It's been a big issue. Al Gore has gotten pretty rich and famous because of it. It's caused a lot of consternation and debate. And it has been the source of endless fascination for me in my blogs. But, friends, the global warming problem has finally been solved.
It's time to turn that CO2 into baking soda.
What??
Skyonic, a new company run by Joe Jones out of Texas, is leading a breakthrough technology in keeping CO2 emissions out of the air from power plants. They use the "Skymine Process" to address:
...the significant issue of climate change through the mineralization of CO2 as carbonate compounds. SkyMine™ is a post-combustion carbon capture and sequestration technology that works with any large-scale stationary CO2 emitter (e.g.- coal, natural gas or oil fired power plant). The process is effective, ecologically and thermodynamically sound, and can be done profitably. Since the technology can be retrofitted to existing facilities or designed into new ones, it addresses both the current problem of climate change, and the future demand for cleaner energy to support development.
Sodium bicarbonate (better known as baking soda) is the primary byproduct of this process. As Skyonic says on its website, the Skymine Process is effective and can be done profitably. This solves the economic issue with cleaning up pollution (people can make money off of the CO2??). It also helps reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere significantly.
Currently, Skyonic is developing a large system that will be able to consume the waste of a 500 megawatt power plant (in 2009). Imagine what could happen if this was copied all across the U.S. and the world?
First of all, the environmental benefits could be enormous. If the widespread implementation of this system allowed humans to cut down on carbon emissions to the point that they did not reach 500ppm, we might be able to stop the Arctic ice from turning to slush and raising the sea level 20 feet. Or so they say. I'm not sure who "they" are, or how grounded that science is. It's interesting how hard it is to get a firm or definitive, scientific answer on the subject.
I like the idea behind greener-tech. But will economists? Or lawmakers? Or politicians?
Back to the idea of baking soda, the soda that is created is actually cleaner that food grade baking soda. Could this become a specialty item? Not if the Skymine Process becomes widespread. What would happen to the tons and tons of baking soda? It would most likely be reduced to landfills, where it would sit inert and harmless, as opposed to its more vicious airborne cousin, CO2.
I know I've asked this before (maybe not in these words in my blog), but does this greener-earth idea coincide with God's plan for the universe and the expansion of His Kingdom? I don't know. What I do know is that the heart of man is wicked (Jer. 17:9; at least before one is saved--according to John Elderedge--and likely others) and wants to get the best for himself. This includes energy producers, but it also includes consumers--you and me--who often ignore the fact that we leave the lights on, take long showers, and don't buy energy star appliances (or CFLs!!!) all the time. Are we contributing to the demise of our world? Maybe. But is our world supposed to be turned into a paradise, or is it okay to let it burn because God is going to remake it anyway? What about the concept of being good stewards?
I think that the steward argument is the strongest for why we ought to take care of the world. 1) It's not ours to begin with. 2) Our children and their children on down will inherit this world (barring a speedy second coming) and what we do today determines our legacy. 3) Jesus says that if we are faithful and true in a few small things, He will trust us with many, greater things. 4) We still have to live in the world. You don't throw trash around in your house and leave it all over the place, do you? Why should you do that in the world? Is it not God's domain that we are told to tend, subdue, and cultivate?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
P.S. Here's the article if you're interested in a further read: http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html or see skyonic's website at http://skyonic.com/index.php
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Stem cells and ethical questions
In the past week, a Japanese scientist successfully created a stem cell from an adult skin cell, as opposed to embryonic stem cells as are normally used.
This is a breakthrough. Pro-life activists everywhere will be encouraging the development of this new technology. Finally, the systematic destruction of life for scientific purposes is at an end!
Not so fast. First, the fact that this process of creating stems cells from skin exists 1) does not mean it is widespread, 2) does not mean it is easy, 3) does not mean that there is currently adequate funding to accelerate the development of it (at least at the moment), and 4) does not mean that the research on embryos will be stopped.
Why won't it be stopped? The idea is: research to help those who are hurting should not be slowed at all in any area while it still provides a potential to save more lives. The underlying emotion behind the idea is kind (and even Christian), in that its goal is to help others. Yet pro-lifers argue that such scientists are in moral error because the destruction of embryos is still murder. But this poses an interesting quandary--what is the lesser of the two evils: to "kill" embryos who cannot think or feel so that one might help those who do have feelings and thoughts? Or to "save" the embryos at the expense of living, breathing people who live in pain who are about to die, and might live and even have quality of life if they got the right newly-researched medical treatment? What is more cruel? Destroying life that will not even feel its departure, or "condemning" living, breathing, whole, emotionally and mentally attuned people by leaving them to die?
