Thomas Jefferson?

**************
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series....

Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 11)

2010-09-04T13:38:00.006-06:00

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series reminds us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation. The following questions provide material for homeschool and public school teachers to share, discuss, and test their students on each of the nine topics. The link to each article is included, or you may start through the series beginning at Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum (a nine-part series, originally published in January/February 2009). The discussion questions are divided up into three installments, beginning here.

**************

4. Origin and Curse of the Federal Income Tax (Part 4)

· Name two events in American history which established a federal income tax. [The first, started during Abraham Lincoln’s administration to pay for the Civil War debt lasted from 1862 to 1872. The second came with the establishment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1916.]

· Describe why the model where the federal government collects taxes and then gives money back to the states is a potential problem? [The federal government is not required to give the money back in any kind of proportion to the number of people in the states. Therefore, the federal government could potentially give money disproportionately, and almost certainly will. Money earned in one state and taxed may not come back to benefit that state or its taxpayers.]

· Write out the words of the Sixteenth Amendment. While it is very short, what problems can you see in the sentence? [“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” First, “from whatever source derived”” means they can potentially collect taxes on any money transfer. Today, taxes are generally not collected on Internet purchases, but there is nothing to prevent the government from invoking such a tax. “Without apportionment” and “enumeration” means once again that tax benefits can be unequally distributed to people, regardless of who earned it. One could argue that this is very close to the definition of socialism.]

· Extra – Describe how a system of federal taxation can shift the balance of power away from states and toward the federal government. In your opinion, has that happened? Why or why not?

· Extra – Look up the definitions of socialism, collectivism, communism, and capitalism. In your opinion, which one most closely aligns with the idea of federal taxation and re-distribution?

5. Secession and Nullification (Part 5)

· How many states seceded from the Union during the time of the Civil War? Which was the first state to secede? Was your state one of the ones that seceded? [Thirteen states ultimately seceded from the United States, with South Carolina being the first in December of 1860. Tennessee was the last to secede in June, 1861. States seceded over perceived violations of the United States Constitution by the Lincoln administration. The list of States who seceded from the Union include South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee]

· Did the people in the Northern states want to prevent the seceding states from leaving the Union and bring them back into the Union forcefully? [According to Horace Greeley, nine out of ten people in the Northern states agreed that the states’ right to secede from the Union was more important than preserving the Union as a whole. It appears that most people understood well the right of states to secede and they supported it.]

· Summarize the “power pyramid” between individuals, states, and the federal government. How did the founders view this pyramid? How do you think it looks today? [The founders believed in individual rights above all else – this was made clear in their writings and in the Declaration of Independence itself. Next were states’ rights, as is also clearly demonstrated in their writings. The federal government was originally designed to be the weakest of the three. In today’s United States, these roles appear to be reversed. From Part 4 of this series, the Sixteenth Amendment probably had a lot to do with this reversal.]

· Extra – Write an essay weighing the good and bad of Lincoln’s decision to enter into the Civil War. Consider both sides - the abolishment of slavery vs. the abridgement of a state’s right to secede.

· Extra – look up the “South Carolina Declaration of The Causes of Secession”. Outline the state’s reasons for deciding to leave the Union.

6. Enumerated Powers vs. Implied Powers (Part 6)

· Define the concept of express (or enumerated) powers. [A person who believes in enumerated powers allows that only what is listed specifically in the Constitution is applicable to government. This is in line with Thomas Jefferson’s thinking – that government only has the authority to do exactly what is listed in the Constitution – nothing else.]

· Define the concept of implied powers. [A person believing in implied Constitutional powers would hold that government authority can go beyond the specific enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. It becomes difficult to define these powers because “implied” can cover a broad range of thinking. It seems that this has happened – consider, does the federal government have the rightful Constitutional authority to mandate healthcare insurance? We are already seeing Constitutional challenges to this recent law.]

· Did the founding fathers believe that the original Constitution would be completely sufficient for the future? Why or why not? [The founders included Article 5 in the Constitution, which allows for an Amendment to the Constitution to be made. Since they did this, it seems evident that they believed the Constitution was not made to be unchanged forever.]

· Extra – What do you think would happen in Congress if Congressman Shadegg’s “Enumerated Powers Act” became law? Would there be changes in daily Congressional business?

· Extra – Form an opinion and write down your reasons for supporting enumerated powers or implied powers.

**************
Next in the series
-or-
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series....

Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 10)

2010-08-16T21:45:00.005-06:00

*****************

1. Presidential Power (Part 1)

· Which Article of the Constitution deals specifically with the powers given to the President? [Article 2]

· Name two of the six specifically named powers given to the President [Commander in Chief of the military, authority over other members of the Executive branch, the power to grant reprieves and pardons, the ability to make treaties (with congressional approval), the power to nominate ambassadors and Supreme Court justices, and the authority to appoint Senate vacancies during recess periods]

· What is one danger of giving too much power to one person in government? [The founding fathers fled this very situation in England, because the king began exercising authority over areas such as religion – preventing personal freedoms]

· Does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution? [Article 3 of the Constitution enumerates the powers given to the Supreme Court, as does the 11th Amendment. Nowhere in there can one interpret such powers as being given to the Court]

· What are your thoughts on the disagreement between Justice John Marshall and President Andrew Jackson on the power of the Supreme Court? [Jackson appears to argue correctly that the Court was exceeding its authority. Nevertheless, to this day, the Court behaves as if it is the ultimate arbiter on Constitutional law.]

· Extra – Look for news articles, postings or telecasts which may demonstrate the assumption of presidential or Court authority which is not given in the Constitution

2. States’ Rights (Part 2)

· A system emphasizing the idea of states’ rights is called what? [Federalism]

· Have United States Senators always been elected by the people every six years? When did this change, and what changed it? How were they previously selected? [No, U.S. Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures until the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.]

· Do you believe that the founding fathers would place more importance on power emanating from the states or from the federal government? [It seems clear in reviewing the words of most founding fathers and documents such as the Constitution that they favored states’ rights. They seemed opposed to a great deal of authority at the federal level, probably because of their experience with the monarchy back in England. In fact, it took a Constitutional Amendment to change the appointment of Senators to a direct election. If they had to amend the Constitution to provide for this, it seems clear that it was not the founders intent.]

· Extra – In your opinion, is there an important difference between a state-appointed Senator and an elected one? Describe why. Consider what may influence their decision-making in each case.

3. Government Debt (Part 3)

· Does the Constitution allow the federal government to run a deficit and go into debt? [The Constitution does not specifically prohibit debt at the federal government level, and seems to imply that it can assume debt or establish new debt (as in Article 6).]

· Can we get an itemized tax bill from the government telling us exactly where our tax money is being spent? Why would this be a good idea? [Unfortunately, no. It would be good to be able to get one because it would cause the government to have more responsibility in where it spends our money if they knew they were going to have to tell us where every dollar goes. It is too bad that we don’t have this transparency from our government. Note that it doesn’t work the other way – we have to tell the government where we get and spend every dollar of our money when we fill out our yearly tax forms.]

· Does all tax money that is collected this year go only toward programs that happen this year? [No, the government uses a lot of this year’s money to pay for programs that were implemented years ago. Likewise, they use this year’s money to pay interest on borrowing that that did in the past.]

· Extra – What do you think the danger of an increasing national debt could be? [There may come a time when the debt cannot be paid because of a loss of prosperity. If that occurs, other nations who we have borrowed from (such as China) may feel obliged to get their money back through some other means. It also may mean that the world financial markets will switch from their standard currency – the U.S. dollar. This would put the United States on a lower-status financial footing. It may mean that the United States loses its position as a world superpower.]

· Extra – Do you think government spending and debt should be any different than personal spending and debt? Why or why not?

**************

Next in the series
-or-
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series
....

Radical Environmentalism – Which Is Worse, An Ecological “Disaster” or the Federal Government? (Part 13)

2010-08-06T17:03:00.006-06:00

The Gulf oil spill news has certainly waned in the last few weeks. I guess people got tired of watching each drop spill on national television. And while I don’t approve of lackadaisical methods by companies such as BP, who are ultimately responsible for the spill and its cleanup, I also think we need to put the spill in perspective (see my previous tongue-in-cheek post about how long it would take to fill the Gulf with oil).

For me, a couple of questions stand out in relation to the spill. First, how bad was it for the environment? To be sure, some beaches were impacted, but I can’t find any lasting evidence that any were ruined – if they were, don’t you think the media would report the “loss of a national treasure” ad infinitum? I haven’t seen it on the news, so I must conclude that there is no story there.

What about losses to animals in the Gulf? According to Jonah Goldberg’s latest column, the losses in the bird population stand at less than one percent of losses during the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska back in 1989. That is remarkable, considering that this spill is larger and in a region which likely has more birds due to the warmer climate. And according to Goldberg, the total number of oiled mammal carcasses discovered to this date numbers only…three. Three? How many dolphins and porpoises died of old age during this period? And if this is not enough to make you think that a minimum amount of damage has been done, consider this article (from ABC News, no less), which claims that some clean-up crews are having a hard time finding any oil to clean up. “Even the federal government admits that locating the oil has become a problem”.

I concede that the oil is likely out there somewhere, breaking down over time as nature intended, but I refer you again to my calculations on the relative size of the oil spill (one or two grains of sand represent the relative size of the oil which has spilled, while the volume of the Gulf of Mexico can be represented by over 4,000 5-gallon buckets of sand). It’s going to be hard to find – and it’s going away more and more each day.

My second question is this – how bad was the spill for the economy? There is no doubt that the shrimping industry and the tourism industry have been hurt temporarily. And some families may not be able to weather the loss of half of their working season. That is sad.

But far, far more damage has been inflicted by the federal government’s intrusion into the economic policies of the Gulf region.

- An attempted moratorium by the Obama administration on new deepwater drilling in the Gulf (overturned by a federal appeals panel on July 9)

- The potential trickle-down effect of the above moratorium on things like boat shuttle service, and all of the industry that supports deepwater drilling.

- The potential passage of crippling federal economic laws that might come about due to this event – make no mistake, they are sorely tempted to limit America’s ability to drill for oil in the Gulf – though there is no corresponding decline in demand. This will simply open the door for others to replace that oil with oil obtained elsewhere on the planet, likely by non-U.S. companies. This would increase our dependence on foreign oil.

- The future “justified” shift to “greener” energy because of the oil spill – most of these so-called greener technologies are far more expensive, and many are not proven to be any better for the environment. But the federal government is pushing hard on these because of appearances, not because it is ultimately the right thing to do.

Finally, consider this. The Deepwater Horizon rig was incredibly difficult to shut down because it was in…deep water. The challenge of capping a wellhead that is a mile below the surface (where pressures are in the 2200 psi range) is far greater than if the well had been drilled in shallow water, and the drill bit allowed to tunnel sideways toward the oil reserve. But it is the very government which decries this disaster which then forces companies like BP out into the deep water areas to drill. Could it be that the government’s policy of forcing oil companies into deep water drilling is at least partially responsible for this “disaster”?

The oil spill is a nasty event. But it would appear that nature (designed by God) is already reclaiming the Gulf. When man (a.k.a. the federal government) thinks he knows more that he really does, bad policy is made. And the result of bad policy is ultimately higher energy costs, increased foreign dependence on oil, and a people with temporarily-soothed consciences who may later discover that much of the economic suffering was due to improper reactions to the spill, rather than to the spill itself.

Go, Gulf - I have a soft spot for the area since I grew up in Louisiana.

******************

...and this was released a week after my article - "The Gulf Recover Obama Does Not Want To See"

******************
Next in this series.......
or
Back to Part 1 of this series

Communion Meditation – What Do You Really Need?

2010-08-01T14:21:00.004-06:00

In just a minute, I’m going to make a bold statement about Jesus Christ – and I wonder how many can truly say they agree with it. I say this because it is a very difficult statement to hold to in our world and culture today. And it is a measure of where our hearts truly are.

We are surrounded by luxury and ease. Arguably, every one of us leads a life that is superior to any king or world leader up until a mere hundred years ago. We have air conditioning. We have access to healthcare that can easily cure diseases that were feared only a few decades ago – we can simply drive to the drugstore and pick up a bottle of pills that will fix the problem. Do you need something to eat? What if I said I wanted a spinach-leaf, strawberry, and pecan salad, topped with fresh Italian dressing – and I want it right now? That would have been unattainable on-demand not so many years ago. But now, I only need to get in my air-conditioned car, drive for five minutes to the grocery store, and pick up every single ingredient I need, no matter how rare or out-of season it is. I can be eating that salad in under a half-hour.

So what do I really need? When I’m surrounded by so much, it is easy to think that I don’t have need of anything. I could live for the rest of my life in relative ease and comfort, and fool myself into believing that I am missing out on nothing.

So this brings me to this statement – ponder it. Christ alone is all I need.

It sounds so peaceful. Christ alone is all I need. Do we believe it? Can we honestly say so, if everything else was removed from our lives – our comforts, our homes, our money, our cars…even our family? If all of that were taken away - and all we had was Jesus Christ - would we be able to say, “It is well with my soul”?

Philippians 4:19 tells us, “And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” 2 Corinthians 9:8 says, “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.”

If you could sum up the whole story of mankind in three sentences, it would go something like this. 1) God made man in His image and brought him into a perfect world – no sin, no death, no wants. 2) But man fell, and so was separated from God. And 3) God sent His Son as a sacrifice that each of us might regain what was lost. It is truly that simple.

Because of this, we each have access to the greatest gift imaginable - forgiveness and an eternity to spend praising God in heaven. Knowing that, it becomes much easier to say…Christ alone is all I need.

***************

By the way, if you have to have the t-shirt, visit here.

"Twilight" and The Apple

2010-07-13T14:31:00.003-06:00

One of the most popular teen (and older-than-teen) book series out today is Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight. There is much that can be said about this series (none of it is good, in my opinion). I have not read the books themselves, but have researched and read synopses in order to be informed of the plot, and of the writer’s purpose. I encourage others to not read the series, but to learn and teach of the dangers within and to keep it away from our children – you can start by taking a few minutes to read this excellent Christian perspective, or my daughter’s recent blog on the subject.

I simply want to comment on the cover of the first book – and what it implies about where our culture is today. The picture that appears on the cover is shown above.

You see, a long time ago, at the very beginning of human history, God created a perfect world in which to live. There was no death, no ruin, no decay…and no sin. God created things to work perfectly and without breakage. Most importantly, this system honored God and revealed His ability to create perfection. He created Adam and Eve and placed them in a Garden to enjoy His creation and live for His glory. Only one rule was set down – do not eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden. And as we all know, after a while that rule was broken, and sin entered the world for the very first time…with the result that mankind fell away from the perfect relationship that he had enjoyed with God.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is often referred to as an apple. And that apple represents the temptation that brought mankind to be separated from God, and brought death back into the world. From Genesis 3:17-19:

‘To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”’

Nothing worse has ever happened to mankind than this separation. Because of that event, God had to send his Son several thousand years later to die and save mankind from making this separation permanent. The fall of Adam was the darkest moment in human history.

Yet, I fear that the weight of this event has been lost by a modern generation. Witness the very words that Stephenie Meyer uses to describe the photo on the cover of her book:

“The apple on the cover of Twilight represents “forbidden fruit.” I used the scripture from Genesis (located just after the table of contents) because I loved the phrase “the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.” Isn't this exactly what Bella ends up with? A working knowledge of what good is, and what evil is. . . . In the end, I love the beautiful simplicity of the picture. To me it says: choice.”

So, the choice between good and evil is a good thing? To Meyer, the moment of the apple and the resultant fall of man is “beautiful”. She has forgotten God’s original purpose – that God wants a perfect relationship with us – and yet hundreds of thousands of teens fail to question the premise and position of her book. They think they are reading a “love story”. Yet, it was God’s intent that we never have to experience the ravages of evil and disease and death. This is the original love story! I would love to live in a place where I did not have this “choice”, but where God’s goodness was the only option available. Someday, we will know this existence again!

I appeal to our generation – train your children to understand the importance of that moment when we were separated from God. Help them to know that “choice” is not always a good thing. And help them to understand that our culture desperately needs to be restored to God again, back to the perfect design He had in the beginning. Mankind is not “evolving” by being granted more choices – instead, it is the very existence of our choice between good and evil that points to a brokenness. God has the cure. If you are reading this and want to know more, please write me.

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 9)

2010-07-08T20:39:00.005-06:00

My wife, oldest daughter and I attended the Christian Family Conference in Denver this past week. It was an amazing time of encouragement with other Christian parents – most of whom are devoted to homeschooling and home-training their children to be godly men and women, prepared to take on the world with a multi-generational vision. I’m posting some of the notes I took from the conference sessions. Some are sure to fly in the face of the traditions and cultures which most people would consider normal in today’s culture. But these men who spoke to us used the Scriptures, and their lives and the lives of their children are a testament to their integrity and boldness on these topics. Their words motivate me to continue to raise my children in a radical, counter-culture, God-fearing way.

******************************

Chuck Black is an ex-test pilot turned homeschooling father. Really. He gave a lot of very practical lessons about raising our children in today’s world. One look at his family will demonstrate his success in the area of parenting – if you stop by his booth, his children are there running the show – they are polite, well-spoken, talented , and well on their way to becoming lights for God in a dark world.

Chuck did an excellent job of reinforcing my belief that it is the family, not church youth groups, that is responsible for developing maturity in our children. “Youth group” is a relatively modern creation. Our family often must choose between youth group activities…and being together as a family. We almost always choose the latter, and I believe that this is the biblical model. Please don’t get this wrong – I’m not saying that youth groups are inherently bad or evil – the point is that parental involvement should be the primary driver of spiritual and emotional maturity. Without it, youth group gatherings can be simply a pooling of immaturity with no real lasting value. When the parents abdicate the role of being the main spiritual mentors and enforcers in the family, the children are operating at a severe disadvantage.

“Equipping Your Children to Overcome the Cultural Pressures of Today” by Chuck Black

· One-hundred years ago, children transitioned to adulthood in a very short time, and at a young age. Today, we allow them seven to eight years of “teenage time”. This is a new invention – it didn’t used to be this way.

· Part of the reason is that there is a lot more time, money, and available entertainment in today’s society

· Children are maturing physically at an earlier age, but their spiritual and emotional maturity is coming later – this creates a maturity gap that is often filled with entertainment – and Satan is targeting this gap, instead of allowing the family to fill it

· Negative peer pressure and broken relationships exacerbate the maturity problem

· Problems in today’s society that need strong parenting in order to avoid them:

· 1) Large amounts of time are spent with immature youth – limit it, monitor it, or stop it!

· 2) Our children are culturally encouraged to spend time with, or have physical relationships with the opposite sex, without commitment – don’t allow it!

· 3) Young people are culturally discouraged to marry at an early age – this creates physical pressures and may increase the length of the maturity gap

· 4) Our children live in an entertainment-oriented world – one way we can push back against this is to help our children discover the joy and accomplishment in labor

· 5) We have culturally established academic education to take place outside of the home – parents are rarely seen as teachers anymore, and this is a fairly recent change in our society (over the last 150 years). Homeschooling restores this area to its proper place.

· 6) We have culturally established spiritual education to take place outside of the home – many parents see Sunday school or youth group as being the prime places where their children will learn about God, and so have abdicated the role of being the spiritual leaders of their family, in favor of a youth minister or another parent.

· When you see a young man or woman who is especially mature for their age, ask yourself – did they get that way because of what happened to them at school, at church…or at home?

· Chuck Black’s wife calculates that homeschooling allows her to spend 15,680 more hours with each of her children than if she had sent them to public school. There is a lot of mentoring and heartfelt communication that can take place during those hours.

· The responsibilities of parents toward their children: 1) Lead your children to the Lord, 2) Train your children, 3) Discipline your child, 4) Equip your child, 5) Protect your children from physical, emotional, and spiritual harm, 6) Carefully expose your children to important things – keep them innocent, but not ignorant, 7) Disciple your children in the Lord – and be purposeful about this, 8) Launch your children toward a target

***********************

Back to Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 1)
...

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 8)

2010-07-06T21:42:00.004-06:00

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 7)

2010-07-04T15:47:00.009-06:00

(I have already written a future post about the “dating” rules in our household – they are far more conservative than our society dictates, but I believe they are scriptural – coming soon - Alan)

***********************

Back to Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 1)
...

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 6)

2010-06-30T21:11:00.004-06:00

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 5)

2010-06-29T20:52:00.006-06:00

My wife, oldest daughter and I attended the Christian Family Conference in Denver this past week. It was an amazing time of encouragement with other Christian parents – most of whom are devoted to homeschooling and home-training their children to be godly men and women, prepared to take on the world with a multi-generational vision. I’m posting some of the notes I took from the conference sessions. Some are sure to fly in the face of the traditions and cultures which most people would consider normal in today’s culture. But these men who spoke to us used the Scriptures, and their lives and the lives of their children are a testament to their integrity and boldness on these topics. Their words motivate me to continue to raise my children in a radical, counter-culture, God-fearing way.

******************************

Voddie Baucham is perhaps the strongest, best preacher I have ever listened to. He is clearly a dedicated family man, preacher, and evangelist. His words on education take you from his days being raised in the rough part of Los Angeles, to his story of obtaining advanced degrees from multiple notable colleges (including Oxford University), to his words on the dangers in higher education today. If you want to be seriously challenged, visit his website (but remember, I warned you, it is serious stuff). For my own words on higher education, visit here or here.

“Harvard or Heaven” by Voddie Baucham

· First of all, college is not inherently sinful, or completely useless. That is not what we’re saying.

· God calls us to prepare our children for heaven, not college or career. But this doesn’t mean that no one should go to college.

· So, what is potentially wrong with college today? There are five specific things.

1) Most undergraduate degrees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on

· On average today, a high school diploma will net you $1.2 million of income over your entire career. A college degree will get you $2.1 million. A master’s degree will get you $2.5 million.

· But, you can give your 18-year old a check for $10,000 (just once, and this is far less than you would pay for the first year of most colleges), and encourage them to save $500 a month during their “career”, then they will have $1 million in the bank by age 51. So, if being a millionaire is the goal…..then this is a pretty safe route to get there.

· Read the Forbes magazine article from January 14, 2009 entitled “The Great College Hoax”. It’s eye-opening.

· The “loan sharks” charge more, higher education costs more, the return of a college degree is less – all because the colleges know that America worships at the altar of higher education

· If you go to a decent state school and get a B.A degree, you can spend between $80,000 and $250,000 to get a four year degree – in “specialties” such as Film Studies, Art History, Dance, Chicano Studies, Interior Design, African-American Studies, Packaging Science, Metalsmithing and Jewelry, Golf and Sports Turf Management, and Surf Science. You can even get a four-year degree in Painting – not artistic painting, but how to paint a living room! Really! The point here is that people are paying tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree – just because they can. The reward of having these degrees is very limited.

2) Four years is too much time to waste

· If you are getting a degree that is worth nothing to your future career, or to God’s kingdom, then you are wasting four very productive years of your life

· From ages 18-22, people start careers and families. Read Malachi 2:14-15 to see what God places importance on in our youth.

· A lot of people pick majors in college because they simply don’t know what they want to do, or because they have flunked out of their first or second choice. And a wrong choice of major made during college can limit your options for life.

3) College costs too much money

· The economy is down, but tuition and enrollment are up! How can we explain this except that people are worshipping the idea of education, rather than analyzing the product?

· Are we counting the cost? See Luke 14:28-30. Yet, families are going into debt for college educations. And young families are starting their marriages knee-deep in debt – at a time when this burden should not be on them.

4) College is not for everyone

· Not everyone has the academic ability to go to college. But this does not prevent colleges from enrolling them as paying students!

· Long ago, when there were only a few universities in the United States, students used to have to know Greek, Latin and Hebrew – before being admitted to college! Now, an average college will take you if you have a pulse and a loan. College is a business, and people who are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars each year are welcome.

· A new college model to generate more revenue is to allow unqualified students to enroll – but then put them through a year of “remedial” classes – turning a four-year degree into a five-year degree….and charging full price for that extra year. Think about it.

· You don’t have to have a college degree to support your family! Don’t believe the lie that is told about this!

· Those who graduate from college generally don’t know anything about the business world – they have to be trained in their first job. Why not cut out the middle-man (universities) and apprentice them right out of college?

· What about my kids – what should I do? 1) Analyze their gifts and talents (Proverbs 22:6), 2) Analyze their desires and callings (1 Timothy 3:1), 3) Ask yourself if college is necessary, 4) Follow the Lord’s leading

5) Most universities are philosophically antagonistic to Christianity

· Professors are often the enemies of God (not always, but often)

· Proverbs 13:20 – the companion of fools will suffer harm – it’s a promise

· Students are often guided strongly by their teachers – in life, morals and character

· So what if I decide that college is for my child? 1) Do it as quickly as possible (Ephesians 5:15-17), 2) Do it as inexpensively as possible (Luke 14:28), 3) Do it as safely as possible – don’t send your children into a lion’s den, evaluate the environment they will be in, consider college near to home

***********************

Back to Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 1)
...

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 4)

2010-06-28T20:49:00.010-06:00

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 3)

2010-06-27T19:54:00.007-06:00

My wife, oldest daughter and I attended the Christian Family Conference in Denver this past week. It was an amazing time of encouragement with other Christian parents – most of whom are devoted to homeschooling and home-training their children to be godly men and women, prepared to take on the world with a multi-generational vision. I’m posting some of the notes I took from the conference sessions. Some are sure to fly in the face of the traditions and cultures which most people would consider normal in today’s culture. But these men who spoke to us used the Scriptures, and their lives and the lives of their children are a testament to their integrity and boldness on these topics. Their words motivate me to continue to raise my children in a radical, counter-culture, God-fearing way.

******************************

This session was very interesting. Voddie analyzed a verse that everyone is familiar with and showed us, through proper Bible exegesis (I always wanted to use that word in a sentence!), that “I know the plans I have for you” wasn’t actually meant to apply to me and you (unless you are a Jew being carried off to captivity in Babylon). But it does tell us a lot about our God.

“Multi-Generational Vision” by Dr. Voddie Baucham

· Jeremiah 29:11 – “For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future” – doesn’t mean what we think it means. It doesn’t mean that bad things won’t happen to us.

· Hermeneutics is the practice of interpreting the Scriptures. Voddie stresses three elements to proper hermeneutics – 1) the context is critical, 2) narrative is not normative, 3) the text can’t mean what it never meant

· Starting in verses 1-3, we see 1) the people involved (Jews from Judah), 2) the time period (the pre-exile period), 3) the place (Babylon), and 4) the events (the people are being taken away into Babylonian exile)

· But many people think that the “I know the plans” verse is meant for us, as well. Note that God makes many promises in the Bible, but not all of them apply to us. An example – “You will bear a son and will call his name Jesus.”

· Similarly, 2 Chronicles 7:14 says “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land” – we read this often as if it applies to our country and leaders, but the context and the promise indicate that it was given to God’s chosen people, the nation of Israel, not to the United States

· In Jeremiah, it was God who brought the difficulty to the Israelites, not Satan. God brought them into Babylonian captivity to bring them correction. (A thought – so could God be bringing our nation through times like this to do the same for us?)

· Romans 8:18 – “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us” – God indicates that suffering can be part of the normal Christian life

· In Jeremiah 29:8-10, the prophets are lying to the people about a brief captivity – it will last for a total of 150 years, which means that none of the people who hear the promise in verse 11 will be alive when it is fulfilled!