I use emotionally-charged language to get you to think about it. I've thought about the issue of abortion, for example, from the pro-life side of view for all my life. But recently, my barber (of all people), explained to me the pro-choice argument in a way I hadn't heard it before--in a way that seemed more caring toward the mothers than I've seen most Christians act. He made me recognize that those expectant mothers are whole, real people who may get ignored or even condemned because of their decision to get an abortion. This is exactly the kind of situation that I would expect that Christians could do the most good--loving the mother (even if she goes through with the abortion), and worrying about her soul, instead of saving the baby at the cost of all else. I hate to propose this kind of dilemma, but what is better: saving the soul of the mother or the body of the child?
I agree, the dilemma is unfair, but I think it has a real element to it. What if the baby is saved? What's to stop that baby from being abused, unloved, and grow up to perpetuate the cycle of sin and death? Should Christians be going for saved souls and transformed lives over physically saved bodies? If it comes down to one or the other (which in some cases, I think it actually might), then what are we to choose? What would Jesus, the maker and sustainer of life, choose?
It's a difficult question. I hope that questions like this become a non-issue because of things like non-embryonic stem cell research (though I'm not sure that the abortion issue will be drastically affected because of this new research). However, the questions that I asked in the paragraph above, what do you think? Even if it becomes pretty much a non-issue, what is right? Or why should we care if it is a non-issue?
These are the kinds of questions that I believe that Christians need to deal with. However, when it comes down to it (from a Christian perspective), it's about love. Loving the scientist who is destroying embryos. You don't have to love what he's doing, but you are called to love him. Love that woman who is getting an abortion, or who got an abortion. The world will be changed by Christ's love--it is only in this way that we can truly bring healing and peace to a lost a broken world. Everything else is just details. Agree?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Even though I like to take a scientific/ethical look at a lot of these
This is a breakthrough. Pro-life activists everywhere will be encouraging the development of this new technology. Finally, the systematic destruction of life for scientific purposes is at an end!
Not so fast. First, the fact that this process of creating stems cells from skin exists 1) does not mean it is widespread, 2) does not mean it is easy, 3) does not mean that there is currently adequate funding to accelerate the development of it (at least at the moment), and 4) does not mean that the research on embryos will be stopped.
Why won't it be stopped? The idea is: research to help those who are hurting should not be slowed at all in any area while it still provides a potential to save more lives. The underlying emotion behind the idea is kind (and even Christian), in that its goal is to help others. Yet pro-lifers argue that such scientists are in moral error because the destruction of embryos is still murder. But this poses an interesting quandary--what is the lesser of the two evils: to "kill" embryos who cannot think or feel so that one might help those who do have feelings and thoughts? Or to "save" the embryos at the expense of living, breathing people who live in pain who are about to die, and might live and even have quality of life if they got the right newly-researched medical treatment? What is more cruel? Destroying life that will not even feel its departure, or "condemning" living, breathing, whole, emotionally and mentally attuned people by leaving them to die?
I use emotionally-charged language to get you to think about it. I've thought about the issue of abortion, for example, from the pro-life side of view for all my life. But recently, my barber (of all people), explained to me the pro-choice argument in a way I hadn't heard it before--in a way that seemed more caring toward the mothers than I've seen most Christians act. He made me recognize that those expectant mothers are whole, real people who may get ignored or even condemned because of their decision to get an abortion. This is exactly the kind of situation that I would expect that Christians could do the most good--loving the mother (even if she goes through with the abortion), and worrying about her soul, instead of saving the baby at the cost of all else. I hate to propose this kind of dilemma, but what is better: saving the soul of the mother or the body of the child?
I agree, the dilemma is unfair, but I think it has a real element to it. What if the baby is saved? What's to stop that baby from being abused, unloved, and grow up to perpetuate the cycle of sin and death? Should Christians be going for saved souls and transformed lives over physically saved bodies? If it comes down to one or the other (which in some cases, I think it actually might), then what are we to choose? What would Jesus, the maker and sustainer of life, choose?
It's a difficult question. I hope that questions like this become a non-issue because of things like non-embryonic stem cell research (though I'm not sure that the abortion issue will be drastically affected because of this new research). However, the questions that I asked in the paragraph above, what do you think? Even if it becomes pretty much a non-issue, what is right? Or why should we care if it is a non-issue?
These are the kinds of questions that I believe that Christians need to deal with. However, when it comes down to it (from a Christian perspective), it's about love. Loving the scientist who is destroying embryos. You don't have to love what he's doing, but you are called to love him. Love that woman who is getting an abortion, or who got an abortion. The world will be changed by Christ's love--it is only in this way that we can truly bring healing and peace to a lost a broken world. Everything else is just details. Agree?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Even though I like to take a scientific/ethical look at a lot of these
Sunday, November 18, 2007
DNA mapping
This week, I am going to write about a subject that I find a deep interest in. I have found that I enjoy researching things that have to do with what may happen in the future. For example, my senior thesis in high school was about Hydrogen technology and whether that would be helpful (and exist) in America years down the road. If you've been reading all of my posts, you may see this vein. I've talked about Global Warming. I've written a research paper for a class last year that had to do with creating diamonds. For that one in particular, I speculated about the future if a diamond microchip were to come into being, after pointing out a company that is working toward this. I used to read a Christian kids book series set in 2037 about a paralyzed kid who controlled a robot through his mind and explored the surface of Mars. I like to look forward. I am also intrigued by the past, and the classics. I like great ideas, and I like scientific research. That's what I'm going to discuss now.
Wired just released a number of articles about DNA research. The one that I read [http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/15-12/ff_genomics?currentPage=all] is about a company called 23andMe. In 2003, the entire human genome was mapped for the first time--all billions of strands worth. Now, that information is being commercialized. YOU can have part of your DNA decoded. For $1000, the company will take your saliva sample and send back a report explaining what your DNA reveals. While they say that this is not a diagnoses (which is partly said for legal reasons) this evaluation may point out a predisposition toward cancers or health issues, thus even life-expectancy. In a sense, it's almost like telling the future. The article goes into depth explaining how this works. If you want a synopsis, read the article. It's five pages and very informative. Or you can go to the website of 23andMe [https://www.23andme.com/] and watch some very cool flash videos that explain a lot about DNA. But where I want to take this blog is: what happens once people can read their DNA, and in a way, their future?
The author of the article, Thomas Goetz, puts this paragraph almost at the end of his article:
"The question becomes, then, whether you want to embark on this path of oddsmaking in the first place. Many individuals won't want to know what their genome has in store. Others will, only to join the worried well — those who live in fear of fulfilling their genetic destiny. And, of course, those genotyped or sequenced at birth won't have that choice; it'll already have been made for them."
Will people, if they do find out what information their DNA contains, attempt to alter their behavior and lifestyle in such a way as to beat the odds and live a longer life? In other words, is the information contained within the DNA, once learned, life-changing? I suspect it is. It may change the way that people view their lives. If a doctor predicts that you will live to be 45 vs. 85, that will have a effect on how you view your life. What are some of the implications of this new technology?
As there are thieves in the world, and identity theft already happens with credit cards and digital information (someone's identity is stolen once every 9 seconds). Imagine the ease of identity theft DNA reading technology becomes as affordable as aspirin (who knows what 30, 60, or 100 years will bring? What did people think about computer technology?). Suppose a celebrity eats a meal in a cafe, then throws away his trash...and someone else pulls that trash out and picks off the person's DNA and then sells the information online? Or what if someone is stalking you and does the same thing to you? That information seems a lot easier to obtain than someone's social security number, yet it is of an even more personal, sensitive nature. If a person steals your social security number, they take your identity and a lot of problems result. If someone steals your DNA, they have the information for your physical being and how you are constructed. In a sense, they haven't stolen your identity. They've stolen you! Either way, that's a lot of information. And information is power.
What if you don't want to know "your future" and don't want to be mapped? As Goetz said, what about those children who are born and their DNA is predetermined? What of them? They won't have any choice, but they will have people telling them how their lives should be lived from day one. This reminds me of Plato's Republic, where men have different souls--thus necessitating what they do with their lives. What if the child has the athletic gene? What if he doesn't? What practical implications does this have?
Are you thinking of Hitler's Germany? What's to stop people from trying to create the uberman? Once DNA is mapped, will it not be possible to alter it? And if it is altered, couldn't people (at least the rich ones) design what kind of child they'd like to have? Then how would people be treated? This is reminding me a little too much of Huxley's Brave New World.
Once you've created the perfect human, then why not clone them? The technology to clone is already available for other mammals--I suspect that it's only a matter of time before someone tries it on a human. If it's not done right the first time, someone will do it again until it is done right. The lure of fame and glory is just too great--even if it is deemed illegal in every nation in the world, someone will find a way, eventually.
What are Christians to think of this? Well at least, here is one thing that will not change: human nature. Man still hates his fellow man, and wants to be God. That's a problem. But is cloning wrong? Is genetic alteration wrong? Is learning your DNA wrong? Was artificial insemination considered wrong by Christians when it first started, and should it be considered evil? How about birth control medicine?