· Verse 11 – “I know the plans I have for you…” is a multi-generational promise made to the Israelite people and specifically to their descendants, and the “you” refers to God’s covenant people, not to us as individuals (again, unless you are a Jew)

· So, how do we live as a multi-generational people?

--- vs. 5 – “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce” - set up shop at home, stay, lay down roots, let home be the “safe place”

--- vs. 6 – “Marry and have sons and daughters” – How can we have a multi-generational vision and not accept God’s blessing of children?

--- vs. 7 – Pray for the welfare of your captors – “because if it prospers, you too will prosper”. How can we prosper in a land that is not prosperous?

· If we lay down our life now, like the Israelites going into captivity did, God can bless the world through our children and our children’s children

***********************

Back to Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 1)
...

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 2)

2010-06-26T21:27:00.008-06:00

Notes: The Christian Family Conference 2010 (Part 1)

2010-06-25T22:04:00.005-06:00

My wife, oldest daughter and I attended the Christian Family Conference in Denver this past week. It was an amazing time of encouragement with other Christian parents – most of whom are devoted to homeschooling and home-training their children to be godly men and women, prepared to take on the world with a multi-generational vision.

Some observations from the first 15 minutes of the conference:

· We started off in prayer – for our families, children and our world

· 1,200 of us sang hymns together

· A homeschool family got up on stage to sing America The Beautiful, with the youngest getting a solo or two (she was probably about four-years old, and she was good)

· Two prominent men running for public office got up to speak of their dedication to homeschooling and Christian principles – Dan Maes (running for Colorado governor) and Ken Buck (running for U.S. Senate)

· My local State Senator, Kevin Lundberg, was behind the soundboard, serving as he always does in one form or another(he has the best servant’s heart and attitude of any politician I’ve ever encountered – I talked to him later, and he said he was doing it because they were short-handed and needed some help)

I feel so very comfortable in and among this group of people. And I saw a tremendous number of families who were obviously being blessed in their daily walk. They are not afraid to speak to others about it, either.

I’m going to post some of the notes I took from the conference sessions. Some are sure to fly in the face of the traditions and cultures which most people would consider normal in today’s culture. But these men who spoke to us used the Scriptures, and their lives and the lives of their children are a testament to their integrity and boldness on these topics. Their words motivate me to continue to raise my children in a radical, counter-culture, God-fearing way.

“Getting Your House In Order” by Dr. Voddie Baucham

· The text is Deuteronomy 6, where we learn that the Israelites received a promise that if they obey God and fear God, they would 1) live long, 2) it will go well with them, and 3) they would multiply greatly

· Today, can we say in our American culture that “it is well” with us? We know that God will always prevail, but it is not going well in our land. And children in our land are often seen as a burden, not a blessing (the legality of abortion is one reason, but also because we see some people look oddly at families who have five or six or ten kids)

· The phenomenon of the mega-church – it’s the Wal-Mart effect when they come to town, many of the “mom and pop” churches close – hum the Star Wars Death Star theme – and many of these churches are filled with people who are being coddled in their sin

· From verses 4 through 15 – Why aren’t things going well? Why are we not multiplying? As the passage in Deuteronomy 6 tells us, we need to 1) Worship God without rivals, 2) Love without compromise, 3) Don’t forget God as we prosper

· “Worship God without rivals” – If God were not a jealous God, if He allowed others to share His glory, then He would not be God

· “God is not running for God” – He already has the job

· Don’t worship at the altar of education, worship at the altar of God – What is the goal? To get into a good college, or to serve God for life?

· As a homeschooler, evaluate your priority with this scenario – if your child’s test scores fall, would you consider sending them back to public school? On what do you judge success or failure? If it is test scores alone, then that is a form of idolatry! What test are you preparing them for – the SAT or Iowa Basic? Or a bigger test?

· (in jest) “You should start your homeschool a week later then public school just on general principle!”

· Voddie has talked with people who believe Deuteronomy 6 applies only to “non-school” hours. But if we mark our houses as God’s territory, how can we not be motivated to homeschool? Should we continue to send our kids to Caesar?

· Has our culture eroded our need for God? Example – when sickness comes to our family, are we on our knees before God asking for his help? No, because now we can drive down to the pharmacy to get a cure – and we forget God because we don’t have a need for Him!

· Teach your children to be satisfied with God – not to chase after anything else! Remember – homeschooling is not about education, it’s about discipleship.
For more on the application of Deuteronomy 6 to family life, I strongly recommend that you read Voddie Baucham’s book – Family-Driven Faith: Doing What It Takes to Raise Sons and Daughters Who Walk with God

Exchanging Higher Education…for a Trade

2010-06-21T21:57:00.003-06:00

As I’ve been writing on higher education, I’ve mentioned the sudden flood of articles on the subject – a great many of them now questioning the value and worth of getting a college degree.

So it is no surprise that I encountered this article last week from the Washington Post – More College-Educated Jump Tracks To Become Skilled Manual Laborers. The title speaks for itself, but it contains a good summation near the opening – “They started out studying aerospace engineering, creative writing and urban planning. But somewhere on the path to accumulating academic credentials, they decided that working with their hands sounded more pleasant -- and lucrative -- than a lot of white-collar work. So bye-bye to term papers and graduate theses, and hello to apprenticeships to become plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics and carpenters.”

For many, this may sound like going backward in time. After all, we’ve been taught that our ancestors worked long and hard in the fields, or in a blacksmith shop, or at some other difficult physical labor so that we, their descendants, could enjoy the increased fruits and pleasures of a white-collar job. We’ve been taught that today’s white-collar business structure is an “evolution” along the career timeline – that we somehow deserve to earn six-figure salaries in the comfort of air-conditioned high-rises, while somewhere there are people doing the “dirty work”.

But here are some observations that I’ve made along the way:

1) There are jobs that still need two strong hands to accomplish – plumbing, wiring houses, building cabinets – some things cannot be replaced by automation or spreadsheets.

2) These “manual labor” jobs can still pay the bills for any average family with the wisdom to stay out of debt and forego a life of unnecessary trappings.

3) A job such as an electrician is usually a local job – fathers don’t often have to travel on business – that is a HUGE advantage to the core family.

4) White collar jobs, like being a middle-level manager or an engineer or a software programmer, seem to be growing more and more unstable. There is not nearly as much job security in these careers as there once was. But even when people are out of work, plumbing still breaks, and so do automobiles…

5) A person is much more likely to end up owning their own business through a trade than they are working in the vertically-integrated white-collar world today.

6) There is a great deal of satisfaction to be had in creating or repairing something with your own two hands.

Each of these items could elicit a great deal of discussion, but let me focus only on the second point for now. Our society (not unlike many societies before ours) places a great deal of emphasis on wealth. But the Bible is very clear – material wealth can draw us away from God. Solomon attests to this in the Book of Ecclesiastes, and Jesus told us this very thing in Matthew 19:24 – “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

As was pointed out to me recently, our culture now worships at the altar of higher education – not at the altar of the Almighty God. That’s something for me to keep in mind as I get ready to send my children out into the world. And when considering my own future career.

****************

Back to the Thoughts On Higher Education series

Bonus Material on The Value of Higher Education

2010-06-12T09:54:00.005-06:00

A while back I wrote about my perception of the declining value of college education. While the thoughts are not absolute, I believe strongly that many higher education degrees have unnecessarily placed students into great debt and into jobs that require them to work hard (paying off their debt) at things that are not God’s-kingdom-related. Alternative approaches that our family is exploring are community college credits while homeschooling, as well as internship and ultimately, business ownership. All of this, with a goal of no debt along the way.

It seems I’m not alone on this topic. Maybe it’s because I have been thinking about the topic, but I suddenly noticed articles popping up all over the place about this very subject. Whether it is about student loan debt, or the limited value of certain college degrees, there seem to be a lot of people questioning the same topic.

Here are some examples:

Higher Education Bubble About To Burst – Glenn Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. But in a very candid way, he acknowledges that higher education is not what it should be. He points out the dangerous circle of ballooning costs with the seemingly cheap credit that allows students to amass hundreds of thousands of dollars of loans – before they ever even begin to start their career. One student’s quote – "I don't want to spend the rest of my life slaving away to pay for an education I got for four years and would happily give back."

Placing The Blame As Students Are Buried In Debt – More detail on the student quoted above. She went to school for four years to get a degree in Religious and Women’s Studies, amassed $100,000 in debt (credit that she obtained far too easily), and now struggles to scratch together enough income to pay her $700-per-month student loan payments. “It is utterly depressing that there are so many people like her facing decades of payments, limited capacity to buy a home and a debt burden that can repel potential life partners.”

Subprime Goes To College – This one is a tough, technical read. Click on it if you want to understand how the federal government subsidizes a great deal of the education loans in this country – very inefficiently. And a lot of it is a gimmick designed to enrich the educators, not the students. “At one Corinthian Colleges-owned Everest College campus in California, students paid $16,000 for an eight-month course in medical assisting. Upon nearing completion, the students learned that not only would their credits not transfer to any community or four-year college, but also that their degree is not recognized by the American Association for Medical Assistants. Hospitals refuse to even interview graduates.”

Getting An Efficiently Delivered Education – The author argues that the value received in return for the amount paid to receive a college education has become a negative incentive, and has been this way for the last two decades. I believe this may be true for Ivy League institutions and some of the more expensive and elite colleges. It’s probably not as valid for state colleges where the student gets an in-state tuition break. “Most importantly, commercial colleges are stealing the sophisticated non-bubble students who are able to calculate the cost of education, match the specific appropriate academic field or training, and benefit from an efficiently delivered education. Plus, commercial colleges put a lot of resources into making sure their graduates get jobs.”

Did You Know That Student Loans Aren’t Erased By Bankruptcy? – “If you run up big credit card bills buying a new home theater system and can’t pay it off after a few years, bankruptcy judges can get rid of the debt. They may even erase loans from a casino. But if you borrow money to get an education and can’t afford the loan payments after a few years of underemployment, that’s another matter entirely. It’s nearly impossible to get rid of the debt in bankruptcy court, even if it’s a private loan from for-profit lenders like Citibank or the student loan specialist Sallie Mae.” I have to confess that I did not know this – once student loans are granted, even bankruptcy won’t take them off of your books. Unlike any other loan I can think of, student loans appear to be permanent. This may explain why some people are still saddled with these loans even as much as twenty years after school.

8 Reasons College Tuition Is the Next Bubble to Burst – Some interesting points: “On average, college tuition increases at around 8 percent per year, which means the cost of college doubles every nine years.” Or, “Today, 66% of students borrow to pay for college, taking on an average of $23,165 in debt.” And here’s one that’s hard to believe, “Schools are spending on luxurious amenities to lure in more students. At High Point University in North Carolina, students are treated to valet parking, live music in the cafeteria and Starbucks gift cards on their birthdays.” And what prevents all of this from coming back into balance in today’s economy? “When your ‘customers’ have easy access to credit and pay you with money they don’t have, the economy doesn’t really matter, does it?”

All is not lost. The education bubble may burst soon, driving down the cost of a college education, and prompting universities to re-evaluate their priorities. But in the absence of that, there are alternatives to getting your student an education, a job, or even their own business. And you may be able to do it without incurring debt.

***********
Back to the Higher Education series

- or -

Exchanging Higher Education For A Trade

Math…and the Gulf Oil Spill

2010-06-05T09:31:00.005-06:00

Without a doubt, the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico is a regrettable event – dooming various parts of the Gulf to loss of shrimping, oystering, tourism and pleasure – at least for a time. I would never say that the spill is a non-issue, nor would I belittle any effort to cap the pipe on the ocean floor. Every effort needs to be pursued to get it under control. And the loss of life of the eleven men on the Deepwater Horizon rig is a tragedy as well. My heart goes out to their families.

I don’t have cable TV or satellite channels coming into my home, but there are a lot of TV’s at my place of work which do. And the image seems to constantly be that of the BP cameras trained on the broken and oft-repaired pipe at the bottom of the Gulf, spewing oil into the ocean. Given the amount of attention placed on that camera shot, many might come to the conclusion that the Gulf is filling up with oil.

So, I decided to do some math around the spill and put it into perspective. Here are some facts:

· The federal government estimates that the total leakage from the pipe to-date has been somewhere between 22 million and 47 million gallons. For purposes of my exercise, I will use the largest number – 47 million gallons.

· The oil has been spilling from the pipe since the rig explosion on April 20, 2010 –a total of 46 days.

· Rounded slightly, that gives us a daily spill rate of 1 million gallons

Now, just how big is a million gallons? Well, a gallon is equal to 0.133680556 cubic feet. So, a million gallons takes up 133,680 cubic feet. Taking the cube root of that number will give you the dimension of a side of that million-gallon cube – 51 feet on all three sides. A typical tractor trailer that you see hauling goods on the interstate is 53 feet long, by 8.5 feet wide by 9.25 feet tall – that’s 4,167 cubic feet. That amount of space is capable of holding 31,172 gallons of oil (4,167 cubic feet divided by 0.13368 cubic feet per gallon). Dividing a million gallons by this figure tells us that the volume of spill coming from the broken well is equal to about 32 tractor trailers each day.

Thirty-two big-rig trailers full of oil seems like a lot. But let’s put it into perspective. The Environmental Protection Agency tells us that the Gulf of Mexico holds 643 quadrillion gallons of liquid. Spelled out, that is 643,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of salt water. Dividing by 31,172 gallons, this tells us that the Gulf of Mexico is capable of holding 20,627,486,205,569 tractor trailers full of liquid. That’s 20.6 trillion trailers.

So – in a total volume of 20.6 trillion tractor trailers, we are displacing 32 trailers full of oil each day. Assuming the oil field is infinite (obviously not a valid assumption, but stick with me), how many days would it take to completely displace all of the water in the Gulf? Simply divide the two numbers, and you get 644,608,943,924 days. That’s 644 billion days, which when divided by 365 yields 1,766,051,901 years.

So, at the current spill rate, we will fill the Gulf of Mexico with oil in approximately 1.76 billion years.

Let’s put it another way – in a visual. It’s estimated that about 30 million grains of sand fit into a one-gallon bucket (this is obviously very dependent on the type of sand). Assume that one of those grains of sand represents the 32 tractor trailers (1 million gallons) of oil being spilled each day. How many grains of sand represent the rest of the Gulf of Mexico? Simple division – 20.6 trillion divided by 32 – equals 644 billion grains of sand. How many gallon buckets of sand is that? Again, divide 644,000,000,000 by 30 million – and you get 21,467 one-gallon buckets of sand. So, if you can picture lining up 21,467 gallon buckets of sand (or 4,293 five-gallon buckets) in a parking lot, the relative volume of oil being spilled into the gulf each day is equal to one grain of sand.

Unfortunately, all of that oil has a tendency to spread upward and toward the edges of wherever it travels. This tends to make moot any volumetric comparisons and analogies – because the oil is finding its way to the exact places that we don’t want it – beaches and fishing grounds. If oil were heavier than water, this whole event would be a non-issue – we’d have the equivalent of a tiny percentage of the Gulf being taken up with a small pool of oil at the bottom.

Of course, BP has not yet taken action on my spill-prevention suggestion – to stuff the Obamacare bill into the end of the oil pipe. That way, we could take care of two problems at once…

********************

For an extremely interesting time-lapse-from-space video of the Gulf spill, via NASA satellites, visit this site..

Thanks to “The Greatest Generation”

2010-05-30T21:22:00.005-06:00

In honor of our fallen heroes on this day of remembrance…

One of the finest books that I have ever read is The Winds of War by Herman Wouk. It is a fictional account of a Navy family set in non-fictional World War II. Wouk has written many excellent books that I heartily recommend – The Caine Mutiny and War and Remembrance being his major works that I have enjoyed.

My wife and I both enjoy reading novels set in history, and we recently decided to relive some old times by renting The Winds of War mini-series (about ten hours to watch in total, and it only gets you to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 - there is also a War and Remembrance mini-series sequel that followed).

One cannot help but be drawn to the central figure in the story – Pug Henry – played exceptionally well by Robert Mitchum. Pug is a gritty, determined Navy captain, who is smart, resourceful and protective of his own family. He is a classic military man, willing to sacrifice his own life and dreams for the service of his country. His career goals are constantly frustrated, as he is continually passed over for sea captaincy in favor of dealing diplomatically with the central figures in the war story – Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill and Mussolini. His toast at a banquet hosted by Josef Stalin is one of the best scenes in the movie.

Pug finally gets his battleship command of the U.S.S. California, only to arrive in Pearl Harbor a few days after its destruction by the Japanese attack. His son is serving there aboard an aircraft carrier, and Pug displays his typical, reserved demeanor in dealing with the overall situation.

At the end of the movie, Pug stands on a hill overlooking Pearl Harbor, as his son sails away toward the unknown aboard the carrier. He lifts his eyes to the heavens, and says these incredible words (they brought tears to my eyes):

"Oh, Lord, in a world so rich and lovely, why can your children find nothing better to do than to dig iron from the ground and work it into vast, grotesque engines for blowing each other up? Is it because Abel's next-door neighbor was Cain? Is it because if my enemies make deadly engines, then I must do it better or die? Maybe the vicious circle will end this time. Maybe not. Maybe it will take Christ's Second Coming to end it. Maybe it will never end. But it is 1941 and I know this. Until the life is beaten out of the monster Hitler, the world cannot move another inch toward a sane existence. There is nothing to do now but win the war."

I admire the men and women of that era, and the sacrifices that they made. Their firm resolve to do what was right, at all costs, is unparalleled. It is truly difficult to watch this scene without tears welling up in your eyes. Many times, I have longed to have been born during that era, if for no other reason than to have experienced the hearts and minds of “the greatest generation”. Their unselfish attitude, and their willingness to give up their dreams for a time in order to win a bitter but necessary war inspires me to be involved in great things. How I wish for the chance to be involved with people like them, working for a cause that is great and good.

If you know a WWII veteran, please forward this to them. For those World War II veterans and families who might read this, let me thank you for the sacrifice of time, pain, and even family members if you were called to make such a forfeit. You are truly heroes, who gave up so much in order for our nation (and other nations, as well) to continue in freedom and serve the Lord without fear of punishment. I long for a nation that stands ready to do it again if called upon.

Rite of Passage

2010-05-29T12:32:00.004-06:00

It was hard to just walk away.

But yesterday, I put my twelve year-old son on our riding mower, blade turning, and did just that. I know, it sounds silly, but this was a big deal for me. Because images of my dad doing exactly that same thing don’t seem like that long ago.

I recall that day, over thirty-five years ago when my father entrusted me with the duty of mowing part of our large lawn in Louisiana. It felt like freedom to be driving a piece of machinery – and part of me couldn’t believe that he was letting me do it. I understand that more now, because I almost ran down the family dog that day (hey, it was an accident!). I wonder if he remembers running across the yard waving his arms at the dog to get out of the way… I sure do.

Nevertheless, as I am now on the downhill side of seeing my children through their years in my house (a fact which deeply saddens me), I get a little emotional when these little milestones are met. Just like watching my oldest daughter Molly drive a car for the first time, seeing my son carefully cruise around the lawn on a sixteen-horsepower piece of power equipment makes me proud – and fearful – all at the same time. Which is why it is hard for me to let him go around the corner, out of sight, all on his own, boy against the world. And that is an analogy for what my wife and I will do when we let him go out on his own in just a few short years.

Until then, I want to spend every moment preparing him for service in God’s creation – to glorify God above all, and serve others in a meaningful way – to make his life count for something eternal. These few years that we have with him under our roof will fly by. I want to make sure he is ready to go around the next corner.

Noah – congratulations on a job well done, and a rite of passage that is now at least two generations old in our family. You did a great job on the lawn, and didn’t cut off any fingers. What’s next?

Brought To My Census – Part 3

2010-05-28T07:58:00.003-06:00

One final point of irony needs to be made regarding the census and the American Community Survey that I’ve written about so far. I appear to be one of a very few who is bothered by the personal intrusion of the questions asked in the survey. But the one that confuses me the most is that no outcry has been raised over the following question, found on page eight of the ACS:

Is this person a citizen of the United States?, with the possible answers given as:
· Yes, born in the United States
· Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas
· Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents
· Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization
· No, not a U.S. Citizen

In essence, the question allows the federal government to ask me about my immigration status. And guess what? That is exactly what Arizona’s new controversial immigration law does! The Arizona law allows police to query a person’s immigration status, with possible deportation being the result. Since being passed into law, Arizona bill SB 1070 has garnered huge protests and raised a cry from people all over the country (though a Pew Poll shows that 73% of people surveyed favor requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status – where is that in the media?). The city of Los Angeles voted to boycott the state of Arizona over the issue. And President Barack Obama called it “misguided”.

Has anyone read his American Community Survey back to him?

It appears that the federal government believes it has the right to ask the immigration question of any American household, but decries a state doing exactly the same thing? Perhaps the “left” hand doesn’t know what the “right” hand is doing…

Brought To My Census – Part 2

2010-05-21T18:00:00.004-06:00

In the first article on our family’s census experience, I talked about my opposition to any census questions that go beyond my name and the number of people in my family. My resistance to this practice is that the questions are racist – they are certainly not blind to skin color or ethnic heritage. Also, I believe the questions go far beyond the reach of what the Constitution allows in Article 1, Section 2. I’m probably in a very small minority who is offended by the direction of the questions. But I am not going to answer them.

So it is ironic that the government chose my family to receive an additional set of questions to answer this year – the American Community Survey. Every month, on a rotating basis, 250,000 homes are randomly selected to receive the survey. The survey itself is a whopping twenty-eight pages long – and if there are five people in your household, there are potentially 272 questions to answer! Some of the questions include date of birth, race, where you were born, and if you are a citizen of the United States. And then the questions go on to ask (and I’m not making these up):

· What year was your house built?

· How many rooms in your home are bedrooms?

· Does your house have a flush toilet? (!!!) A stove? A refrigerator?

· How many cars do you own?

· What was your previous month’s electricity bill?

· How much do you think you could sell your house for?

· How much is your home insurance payment? Your monthly mortgage payment?

· What is the highest degree of schooling that you obtained?

· “Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?”

· What is your marital status?

· At what location did you work last week (provide the address)?

And on, and on. The personal nature of many of these questions is alarming. But even with all of this intrusion into my privacy, the real problem for me is this:

The government tells me that I am legally required to answer every one of these questions.

I know this because they have now visited me twice at my house, and called me three times (twice during evening hours) to tell me so. They have been pushing to get these answers from me or my wife, and the last two phone calls have been downright threatening. My name, and the number of people in my household is all that I am giving them. In fact, I didn’t give them my telephone number, but they told me that they worked with the telephone company to match my address and obtain it (I mean, hey, it’s right there in the White Pages, but they went out of their way to tell me that they had “worked with the phone company”).

They proceed to tell me that Title 13 of the United States Code, Sections 141 and 143, gives them the authority to demand my response, and makes it mandatory. I tell them that Title 13 is unconstitutional. They don’t have an answer for that, except to say “Okay”, and put me back on the calling list for next week.

I found the answer to fix this as well. The person calling you will tell you that they cannot take you off the calling list – that you will be put back on the call rotation for an indefinite period until you answer the questions (or they finally give up). The secret? Ask for a supervisor. Unlike the typical census call person, the supervisor can mark you down as a refusal, and take you off the list.

Or at least that is what they told me this week. We’ll see.

Brought To My Census – Part 1

2010-05-15T07:02:00.004-06:00

Article 1, Section 2 of The United States Constitution allows for the enumeration of our citizens every ten years. Specifically, this section says, “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” This clause is specifically called out in the section devoted to the House of Representatives – it doesn’t appear in the adjacent section on the Senate. The reason for this is clear – the 435 representatives decreed by the Constitution are apportioned by population within each state. So, the purpose behind the census is that we may apportion the correct number of representatives in the House, and the adjustment is made every ten years. This seems like a fair deal.

So, I was a bit surprised when I received my census form in the mail and read the questions which appeared. Of course, there were the standard questions – “What is your name?”, or “How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?” Those seem perfectly acceptable and within the bounds of what our Constitution requires.

But can someone please tell me why the government thinks it has the right to ask:

· Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?
· What is Person 1's race?
· Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

In my estimation, those questions are none of the government’s business. Oh, I know why they are asking such things. It has to do with the verification and implementation of special programs designed to divert money to groups of a certain ethnic heritage or financial position.

And that is one of two things - socialism or racism.

Imagine for a minute that I decided to hire some neighborhood kids to do some yard work around my house on a weekend. Would I be within acceptable bounds to ask them what their race is, or what the value of their parent’s house is – because I plan to pay each of them differently, based on their answers? Of course not. There would be a cry of outrage from the community, and I would probably get written up in an article in my local newspaper. But that is exactly what the federal government is doing – diverting tax money unfairly, based on skin color or financial status. Let’s be honest – the government’s questions are not color-blind or fair, and they certainly exceed the power given to them by the United States Constitution.

So, instead of sending it in, I held on to my census form and awaited the promised visit from the hired census worker. I left instructions with my wife and children to hand over the census form should they call - filled out with only my name and the number “5” only. I attached a brief note explaining why I was a “census conscientious objector”. I even told my kids to be nice and offer the worker a cookie and something to drink. But by no means should they provide any other information. Sure enough, just a few days into the census period, we received a visitor. And my daughters gave her only the answers as instructed.

Perhaps this seems like no big deal to many people. But I am genuinely offended at the blatantly racist questions asked on our census form. A business owner is disallowed by law from distributing money unequally based on a person’s race – why is it considered okay for the government to do the same thing? It’s time to bring the government back in line with their original charter. Maybe I should have had my kids attach a copy of the Constitution to the survey, as well…

***********

Unfortunately, this is not the end of our census story. We next began to receive phone calls from the Bureau, with increasing rudeness – detailed in the next installment…

What Is Missing From A Government-Funded Reading Program?

2010-05-07T21:08:00.002-06:00

The local paper article I read today was almost too fantastic to believe.

The Colorado state legislature passed an initial proposal to implement a “Pay To Read” program this week. Under this law, over $1 million of taxpayer money would be used to pay low-income children $2 for every book they read. It’s an effort, theoretically, to get children to read and, thus improve their test scores (based on a Harvard study showing a connection between the program and superior test results).

There is so much I could say about this legislation. Such as why our government feels it can use tax money to bribe children to read? Or why the reward is offered only to low-income children? Or the fact that public libraries full of free books are available to kids whose parents are in any income bracket? Or how such a program puts those low-income children on the government dole early in life? Let’s be honest – one of the lessons that many kids will learn is that the government will pay them just to “show up” or do the minimum required when they become adults. And a lot of those kids will go on to live their lives with exactly that expectation – and find themselves part of the welfare spiral.

I’m tempted to write on all of these topics, but the real issue for me was summed up by the bill’s sponsor – Democrat senator Chris Romer from Denver. He believes that researchers at Harvard “cracked the code” for child motivation and then defended his position with this heart-ripping statement - “It's much cheaper to build children than to repair adults."

“It's much cheaper to build children than to repair adults."…

Why do I think that statement is against all that is right and good and godly? Because Mr. Romer has plainly stated the depths which our society has plumbed. That is – that the parent-child relationship is irrevocably broken, and so we have turned to something else to replace it – the government, acting through federal programs. Rather than fix the very root of the issue, we have decided to spend great amounts of money on an inferior solution. The government believes it now has the duty to “build children”.