See, what I do not want to have happen is that Christians respond and say that these things in the paragraph above are wrong, without first deeply thinking about God's creation, His plan for the world, how technology intersects it, and about the moral implications of it all. I do not want Christians to get a bad rap for this like they often have. Think about Copernicus. He proposed a theory of the universe that Christians responded adversely to, but as we know, Copernicus was right. Let's not do that again. Let's think about these issues without allowing our culture or our times to skew our vision. What if, in 200 years from now, a copy of a person's DNA was included with their birth certificate (because it was just common procedure and no one thought anything of it)? Wouldn't people then, Christians and not, look back on us and (if we condemn these things) shake their heads?
Let's think about this from a different angle. Though we shouldn't be pursuing knowledge of the future so that we might live longer SO THAT WE MIGHT BE LIKE GODS, is it not wise for us to look forward in this way in the name of alleviating suffering? Suppose we could increase quality of life by diagnoses such as may come into being (and are already being done on a very small scale)? If that technology goes mainstream, maybe the church ought to actually be behind it! As James says, "Religion that our God and Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: To look after orphans and widows in their distress..." (James 1:27). What if this technology allows us to better look after the weak, or even better, prescribe a lifestyle that will lead to less people becoming the poor, widowed, and orphaned? Then shouldn't we, as the body of Christ, pursue this?
I'm not saying that the answer is "yes." I like to look forward, but what's more, I like to ask questions, provoke thought, and hopefully aid a more God-honoring response. We are able to create culture and help others in this world (in fact, I would argue that we are commanded to do so). So the question becomes: "how?" Or more specifically: "how ought this advance in the area of DNA mapping fit within the framework of Biblical Christianity?" and "how ought Christians respond to this advance?"
That, my dear reader, is the question I leave you to ponder.
If you would, oblige me by reading one last set of questions. What is it to be made in the image of God? What is the image of God? What is it to be human? What part of yourself do you have rights to? I suspect that these will be the questions of discussion in Christian and philosophical circles years from now (maybe 25 years, as they say that it takes about 30 years for an idea or technology to be feasible for mainstream consumption). Why not be forward-thinking and answer these questions now, and lead the charge on what the Christian position should be in regard to these issues?
Are you with me?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Wired just released a number of articles about DNA research. The one that I read [http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/15-12/ff_genomics?currentPage=all] is about a company called 23andMe. In 2003, the entire human genome was mapped for the first time--all billions of strands worth. Now, that information is being commercialized. YOU can have part of your DNA decoded. For $1000, the company will take your saliva sample and send back a report explaining what your DNA reveals. While they say that this is not a diagnoses (which is partly said for legal reasons) this evaluation may point out a predisposition toward cancers or health issues, thus even life-expectancy. In a sense, it's almost like telling the future. The article goes into depth explaining how this works. If you want a synopsis, read the article. It's five pages and very informative. Or you can go to the website of 23andMe [https://www.23andme.com/] and watch some very cool flash videos that explain a lot about DNA. But where I want to take this blog is: what happens once people can read their DNA, and in a way, their future?
The author of the article, Thomas Goetz, puts this paragraph almost at the end of his article:
"The question becomes, then, whether you want to embark on this path of oddsmaking in the first place. Many individuals won't want to know what their genome has in store. Others will, only to join the worried well — those who live in fear of fulfilling their genetic destiny. And, of course, those genotyped or sequenced at birth won't have that choice; it'll already have been made for them."
Will people, if they do find out what information their DNA contains, attempt to alter their behavior and lifestyle in such a way as to beat the odds and live a longer life? In other words, is the information contained within the DNA, once learned, life-changing? I suspect it is. It may change the way that people view their lives. If a doctor predicts that you will live to be 45 vs. 85, that will have a effect on how you view your life. What are some of the implications of this new technology?
As there are thieves in the world, and identity theft already happens with credit cards and digital information (someone's identity is stolen once every 9 seconds). Imagine the ease of identity theft DNA reading technology becomes as affordable as aspirin (who knows what 30, 60, or 100 years will bring? What did people think about computer technology?). Suppose a celebrity eats a meal in a cafe, then throws away his trash...and someone else pulls that trash out and picks off the person's DNA and then sells the information online? Or what if someone is stalking you and does the same thing to you? That information seems a lot easier to obtain than someone's social security number, yet it is of an even more personal, sensitive nature. If a person steals your social security number, they take your identity and a lot of problems result. If someone steals your DNA, they have the information for your physical being and how you are constructed. In a sense, they haven't stolen your identity. They've stolen you! Either way, that's a lot of information. And information is power.