In Malachi chapter 4, the Bible tells us that a prophet will be sent to “turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” That is the most desirable state for a family to be in. This verse is one of the primary reasons that my wife and I homeschool our children – not because they get a superior one-on-one education, but because it gives us far more hours in a day to turn our hearts toward each other. And it has been a tremendous blessing to our family for these past six years.

The idea of a government paying kids to read because society has given up on good parenting is at the farthest extreme from God’s design. The problem of uninvolved or uncaring parents cannot (and should not) be fixed by a government program. The verse in Malachi tells us that the source of the issue lies in the heart of the individual. And the heart is best changed by one thing – God’s gift of the Holy Spirit actively working in a person’s life.

Worldview Class #2 – Part 11 – Biblical Christian Biology

2010-05-02T14:14:00.004-06:00

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…..Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” Romans 5:12, 18

It is vitally important that the Christian worldview contain the creation story, as it literally happened in the opening chapters of Genesis. Without it, the whole meaning of God’s plan for salvation is watered down and lost.

Science – real, high-quality science – declares a creation beginning of the universe, much more than an evolutionary one. For example:

1. Scientists are uncovering a design in nature, one that cannot be random. Even prominent evolutionists such as Paul Davies have stated – “Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet of order.” Such statements are a blow to evolutionary theory.

2. DNA – the structure of DNA is so complex and fundamental to life that evolution has yet to explain how it could have “evolved”. It’s an “all or nothing” type of design. DNA is found in the lowest of life forms – fully functional and operating. Without its design in place from the moment that life began, there would be no continuation of life. Creation uniquely answers the question about how life could come about at the same time as DNA.

3. The inability for science to recreate spontaneous generation is a blow to evolutionary theory. Even non-creation scientists admit that they have been unable to recreate the process of life springing from non-life. Scientific arguments suggest that life and ozone in the earth’s atmosphere must have formed at the same time – a concept that points directly to the viability of creation.

4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the amount of useful, constructive energy in the universe is lessening with each moment. But an extrapolation of this law, backwards in time, would suggest that in an infinitely old universe this amount of energy would approach infinity – which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Modeling suggests that the universe has a finite existence and just “happened” at some point in the past – again, agreeing with the idea of creation.

5. Gene pool barriers must be crossed in order for one species to evolve into another. For a bird to become a dinosaur, or an ape to become a man, there must be a significant genetic “crossing”. Yet science cannot demonstrate the occurrence of a crossing between species – not in the lab, and not in the fossil record.

6. The fossil record condemns the idea of evolution and supports creation. The sudden appearance of all levels of life in the Cambrian period point to a created world. The lack of transitional forms between species cannot be explained by a rational theory (the theory of punctuated equilibrium, while convenient, has no basis in scientific experimentation). And there is no fossil record supporting the idea of beneficial mutations helping one species along into the formation of another. Again, the overwhelming evidence of fossils points to creation and the Genesis flood.

These specific points will be covered in a future series – “Seven Reasons Why Science Points To Creation”.

In the end, the question of worldview biology comes down to this single question – Where will you put your faith? Both evolution and creation require a measure of faith. In many ways, scientific evolution requires more, because so many things remain unexplained. Creation, on the other hand, is rooted in the one absolute truth that cannot be ignored – THERE IS A GOD.

**********************
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 10 – New Age Biology

2010-04-24T19:28:00.005-06:00

1) It promises a shared future divinity

2) It solves the worry of sin – by denying any original fall of Man

The promise of one day becoming gods ourselves is very tempting for some. Indeed, the New Age philosophy says that we are gods today – just imperfect ones. Like Marxism, this worldview is rooted in the desire to deny the existence of a single Creator of everything. Instead, a magical “force” drives the New Age movement along, gaining continual improvement and harmony (perhaps I’ve now moved from Star Trek to Star Wars?).

So, I ask a question. If we are constantly marching toward enlightenment and peace, then why is there still war and disease and starvation and cruelty? Have these things become better over time? I would make the case that they have not. In fact, the world seems to have become a much worse place in which to live than the 1950’s, when the Leave It To Beaver family lifestyle was popular. Cosmic humanists see this world as Paradise, which is slowly being unveiled. Joseph Campbell explained the disconnect between theory and observation of this world by saying, “That is the way it feels, but this is it. This is Eden.” Humans need to “see not the world of solid things, but a world of radiance.”

My advice – be very careful. The pull of New Age thinking is everywhere around us, and the danger in it is that it often lies very close to the truth. To see an example of this, reference Dan Brown’s latest book The Lost Symbol. This book progresses along a fascinating path of science and in some places, Biblical teaching, nearly ending in absolute Christian truth, only to take a final diversion away. It is so close to God’s truth at times – but close is not correct. That is why real truth must be absolute.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 11 – Biblical Christian Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 9 – Marxist Biology

2010-04-17T20:21:00.006-06:00

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

Three events occurred in the year 1859 which were critically interrelated to the subject of humanist thought on biology. Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in that year. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels began publishing their most concerted work on communist thought.

And Louis Pasteur proved that the concept of spontaneous generation was a falsehood (see The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)).

In prior posts, I have shown that spontaneous generation – the idea that all things came into existence from nothing – is a critical a priori assumption made by humanists. And yet, even in the face of Pasteur’s very convincing experiment, Engels said, “Pasteur’s attempts in this direction are useless; for those who believe in this possibility [of spontaneous generation], he will never be able to prove their impossibility by these experiments alone…” From my point of view, this is absolute proof that Marxists rely on the concept of faith at least as much as those who are Christians. In fact, it seems that the ability to trust in the “scientific” concept of “something from nothing” requires far more faith than to simply admit the possibility of a God and Creator of all.

When Marx read Darwin’s paper, he believed that he had finally found “the explanation” that he had been looking for as to how everything came into existence. Marxism relies primarily on the concept of atheism, and in the Marxist worldview there is simply no room for God. Thus, any explanation that can be created which denies God altogether is generally acceptable for the Marxist.

But Marx had a big problem with Darwin’s theory. Darwin himself had said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” This Darwinian concept is called gradualism, and is a pivotal element in teaching evolutionary thought. And yet, such a concept rails against the concept of Marxist dialectic – which says that history and society is formed by sudden and rapid changes. Georgi Plekhanov, a renowned Marxist in the early twentieth century said, “Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution. Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar [Darwinian] theory of evolution, which is based substantially upon the principle that neither in nature nor in history do sudden changes occur, and that all changes taking place in the world occur gradually.” For a very long time, Marxism struggled under the burden of this disconnect. Darwinian gradualism was generally accepted by the scientific community, but it disagreed fundamentally with the Marxist concept of sudden change.

All of that changed in 1972, when the concept of punctuated equilibrium was proposed. This handy theory completely explained away the annoying differences between Darwinian evolution and Marxist thought. But like many convenient solutions, it was founded on poor assumptions and bad science. Nevertheless, the idea of sudden changes between species is a generally accepted theory in today’s world. The quality of the science takes a back seat to a theory which confirms the Marxist worldview. Said differently – Marxists will believe anything that supports their viewpoint.

Isn’t it interesting that Christians are often the ones who are accused of establishing a conclusion and then finding facts to support it? But scientists who propose theories and then casually label them as facts are the ones who are lauded as “objective and unbiased”. Christians are made to feel that the idea of a God/Creator and the possibility of a young earth are silly, insubstantial science. But Christians should never forget these simple facts:

1. God created science

2. God made the laws of nature to be sensible and reliable

3. God has made these things plain to those who will but open their eyes to see what He has done

Psalm 19:1-3 tells us,

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.”

In a world dominated by humanist thought and worldly thinkers, God has set forth evidence after evidence before us – in the skies of nature and in all of our surroundings – proclaiming his handiwork. Sadly, as foretold in Romans chapter 1, there are still some who will not see it.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 10 – New Age Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Time For A Revolution

2010-04-14T20:44:00.005-06:00

I think our federal government is revealing its true colors, now more than ever. While many think that the government naturally exists to take care of the people, or that it is basically harmless, news stories seem to indicate that our national leaders has reached a new low in both senselessness and selfishness.

It seems clear to me that it’s all about power and money. Warning: the following news story may make you mad.

A recent article entitled Feds to Convince DC Area Taxpayers to Embrace $4.8 Billion Mileage Tax just goes to show the extremes that our government will go to in order to get our money. I have to admit I laughed at the title when I first read it – I mean, getting people to “embrace” a new tax? But when I read the article, I realized that it is exactly what they are trying to do. It seems that since gas tax revenues are down in Washington, DC – because people are driving less or using vehicles with better fuel economy – the government needs to replace the tax shortfall with a new tax. The idea is to install a GPS device on every vehicle, and the owner will pay a fee for every mile driven. No matter what road you drive on. Even if you’re just pulling the car out of the garage to wash it.

There are many crazy implications in this article. Here are just a few:

· The first thing the planning board is going to do is spend $400,000 of taxpayer money for a study “on how best to sell the public on a controversial per-mile tax proposal”. Note the irony – taxpayer money is being spent on a study to figure out how to get more taxpayer money.

· “The funds will pay for a series of telephone surveys and focus groups with residents and special interest groups with an eye to determining how best to package ideas that have generated significant public opposition when proposed in other areas around the world.” So – they know it’s not a popular idea, which will require them to figure out how to “package” the concept. I think “package” may be a code word for “lie about”?

· The GPS required for each vehicle would record the distance traveled, as well as the time and location of each movement. Can you say “invasion of privacy”?

· The reason for the new tax would be to make up for the current shortfall of $420 million – money that used to come from gasoline taxes. The new plan would raise ten times that amount – as much as $4.8 billion. I can only conclude that the law would not exist to replace revenues, but to increase them dramatically. I wonder where the money goes? Hmmmm….

· The article lists all of the current places where taxes are paid by motorists in the area – federal excise tax, state excise tax, personal property tax, vehicle registration fees, car insurance tax, special commercial vehicle tax, and parking/speeding tickets. Do you still think the government isn’t out to get ALL of our money?

· It also states that “The total of all motorist-related taxes in Virginia exceeds the amount spent on road building and maintenance in the state”. If true, why do they need to establish a new tax? Could it be that the money will be diverted elsewhere?

Can there be any doubt about what is going on here? Our current crop of politicians want more money, ostensibly to keep running the same programs that exist today. But we also can deduce that they want to invoke more and more programs, thus increasing and consolidating their power over us.

I have had enough. Our leaders have departed from what made this country great. They are trying to drag us to a place of mediocrity and dependent status. Never forget these words of our predecessors:

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln

So where does the money go? One wise writer told us a long time ago where it goes, and also about the fate of those who abuse their God-given power:

"The Lord enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: ‘It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses.’" - Isaiah 3:14

I think it’s time for a little revolution!

Offering Meditation – The Easter Gift

2010-04-06T19:05:00.002-06:00

He is risen!

God is good. He has given us so much in this nation – blessings and wonders abound all around us. It is said that our average lifestyle today is better than any king enjoyed two hundred years ago – the comfort and warmth of our homes, the quality and abundance of our food, and the convenience and speed with which we can travel from place to place are far superior to anything known in previous history. Each week, we take a few minutes to reflect on this, and ponder giving something back to God.

We sometimes think of our offering as a “gift”. Where does that idea come from? Is there a book, chapter, and verse to sustain this idea about gifts? Is it Acts 2:38? No, this says the gift of God is the Holy Spirit. What about Romans 6:23? Again, this says that the “gift of God is eternal life”. 2 Corinthians 9:14-15? No, this speaks of the surpassing greatness of God’s gift of grace. So where do we get the idea that we are giving God a gift?

Well, I found the book, chapter, and verse. It’s called Form 1040, Schedule A, Line 16 – “Gifts to Charity”.

This line of our tax forms implies that we have offered a gift. But can you give a gift to someone who already possesses the thing you are giving? All that we “own”, all that we possess – this is a gift from God to us. Was there ever a moment when all of this wasn’t His? In fact, though we sometimes think that God gave us outright ownership of what we have and that we are generously giving it back to Him, in reality God possesses everything.

God has a history of unselfish giving to mankind. Two-thousand years ago, Jesus Christ lived in heaven with God the Father. Yet, God chose to send him to earth as a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus lived, died, and lived again in order to fulfill God’s purpose – to give us one ultimate gift. Eternal life and victory over death – a priceless present. Aren’t you glad you don’t have to report that on Form 1040?

Worldview Class #2 – Part 8 – Secular Humanist Biology

2010-04-02T09:38:00.006-06:00

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.
*********************
Much of our world seems to revolve around science. This tendency has increased dramatically over the last hundred years as we gain more knowledge about our surroundings, and as technological leaps have enabled us to witness, measure, and create wonderful things. Indeed, for some, the wonders of science have almost become a cause for worship…

Among the many scientific areas of interest, the field of biology generates a greater intersection of scientific discovery and emotional response than any other. Topics touching how we got here, and whether we were created by God or formed through random chance, are usually accompanied by a passionate belief.

For the secular humanist, the guiding principle behind their opinion on biology is Darwinian evolution – the theory that matter was created from nothing and that man is continually evolving into a more capable being. The Humanist Manifesto I says “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process,” while the Humanist Manifesto II claims, “Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.” It is interesting that in the forty year period between these two documents, humanists migrated from “Humanism believes” to “Science affirms”. Is that indeed a fact?

Facts are funny things – they are supposed to be unimpeachable. Yet most objective scientists who take a look at evolutionary science will admit that there are serious flaws.

First, where did it all come from? For matter and energy to become a living, breathing life form after “millions of years”, there had to be a start. That is, where did the original matter and energy come from? To answer that question, evolutionary scientists rely on the concept of spontaneous generation – the creation of something from nothing. Yet with all of our knowledge and advanced lab equipment, science has not been able to duplicate this theory in any fashion – not even on the smallest scale. So, how does “science affirm” this very important piece of evolutionary theory? So far, it has not.

Skipping past this obvious difficulty in the theory so far, evolutionists next claim that natural selection, through the mechanism of beneficial mutations, allows life forms to evolve over time – nature will select those mutations which give the life form a benefit over competing animals and organisms. Again, do science and observation bear this out? In discussing this with a medical friend, his observation is that nature actually appears to frown on mutations. Many fetuses with a genetic mutation do not make it to birth. And those that are born with a mutation typically have a much shorter life expectancy than average. Consider it – when was the last time anyone ever demonstrated a mutation in an animal or a human being that gave an advantage to that being? Could it be that mutations are actually detrimental, and that a living being with no mutations is actually the one most likely to survive (from the Christian perspective, does God’s creation require a mutation to be “improved”?) What does objective science and real observation say about this piece of evolutionary theory? Again, the proof seems to be against this hypothesis.

Finally, evolutionists point to the fossil record as proof that their theory is correct. Carl Sagan went so far as to say that “evolution is a fact, amply demonstrated by the fossil record.” But is this true? If evolution were to be proven by the fossil record, two things would have to occur. First, fossilized organisms need to become increasingly more simple, the farther down one digs into the earth. The most complex organisms should be nearer to the surface, because they “evolved” later in history. Add to this that there needs to be a plausible ancestor relationship that can be constructed between the fossils that are found in these layers. Second, transitional forms need to found in the fossil record – these are the “missing links” that must have occurred between species. You should be able to find a multitude of examples that appear to be somewhere between a fish and a frog, or that are part bird and part-dinosaur. Yet, do fossil discoveries bear this theory out? In fact ,they do not. So, scientists modify their theory to include unprovable new ideas like punctuated equilibrium (where inter-species evolution occurs very quickly, leaving little time for fossils of these “between species forms” to be deposited). How convenient.

But evolutionary science fails to display proof of any of these three theories (spontaneous generation, beneficial mutations, and the fossil record of evolution). That leaves them with an empty, unproven theory – open for debunking.

Evolutionary scientists could recover from this had they not made one far greater mistake at the very outset of their philosophy. Humanism rejects the possibility that a Divine Creator could have existed to create matter, guide genetics, and create all of the species ever needed in just a few hours. Julian Huxley, famous humanist of the twentieth century, spelled this out when he said, “Modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance.”

To which I respond with a few questions:

1) Is it good science to initially reject the possibility of a supernatural Creator, without any experimentation or proof to make such a sweeping claim?

2) Are the theories of spontaneous generation and beneficial mutations, coupled with the lack of evidence of evolution in the fossil record, the best science that you can come up with? Don’t these theories require a great deal of faith, since the evidence doesn’t support them?

3) If we’re going to rely on faith, why not consider a “theory of creation” instead?

To me, the last question is intriguing. “Good science” is supposed to be objective. Most of us were taught in science class to assume nothing before conducting an experiment. Wrong assumptions lead to incorrect conclusions. By casting aside a very relevant possibility – that of a Divine Creator – humanism is painted into a very dangerous corner. The idea of humanism is built on two shaky foundations – one of Darwinian evolution, and one of atheism. If either of these foundations were ever to crumble, humanism would have its downfall.

I believe that science is beginning to question the reality of the theory of evolution. It seems possible that a new class of objective scientists will rise up to debunk the theory. Will they allow “the theory of creation” into the discussion? Romans 1:20 tells us that, “since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. This tells us that science – real science – can actually prove the existence of God. I can’t wait.

Finally, Romans 1:23 tells us,

“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Could it be that this scripture, especially the highlighted part, is fulfilled in the common textbook progression below?

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 9 – Marxist Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Thoughts On Higher Education – Part 3

2010-03-27T15:23:00.004-06:00

…continued from Part 2 – Why Not To Work For A Big Company and What To Do About It
**************
A college education is now perceived by most Americans as being necessary to “succeed” in the business world. Indeed, I felt this way when I attended college – there was never a consideration on my part to stop my education at the high school level. As I pointed out in Part 2, though, there are now some very fine alternatives to college – and they don’t cost a fortune, nor do they take place in anti-Christian settings.

As I pondered this concept, two questions came to mind. If I ever feel that my kids cannot achieve their full potential without a college degree, should I reevaluate what I want them to attain in this life? What is it all really about?

A very wise man, one who had vast resources at his disposal to “experiment” with this idea, once endeavored to answer that very question. He devoted himself to study (Ecclesiastes 1:13) and to explore wisdom. He sought out pleasure, and cheered himself with laughter and wine (Eccl. 2:1-3). He took on great architectural projects, and planted vineyards and gardens –massive projects that were a great source of pride (Eccl. 2:4-6). And he amassed great wealth and acquired many possessions with which to delight himself (Eccl. 2:8-9).

For the first time, I noticed that this progression from the Old Testament parallels the typical American dream. Get educated – set yourself up to have some fun – do great things that can be seen by men – gain wealth – and retire to do something that rewards all of your efforts. Incredibly, it’s right there in the Scriptures – a test of the American dream, played out by the wisest man who ever lived.

King Solomon pondered education, toil, possessions, and amusement. What was it that he learned?

“For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten. Like the fool, the wise man too must die!” – Ecclesiastes 2:16

Solomon concluded that even wisdom is not something that lasts, and while being a wise man is not a bad thing, it is not the ultimate goal. So, what is it that we should spend our lives striving for? Bible readers know the answer that is forthcoming. At the very end of the Old Testament book, the ultimate goal of man’s life is revealed:

“Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” – Ecclesiastes 12:13

When all that makes up a great life by human standards is considered - a college education, or wealth, or possessions, or wisdom, or great accomplishments – all of these pale in comparison to the one true goal given to mankind. Fear God and keep His commands. I believe this is the lesson that God has been pointing me toward as he placed the burden of writing these articles on my heart. My children are nearing the end of their time under my roof. The time to make decisions about their future quickly approaches. Can they really be happy if their ultimate lot in life is to have a Bible, a little bread, and a prayerful heart (like the famous 1918 Eric Enstrom photograph at the top of the page)? I must deeply consider what the Father wants for them. Whether it necessitates a college degree – or not – there is one principle that must override every other desire.

I want my children to know God and to have an eternal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. God wants that, too.

Because that is what it’s all about.

***************
Back to Part 1 of the Higher Education series

- or -

on to Bonus Material
***************
Other resources:
We’re Losing Our Own Kids
Jeff Myers – How Parents Subsidize the Destruction Of Kids’ Faith
How To Combat Secular Indoctrination

Worldview Class #2 – Part 7 – Biblical Christian Philosophy

2010-03-25T06:42:00.003-06:00

*********************

We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

Unlike the humanistic worldviews, Biblical Christian philosophy centers around one very unique belief – there is a God who exists and who is markedly different from the “natural” world. While most humanist viewpoints limit all things to only the natural world, or in the case of the New Age movement, a “non-natural” world ruled by man’s spirit, the Christian worldview opens the door to the “supernatural”.

As we will see in the future sessions on biology, it is “bad science” to eliminate the possibility of God at the outset of a philosophy, simply because one chooses not to believe. A tottering, ever-changing philosophy can be constructed - but is it wise to assume with no evidence to support it, that God does not exist? For this reason, many philosophers have come around to the idea that the Biblical Christian philosophy is the one which makes the most sense. C.E.M. Joad, once a staunch humanist, made this claim late in his life - “I now believe that the balance of reasonable considerations tells heavily in favor of the religious, even of the Christian view of the world.” In discussing philosophy, Sir Francis Bacon said, “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

The universe tells of a Divine Creator. Many scientific principles support the claim of intelligent design far better than that of humanist worldviews – non-spontaneous generation, DNA theory, and the delicate balance maintained between oxygen and carbon dioxide in our atmosphere – all of these tell of something much greater than random events. My favorite scientific principle to discuss is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I like to summarize as “Things fall apart”. We all experience this natural tendency toward decay and disorganization in our everyday lives – dust falls on our mantle and picture frames, junk mail piles up on the counter, the garage begins to tend toward disarrangement shortly after we clean and organize it. Such tendency toward disarray is accepted as normal in our minds. So why is it so easy for some philosophies to accept the idea that something so complex as the human body could be created from nothing, though a series of random events? Such a belief radically violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics – and yet scientists stand by it, claiming that anything is possible given enough time.

For the Christian, we live in a world which moves gloriously to God’s principles and laws. Gravity – a law unto itself – works without fail, because God made it so, and because he wants the consistency of such a principle to tell of his constant and unswerving nature. If gravity were random, life would be far more unpleasant, and such a life would not speak of an unvarying Divine presence. God made gravity to be the way it is for a very distinct reason.

Finally, God made our minds to be a reflection of His mind. We are created in His image, making us unique among all of God’s handiwork. As such, He has given us curiosity and the desire to learn and know. Philosophy is not a thing which should be avoided by Christians – quite the opposite. We possess a philosophy which not only explains everything around us – we possess a philosophy which is right. It is unfortunate that our world pushes aside the Biblical Christian viewpoint as being irrelevant, or not belonging in the same class as other humanist philosophies. In fact, the dedicated Christian should be willing and prepared to defend his or her own philosophical viewpoint with anyone. Supernaturalism explains more than simple naturalism. C.S. Lewis summarized the concept brilliantly,

“The Naturalists have been engaged in thinking about Nature. They have not attended to the fact that they were thinking. The moment that one attends to this it is obvious that one’s own thinking cannot be merely a natural event, and that therefore something other than Nature exists. The Supernatural is not remote and abstruse; it is a matter of daily and hourly experience, as intimate as breathing.”

**********************

Next: Worldview #2 - Part 8 – Secular Humanist Biology

-- or –

Back to the start of this series

-- or --

Back to Worldview Series #1

A Debt Burden for Future Generations

2010-03-19T17:53:00.003-06:00

One of the life lessons I continually strive to teach my children is this – don’t get into debt. A modest home mortgage is usually acceptable, but I urge them never to make a credit card charge that they can’t pay off at the end of the month, and not to take on student debt loans which will saddle them with debt precisely at a time when they can’t afford it.

Something even worse than taking on excess debt would be to take it on with no intent to pay it back – but instead, to pass the debt burden on to my kids. What kind of parent would do something like that? Hopefully no one you know.

But this is precisely what the government is doing with yet another spending measure. Oh, they will tell you that the Congressional Budget Office claims that the bill will reduce the deficit. But did you know that the House can send the CBO’s study back to them as many times as they need to – and change the assumptions used until the “facts” fit the story they want? It’s true. And you will note that the CBO’s report was due out last week, but the release kept getting delayed until it was finally produced yesterday, with numbers that Nancy Pelosi said she “loved”? What I want to know is this – what did the CBO come back with the first time? This is no different than hiring a crooked accountant to cook the books for a company until it looks profitable – except that the Congress-CBO game is perfectly legal. Such is the system we live in – but no one will talk about this rule.

The graph above shows that we cannot afford the government programs that we already have in place past the year 2035, and this is only taking into account Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - three government programs which have been run with poor financial discretion to date (can you say “bankrupt”?). I'm fairly certain that Medicare wasn't sold to the people as a deficit-producing program - but that is exactly what it has become. Add to this the certain deficit that bailout bills and healthcare will accrete, and the conclusion that I draw is that our children will be born into debt slavery. It’s not fair to them – they never had a choice.

Thomas Jefferson suggested a unique approach to the issue of taking on debt. Jefferson believed strongly that any new government debt should be paid off by current taxpayers, so as not to burden the next generation. He favored limiting any government debt terms to nineteen years – precisely to keep the repayment in the generation which enjoyed the benefits. What a brilliant idea! If only we had adhered to that concept after Jefferson proposed it!

Current-generation debt, not next-generation debt…I could live with that. As long as the CBO is obliged to tell the truth.

Aha – What Healthcare is Really About

2010-03-17T17:57:00.005-06:00

Yesterday, I made a mental note to write out these words (I guess if I “tweeted”, that would have been my outlet):

“The healthcare bill is no longer about care for Americans or about lowering costs. It has come down to one thing – if it passes, it will be to protect the egos of three arrogant people.”

I pondered the veracity of that, and decided that it is pretty close to complete truth. With all that I read about the bill (which as of this minute STILL has not been published for our review), it seems that the goal has been lost. Still, a part of me thought that the statement above might be a little harsh.

And then Dennis Kucinich, Democrat Congressman from Ohio, changed his mind today and announced his support for the bill. And said these words,

“You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America.”

So…..I guess my original statement was true. It’s no longer about healthcare for America– it’s about something much more self-centered. Is that what government was designed for?

Still unsure? Nancy Pelosi revealed the same thinking when she said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Why We Have Three Branches of Government

2010-03-15T21:03:00.002-06:00

The whole healthcare debate rages on, and we may see the conclusion this week. Debate can be a good thing. It often allows the free exchange of ideas, especially if those ideas are placed accurately into the market of free thinking. Then others can join in and endeavor to understand the issues, make points, and perhaps vote their wishes through an elected, representative government.

So, what exactly is in the 2,700 page healthcare bill? The truth is – no single person knows. President Obama doesn’t know entirely what all those words add up to, nor do Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. It was written in a hurry by many, many people, and I don’t see that a great effort has been made to reconcile those pages against each other, or even to boil down what is in there for the purposes of public consumption. The politicians pushing the bill just want a vote on it, and soon. Their vote cannot be made in a wise or knowledgeable way – our senators and representatives cannot know all of the implications or mandates in those 2,400 pages unless they read and study it. None of them has confessed to doing so – so their vote would have to be cast in ignorance. Is that good government?

The issue that bothers me most in this debate is the push being made by the executive branch (the office of the President) to ram this legislation through, with a blatant disregard for balance. While the majority of the American people are now polled as being against the healthcare legislation, the President continues to push for its passage.

He has the right to push for what he believes in - really. But he is also pressing Congress for a “nuclear option” – to pass the bill through the reconciliation process (I won’t cover that process here – suffice it to say the process exists as a little “trickery” to pass legislation with a 50+% vote, accompanied by a promise to change the bill at a later date.) Those future changes promised by the reconciliation process are not guaranteed, hence, the Stupak coalition and the possibility that a distaste for abortion may actually be the death-knell for this bill.

Even more disturbing is a process being discussed called the “Slaughter solution”. Under this scheme, Democratic leaders will pass the bill by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House. Yes, it’s for real – the Democratic House Rules committee chairwoman is advising on this possibility. Oh, by the way, her name is Louise Slaughter. Ironic, isn’t it?

And this brings me to my point. Our founding fathers designed our current system of government to have three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial. Checks and balances were created between the three to prevent any one branch from “taking over”. It’s a wise system – created by men who saw how a monarch could seize power and govern at his whim. As journalist Bill Whittle recently said,

The modern Tea Party movement is made up of people peacefully protesting tax rates that, taken in total, approach half of all of their income; protesting the takeover by unelected czars of entire sectors of the economy; protesting the drunken orgy of spending not only the present wealth of the nation but the wealth of our children and our children’s children; protesting waste on a scale where a billion dollars – one thousand million dollars – is essentially undetectable, a rounding error… all of that, which its critics decry as mouth breathing paranoia… while the founders, enshrined in the mural surrounding these documents and which these same critics claim to revere – these founders, the greatest minds ever assembled in one place in the history of the world – took their country to war against the greatest military force on the planet because of a one-cent tax on tea.
Think about that! Forget the penny tax! It was never about the tax. It was about the idea of being ruled by people who cared not a whit about your lives but who only saw you as a source of revenue for their own grand ideas.
The why of America – when it’s all said and done – is simply this: we will be governed with our consent, but we will not be ruled.

Does that remind you of anything? For the full text of Whittle’s excellent article, read here.

I am trusting that the founders’ vision will result in a good outcome. If the executive branch twists the arm of the legislative branch to push through harmful, financially unsound, and unpopular legislation, there is always the possibility that the judicial branch will step in to intervene. And ultimately, there is always the possibility of the people of this nation rising up with a little “revolution” on their minds, right?

Thoughts On Higher Education – Part 2

2010-03-13T08:58:00.007-07:00

…continued from Part 1 – The Old Model – Why We Used To Get a College Degree

*********************

Recapping Part 1 - The value of working for a big company used to be substantially different – the employment was stable, companies helped fund employee health plans, and pension plans were offered to aid in retirement. Today all three of these benefits are being stripped away by the big companies – they no longer want the added expense. Thus, in a fairly short amount of time, the idea of owning one’s own business has grown extremely attractive. And here is a key point - you don’t need an expensive college degree to hire yourself as the owner of your own business.

To be sure, some professions still require a college degree in order to participate – such as the medical or teaching fields. My oldest child is considering the medical profession, so I’m not off the college hook by any means. But if these fields are not your goal, you may want to reconsider the idea of paying tens of thousands of dollars to obtain a degree from a university. I believe that the day is fast approaching when that little piece of paper called a diploma will mean a lot less than it has in the past.

The second reason that I hesitate to send my kids to a school of higher learning – especially a state school or Ivy League institution – is due to the culture that pervades these places. I went to a state school - so did my wife. I saw the drunkenness, partying, disregard for authority, and even the Marxist thought that pervades many of our universities. I attended a Psychology class where part of the standard curriculum was to show pornography to the class during one entire class lecture, in an effort to expose students to "another viewpoint" (by the way, that was one of the few days in my four year college career that I skipped class). I saw boys and girls openly groping each other in their dorm rooms, with the door open, in an effort to impress others with their exploits.

All of this had an effect on me - most notably, to strengthen my faith and cause me to step out and be "set apart". Sending my kids into such an environment scares me – it should scare any Christian parent. I have little doubt that my children will be able to handle that cultural pressure after they leave our nest - much like I was forced to adapt. But is it absolutely necessary for their development? Must I pay tens of thousands of dollars to an institution trying to undo the very moral character that my wife and I spent eighteen years nurturing in each of our children? Is there a chance that one of them might stumble, and be forever lost and separated from God's kingdom? There is that chance - and that makes the choice about higher education a very important decision.

One more thought strikes me - and it is bound to be unpopular with many. My own vision for my two girls is first and foremost that they grow up to be stay-at-home mothers, raising and homeschooling their own children in an effort to perpetuate a multi-generational vision of God-serving families. "Stay-at-home mom" was the vision that my wife and I had for our own family when we first were married (homeschooling came a little later). We vowed not to let a desire for money overtake that vision. And so, even though she was very close to overtaking me as the biggest moneymaker in the house, my wife quit her job just before our first child was born. We have never regretted that decision, and I am firmly convinced that God has blessed my career and our earnings because of it. Am I saying that women should never have careers or earn money, even after they have children? No, I am not - that is not a Biblical tenet. I'm simply saying it is the vision that I have for my own family. God tells us, "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). So I’ve chosen a vision. It may not come to pass, and I will be fine if God wills another direction for my girls.

Want another practical viewpoint – from a real, live, potential college student who has decided to pursue a bold path? Check out Miranda Trujillo’s excellent blog post here. When dealing with the idea of higher education, she writes:

College. It prepares you for a career. As I have said before, I want to be a Godly wife and mother someday. My first priority is making sure that I can someday put my kids first - raising, training and educating them with the bulk of my time. So college, first of all, would train me for an occupation that I would neglect once children came into the picture - maybe even before children if the occupation kept me from focusing on my home.
College also takes lots of money. Money that I don't have. So not only would it train me for a career that I wouldn't use for long - it would put me into debt for this training. Debt that might cause me to continue working at the career I don't want in order to pay off the training I needed for the career I don't want... [italics mine]

That last part is brilliant. I pray that my own kids maintain such a perspective, and that they marry others who are this wise.

Finally, what can we do to prepare our children to earn a living – without the necessity of transferring thousands of dollars to a university? The Christian Home Educators of Colorado have devised a solution – it’s called the AME program. AME stands for “Apprenticeship, Mentorship, Entrepreneurship”. This program pairs willing mentors with interested students to explore, learn about, and work in various professions – without the expense of “checking it out” for years in college (where it is still rare to gain exposure to practical, hands-on experience). Moreover, a student can decide to change their profession after some work experience without the expense of tacking on an additional year or two of college. Finally, the program is designed to bring students under the Christian mentorship of professionals – with an eye toward developing them to work for God’s service (something you don’t get in most colleges). Check out their link at AME.

To Part 3 – Ultimately, what is it all really about?

Thoughts On Higher Education – Part 1

2010-03-06T07:10:00.007-07:00

It’s hard for me to believe that I am less than two years away from making a decision about college for my oldest child. In all honesty, it doesn’t seem like that long ago that I was receiving my own college degree.

For many years, the question of higher education for my children had a known formula – get a college degree, find a good job with a stable company, earn a comfortable amount of money, and take care of their family above all else.

So why am I suddenly having serious doubts about this plan?

I think the root of my concern is twofold: 1) I believe that the “value” of a traditional college education has been fading over time, and 2) I see many university programs as being fundamentally anti-God. Do I really want to pay thousands of dollars to an institution that would purposefully try to lead my child away from God’s eternal reward? And then place them in a career where they work, not for God’s kingdom, but for man’s - for half of their waking hours?

I truly believe that the value of a college education, seen even from a worldly viewpoint, is quickly eroding. Things are not the same as they were in the world of business twenty years ago, when I graduated with a degree in electrical engineering. To be sure, my university experience taught me much in terms of social skills, working with others, and how to live with another human being in a twelve foot-by-twenty foot space for a year (a skill I'm not anxious to repeat, but I leave that to God). But those lessons can also be learned outside of the college campus – and you don’t have to pay $10,000 a year, or more, for the privilege.

During my four years of university, I also learned how to manipulate thermodynamic equations, take Laplace transforms, and calculate the magnetic field surrounding a charged Gaussian sphere. And yet, in over twenty years of employment for various technical and engineering-driven companies, I have never had to perform a single one of those exercises. To make the point even more plain, I left college with no clue as to how to wire a simple three-way house electrical switch (the kind used at the top and bottom of a stairway), even though I accepted my diploma – in electrical engineering. This is not to say that I’m ungrateful or spiteful of my college education. I'm thankful for how God has blessed me through the education I received. It has served me and my family well for twenty years. God has blessed us tremendously through my career (and He has divinely intervened at least a couple of times…but that is another story).

My degree got me interviews with big companies, even though my practical knowledge was very limited. That model works well when big companies exist to hire college graduates. The model worked like this – you pay your money to a college institution - who gives you a piece of paper after four or five years of modest effort – and that piece of paper becomes your “ticket” to interview for the world of big business.

But this model has less value if the goal is to work in smaller business or, better yet, if you want to run your own business. If business ownership is the goal, then practical knowledge and a grasp of how to manage a startup is what is needed. And fortunately, starting out a career saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt is not required to run your own business. That money (the money that the parents and student have saved for a college education) could be directly applied toward a business startup, preferably after a period of industry mentorship and training.

Think about it – if you have $50,000 saved or purposed for higher education, you can: 1) pay it to a university, get a degree, and jump on the big business bandwagon, or 2) spend some time in a mentorship or training program (while likely earning some money) and then use the $50,000 as seed money to get your child started as the owner of their own business….having already been exposed to the career they will pursue. How many of us have wanted to start our own business at one time, but lacked the money to do so? Would it have been a better investment of that money to apply it directly to our dream, instead of indirectly through a university? For some, I'm sure the answer is "Yes".

These are hard words, full of risk, for those of us who face the decision about higher education. But keep this in mind - isn't the ultimate desire for Christian parents to keep their children directed toward a godly purpose? As long as we keep that final goal in mind, and dutifully ask for God's wisdom, we can count on His intervention to make the right decision...and take the right risk.

To Part 2 – Why Not to Work for a Big Company and What To Do About It

*******************************
Related Reading:
Washington Post article – College Costs Rise While Educational Quality Suffers

If I Had Been Invited To The Healthcare Summit…..

2010-02-25T21:04:00.005-07:00

I’m a little disappointed that I wasn’t invited to today’s healthcare summit in Washington. Because it would have been interesting to get the perspective of some typical Americans, instead of a lot of Congressmen, Senators and federal executives – none of whom will have to participate in the very healthcare legislation they are discussing (because they have their own health benefits system - which is far better than anything they propose to leave with us).

Anyway, had I been given the privilege to attend and ask a few questions, this is what I might have said:

1) If 30 million more people will have health care coverage than the number who have it today, AND the system will be administered by the federal government, why should I believe the claim that it will get less expensive?

2) If our healthcare system is so broken, why did the Premier of Canada’s Newfoundland recently leave his country and fly to Florida to have heart surgery?

3) What do you say to the majority of Americans who don’t want government interference in healthcare? Do you believe you are smarter than they are? Is this representative government…or something else?

4) Should I dump my pharmaceutical stocks now? What if I work for a health insurance company – should I start looking for a new line of work?

5) How does the current trillion dollar proposal fit with the campaign promise to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year?

6) Is there any reason to believe that today’s session was nothing more than posturing in an effort to place blame on others when things turn sour later?

Interestingly, President Obama had a run-in with Senator Lamar Alexander about whether or not premiums would rise under the plan. The President said this was a great example of where people didn’t have their facts straight – and it turns out that he was the one who was incorrect (and he has apparently admitted it). See the video below.

Worldview Class #2 – Part 6 – Cosmic Humanist (New Age) Philosophy

2010-02-23T19:40:00.007-07:00

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************
We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

While secular humanism philosophy glories in naturalism (nothing is spiritual), and the Marxism worldview believes in a variant of that called dialectical materialism, the Cosmic Humanist (or New Age) philosophy goes completely in the opposite direction. For a New Age follower, everything is considered to be spiritual rather than material – people, rocks, light, methane gas – you name it. This philosophical belief is called non-naturalism.

This belief system admits to a God – and we are it. All things, living or otherwise, are considered to be part of a larger “God-force”. David Spangler, a principal proponent of New Age writing, says, “From a very early age, I was aware of an extra dimension or presence to the world around me, which as I grew older I came to identify as a sacred or transcendental dimension.” Such thinking pervades our society at every level today – in public schools, colleges, and community activities.

A popular bumper sticker seen around town proclaims that “The Earth is your mother” (something I’m pretty sure my mother, who endured a great deal of pain to bring me into this world, might find offensive). This New Age thinking comes from the Gaia Hypothesis (pronounced “guy-uh”) – a belief system that considers the earth to be alive. In fact, Gaia enthusiasts believe that the earth behaves like a living organism, able to regulate its own conditions and adapt for its own survival.

Consider the Gaia thinking around something as common as the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air. From a Cosmic Humanist standpoint, here are some “known” facts:

· At one time, the earth had no atmosphere – it was a big, cold ball of rock circling the sun
· To create an atmosphere, the evolution of photosynthetic life forms was required
· Molecular oxygen is a waste product of plant photosynthesis – plants use carbon dioxide and water to create oxygen, while gathering sunlight during photosynthesis
· Atmospheric oxygen is now at a very convenient 21% level, and appears to have remained stable for “millions” or even “billions” of years
· If this concentration were to edge up to as little as 25%, forest fires would be raging across the globe (oxygen is a great catalyst for fires)
· Carbon dioxide is created by combustion, exhalation, volcanoes and plants at night (when there is no sunlight for photosynthesis)
· The oxygen/carbon dioxide balance seems to maintain itself very well, and has done so for a very long time

The conclusion that a New Age proponent reaches is that the earth is “alive” and takes charge of regulating this gaseous mixture – because that is what is good for its own survival. It all sounds very neat and tidy. But I have a couple of questions. Looking back to the second bullet point, how did the earth “know” that it needed an atmosphere? Why wasn’t it “happy” just being a cold rock? Does the earth “regret” its move now that evil man is trying to destroy the environment?

New Age philosophy often gets very close to the truth, but then veers off down an unfortunate path. They see the beauty of balance in the way things work – in this case, the regulation of our atmosphere, even when changes are introduced into the system. But instead of seeing this as a great and grand design by an all-powerful God, they attribute the wonder of such things to “smart” matter and material. In short, New Age thinking talks about us being God, but never about God being God.

Romans 1:20-23 bears repeating:

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

When a person sees the handiwork of God, but fails to attribute the grandeur to God, they become fools. Join with me in prayer, that these people’s eyes can be opened once again to the wonder of God’s creation – and that they will proceed down the path of giving God the glory.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 7 – Biblical Christian Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 5 – Marxist/Leninist Philosophy

2010-02-20T13:17:00.003-07:00

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************
We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

Frederick Engels, a founder of Marxist thought, said, “The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved…by a long and protracted development of philosophy and natural science…But if the…question is raised: what then are thought and consciousness, and whence they come, it becomes apparent that they are products of the human brain and that man himself is a product of nature, which has been developed in and along with its environment.” To the Marxist, everything is reduced to the material.

Marxists view matter as the thing that is indestructible and eternal, the same classification that Christians would give to God. In essence, this puts matter in the place of God for a Marxist. Marxism has been called a “godless theology” for this very reason. But this explanation of materialism is not quite enough to fully satisfy the proponents of this philosophy, and so they add one more element to the mix.

Marxists believe that matter is meant to be pitted constantly against other matter – with the result that things are ultimately and progressively improved (their scientists seem to overlook that this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics). This philosophical approach is called dialectical materialism. A dialectical conversation can be thought of as two people arguing opposite sides of an issue with the intent of ultimately establishing a higher truth. The same thought applies to dialectical materialism, with matter taking the place of conversation.

In dialectical materialism, a thesis is proposed (such as “all mankind should be treated justly”). An opposite anti-thesis is then offered (“all mankind is unequal and should be treated with various levels of justice”). The experiment is put into play, and the two sides oppose each other, using history as a lab, and involving real people and real occurrences. Ultimately, the result is a new synthesis (“some new form of justice is invented”). Then, the new synthesis is proposed as a thesis, and the process begins again. Marxists believe that this process repeats over and over throughout history, with the result being an increasingly improved society. This is precisely why they have invited the proletariat uprising against the bourgeoisie for so long. And should the proletariat classes eventually win this battle, they will just have to be pitted against the next “better” thing.

Marxists use this philosophy to create theories which support their beliefs. Evolution’s punctuated equilibrium is a good example of this – where evolution supposedly takes a huge leap over intermediary evolutionary steps and new species just “happen”. Just as they have written the possibility of God out of any of their thinking, they can create theories such as this to overcome facts – such as the lack of evidence of intermediate species in the fossil record.

Above all, Marxist thought absolutely rejects the existence of God as a possibility. All of their theories must be crafted and adjusted around this belief. And, like Secular Humanism, such a philosophy leaves little hope for those who long for something more after this life. After all, to a Marxist, we are just “matter”.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 6 – Cosmic Humanist Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

The Necessity of Risk

2010-02-13T12:05:00.005-07:00

How often do we pray for God to reveal His exact will to us, so that we can get on with the business of living it out?

I have to confess that this is often a strong theme in my prayer life. When faced with an impending choice or question, I try to picture God sitting next to me, patiently listening to my request, and then answering me with a clear “Yes” or “No”, followed by details of exactly how things should happen and what I should do. I don’t expect Him to magically drop a note with directions in my lap, but I do yearn for Him to give me a leading within my heart as to what my next move should be.

I’m beginning to think that God rarely acts in that manner. To be sure, He has provided men and women with some very specific instructions through angels in the past. “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus” is a pretty detailed sentence, but I have to say that I’ve never received such specific words directly from an angel.

Does this mean that I don’t have the equivalent relationship that Jesus’ father had with the Lord, or that God has somehow left us out of direct communication for a while? Both are very possible, but consider another possibility that I came across recently.

God might not speak to me directly because He wants me to step out and take risks. There actually might not be a right answer to the question of whether I should change careers, or whether I should buy a different house. My mind often thinks that there is only one correct path to my life and that I need to be diligent in finding it. But I’m starting to see that this might not be true.

Instead, it seems to me that God might be pleased with either choice, as long as He is glorified in the result. And that is the challenge for me. John Piper, in his book Don’t Waste Your Life, says this:

‘Jesus had made this clear. He said, for example, in Luke 21:16, “You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death.” The key word here is “some”. “Some of you they will put to death.” This word puts the earthly life of the disciples in great uncertainty. Not all will die for the cause of Christ. But not all will live either. Some will die. And some will live. This is what I mean by risk. It is the will of God that we be uncertain about how life on this earth will turn out for us. And therefore it is the will of the Lord that we take risks for the cause of God.’

Is it really God’s will that I not always have the answers that I’m looking for? In the past, I thought it might be more a function of how sincere I was in prayer. If I really worked at prayer and my own devotion to the topic, if I drew myself into a room and earnestly cast aside any distractions, and if I honestly believed that God was listening and that He would answer my prayer, then eventually I could break through the walls and He would reveal Himself directly to me. These desires are not bad, and can contribute to a greater prayer life. But I’m learning that God might be less concerned about the “work” of my prayer, and more interested in me simply placing my trust in Him – in simply acknowledging that He is in control of my life. That is where risk enters my life. That is where things get uncomfortable.

Just like a father or mother desires their children to trust that he or she will take care of them when they are ill, God desires us to place our lives in His hands – not necessarily to know in advance how things will work out. “Trust me to take care of you and to take the right steps for your well-being” are often the words that a parent gives to their child. Sometimes, those steps are painful and require a complete giving over of wills. In the end, I think God is more glorified when people see that we are fully dependent on Him – even more than if we were to live a nearly perfect, unstained life. In fact, risk can result in failure in this life…and still be exactly what God wants us to do. John the Baptist took a risk by preaching about Jesus’ coming. He was beheaded for his efforts – something most people would consider as failure – and, yet, that is exactly what God’s will was for him, because his life and his message are a large part of the Messiah’s story.

This may change the way I pray in the future. Rather than asking for specifics, and being disappointed when I don’t get a tangible answer, I desire to spend more time just placing my life in the Father’s hands, and trusting that He is in control of everything. Taking risk and facing the fear of the unknown require me to do exactly that.

Worldview Class #2 – Part 4 – Secular Humanist Philosophy

2010-02-09T19:00:00.006-07:00

*********************

Philosophy is defined as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

The secular humanist views all parts of philosophy through the lens of naturalism – the theory that everything in the world is made up only of natural elements and forces. From this viewpoint there is no possibility that anything spiritual or supernatural can exist. This follows the same line of thought as that of organicism – where society and individuals are thought to behave much the same as a biological organism. In essence, the secular humanist may not regard mankind as much more than a fancy paramecium.

Indeed, the Humanist Manifesto II (1973) states, “We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.” The humanist relies on science as the foundation for all discoveries and knowledge – and science, to them, may only reveal things that are of the natural world. The supernatural cannot be measured, and thus, cannot exist to a humanist.

Yet, even in this worldview, the act of faith seems to be required. Take, for example, the Higg’s boson particle. I’ve written about this scientific experiment before, with the Large Hadron Collider being built in Europe for the express purpose of discovering a particle which has never been observed. But, scientists are so sure that it does exist that they’ve invested $4.5 billion into a huge particle accelerator to prove the theory. Isn’t this a faith of sorts? Can science be termed a religion of its own?

Even the humanist will admit to this. Corliss Lamont, the twentieth-century socialist philosopher, said, “Faith in the methods and findings of science, it is said, is just as much a faith as faith in the methods and findings of religion. In answer to this we can only say that the history of thought seems to show that reliance on science has been more fruitful in the progress and extension of the truth than reliance on religion.” Is such a statement true, though? Hasn’t science been guilty of “changing its mind” over periods of time, as theory and knowledge changes? I can think of the flat-earth theory, naming atoms as the smallest particles of matter, and the global-cooling-wait-global-warming-wait-global-cooling-again debates as examples of science’s inability to get at the truth.

Further, secular humanist philosophy is embodied in the concept of monism – the idea that the mind (or personality, or soul) is nothing more than a physical phenomenon. It’s all neurons firing, chemicals reacting, and flesh decaying – nothing more. Monistic theory gives man no hope for anything beyond death. It also postulates that the human mind is just one step along an infinitely long evolutionary change. To many humanists, the human mind may soon be replaced by something better – the computer. Victor J. Stenger has said, “Future computers will not only be superior to people in every task, mental or physical, but will also be immortal…”

Clarence Darrow, famed American lawyer, summed up the secular humanist viewpoint in this short paragraph:

“The purpose of man is like the purpose of the pollywog – to wiggle along as far as he can without dying; or, to hang to life until death takes him.”

What a sad view of life. By denying God and his supreme existence, the humanist not only lives a life of hopelessness, but exchanges an eternal promise of life praising the Creator for an everlasting condemnation. And science cannot save him from that.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 5 – Marxist/Leninist Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

A Little Lesson On Economics, Mr. President

2010-02-06T08:27:00.004-07:00

Workers are disgruntled, benefits are being cut, and the unemployment rate continues to hover around ten percent. All of this has occurred while our nation’s leaders have been increasing the government’s deficit spending and were wooed by expensive, job-killing myths like government-run healthcare and “climate change” legislation.

So this week, President Obama revealed his best idea for jobs reform. A $5,000-per-head tax credit to businesses for each job they create. Put simply, the government will pay employers $5,000 for each hire they make, as a way to provide incentive for them to bring on new employees.

This is government naiveté at its pinnacle. What Mr. Obama fails to understand is that businesses aren’t sitting back with too much work to do, and a fear of hiring more people to do it. The problem is that businesses feel too restricted and overtaxed by the government, and so collectively there is not enough work to go around.

Obama’s idea is tantamount to the concept of paying our children five dollars every time they smile – and thinking that this will make them truly happy children (okay, okay – I recognize that our children may think this is a great idea and that it will lead them to happiness – but we all know it won’t be true happiness, right?). Paying them a token amount for an outward expression of behavior does not change them fundamentally inside.

Similarly, Obama’s plan does nothing about the root of the issue - job creation. Even FDR in the 1930’s understood that building highways and bridges and railroads actually created work for people to do. The New Deal had at least the advantage that it struck at the heart of the matter – it put people to work. Still, I’m no fan of Keynesian economic theory that thinks it acceptable for government deficit spending to somehow spark private industry. I believe that less government intrusion is what is needed.

One more thing – let’s not forget about that $5,000. I point out an obvious question – where does it come from? Clearly, it comes from the taxes paid by people who already have jobs and can afford to pay taxes to the government. More simply put, Obama’s plan takes money from the pockets of people who have it, and puts it into the pockets of those who don’t. That sounds an awful lot like socialism to me.

I am stunned at the clear lack of basic economic understanding in play here. Again, if a business had enough work to hire someone new, they would likely do so. Obama’s plan creates the risk that less-than-honest employers will cut hours or benefits for existing employees so that they can bring on new employees – and collect $5,000 for each. At the root, a jobs plan needs to first create work – and jobs will follow. Better yet, get the government out of the “jobs plan” business, cut corporate and personal taxes, and free up businesses to do what they do best – innovate, produce and hire more people. It’s not rocket science.

Worldview Class #2 – Part 3 – Sacred and Secular

2010-02-03T18:02:00.006-07:00

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Pay particular attention to the part of the verse in bold, that is, that we can glean God’s design by looking at what has been made. From a Christian worldview, the ten topics mentioned above are reflected in aspects of God's nature and the creation and order that He established…which makes all of these topics sacred, and not secular.

That’s right – our viewpoint on a subject such as psychology should reflect what God has revealed to us about the science of human behavior. Similarly, we should treat economics with knowledge given to us by God on the best way to deal with finances. Does the Bible talk about these subjects? It absolutely does.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer says, “There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is the reality of God, which has become manifest in Christ in the reality of the world.” And so, we conclude that there are not two distinct compartments in our life, but rather, there is just one. Everything created by God is sacred and set apart for His purposes. We do not live dual lives – a “religious” one on Sunday, and a worldly one the rest of the week. Instead we “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” This is no small task, but it is important for us to realize that every good thing is sacred in God’s eyes.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 4 – Secular Humanist Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Constitutional Law Degrees Must Not Be What They Used To Be

2010-01-30T07:41:00.006-07:00

I know the biggest takeaway moment from President Obama’s State of the Union address has been his indecorous criticism of the Supreme Court. But I think there was another moment that deserves some attention as well. At one point, he said,

“We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.”

I find three things worthy of mention here.

1) Um, the Constitution says nothing about us being created equal – that would be the Declaration of Independence, Mr. President. Specifically,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

2) The Constitution is designed to protect U.S. citizens, even if they don’t abide by the law. Our civil protection is not jeopardized if we break the law. In fact, much of the law is written to ensure the fair treatment of those who have broken it. That makes us a pretty rare find in the political world. Or, at least, I hope it still does.

3) The President said that if we “adhere to common values”, then we should not be treated differently, and that this is “enshrined in our Constitution”. Again, a search on the word “values” or its synonyms turns up nothing like this in the document. And the idea of “common values” is completely in conflict with the first part of his statement – that “we find unity in our incredible diversity”. Even more disturbing, is he implying that some of us will lose the privilege of equitable treatment if we stray from this generic set of common values? Hmmmm…he may actually be right about that one. I’m thinking of Tim Tebow and the upcoming Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad.

One would think that a Constitutional law scholar from Harvard would have a better grasp of what the document actually says. But maybe, an Ivy League degree isn’t worth as much as it used to be. Perhaps he should consider sitting down for a moment to read the Constitution…

**********************

If you are interested in learning more about the principles in The U.S. Constitution, please visit the Constitutional Education series.