What if you don't want to know "your future" and don't want to be mapped? As Goetz said, what about those children who are born and their DNA is predetermined? What of them? They won't have any choice, but they will have people telling them how their lives should be lived from day one. This reminds me of Plato's Republic, where men have different souls--thus necessitating what they do with their lives. What if the child has the athletic gene? What if he doesn't? What practical implications does this have?
Are you thinking of Hitler's Germany? What's to stop people from trying to create the uberman? Once DNA is mapped, will it not be possible to alter it? And if it is altered, couldn't people (at least the rich ones) design what kind of child they'd like to have? Then how would people be treated? This is reminding me a little too much of Huxley's Brave New World.
Once you've created the perfect human, then why not clone them? The technology to clone is already available for other mammals--I suspect that it's only a matter of time before someone tries it on a human. If it's not done right the first time, someone will do it again until it is done right. The lure of fame and glory is just too great--even if it is deemed illegal in every nation in the world, someone will find a way, eventually.
What are Christians to think of this? Well at least, here is one thing that will not change: human nature. Man still hates his fellow man, and wants to be God. That's a problem. But is cloning wrong? Is genetic alteration wrong? Is learning your DNA wrong? Was artificial insemination considered wrong by Christians when it first started, and should it be considered evil? How about birth control medicine?
See, what I do not want to have happen is that Christians respond and say that these things in the paragraph above are wrong, without first deeply thinking about God's creation, His plan for the world, how technology intersects it, and about the moral implications of it all. I do not want Christians to get a bad rap for this like they often have. Think about Copernicus. He proposed a theory of the universe that Christians responded adversely to, but as we know, Copernicus was right. Let's not do that again. Let's think about these issues without allowing our culture or our times to skew our vision. What if, in 200 years from now, a copy of a person's DNA was included with their birth certificate (because it was just common procedure and no one thought anything of it)? Wouldn't people then, Christians and not, look back on us and (if we condemn these things) shake their heads?
Let's think about this from a different angle. Though we shouldn't be pursuing knowledge of the future so that we might live longer SO THAT WE MIGHT BE LIKE GODS, is it not wise for us to look forward in this way in the name of alleviating suffering? Suppose we could increase quality of life by diagnoses such as may come into being (and are already being done on a very small scale)? If that technology goes mainstream, maybe the church ought to actually be behind it! As James says, "Religion that our God and Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: To look after orphans and widows in their distress..." (James 1:27). What if this technology allows us to better look after the weak, or even better, prescribe a lifestyle that will lead to less people becoming the poor, widowed, and orphaned? Then shouldn't we, as the body of Christ, pursue this?
I'm not saying that the answer is "yes." I like to look forward, but what's more, I like to ask questions, provoke thought, and hopefully aid a more God-honoring response. We are able to create culture and help others in this world (in fact, I would argue that we are commanded to do so). So the question becomes: "how?" Or more specifically: "how ought this advance in the area of DNA mapping fit within the framework of Biblical Christianity?" and "how ought Christians respond to this advance?"
That, my dear reader, is the question I leave you to ponder.
If you would, oblige me by reading one last set of questions. What is it to be made in the image of God? What is the image of God? What is it to be human? What part of yourself do you have rights to? I suspect that these will be the questions of discussion in Christian and philosophical circles years from now (maybe 25 years, as they say that it takes about 30 years for an idea or technology to be feasible for mainstream consumption). Why not be forward-thinking and answer these questions now, and lead the charge on what the Christian position should be in regard to these issues?
Are you with me?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Televised Debates: help or hurt elections? Thesis revised.
Last week, I wrote a paper for my American Political Thought and Practice class about the effect that televised presidential debates have on elections. I finished and sent in the paper 24 hours ago, and have thought about the situation a little bit more. Writing the paper caused me to rethink my thesis.
I argued that there are positives and negatives to televised debates, but I said that the potential for positive influence outweighed the negative, so it was a good thing that these debates were televised. It is good because it informs the voters and allows the candidates message to go out to a greater audience than just where the candidate has physically travelled. It also forces candidates to be effective communicators. However, it has three negative influences. One, it causes the media to turn elections into a scorecard of "who's winning." Two, it makes the candidates "appeal to the masses," since voters can be swayed by emotion, it allows them to feel informed without actually causing them to make wise decisions. And three, it reduces the chances of getting great, "Level Five" leaders--leaders who do a great job leading companies are often not very charismatic; rather, they do a good job of assigning praise to others and making sure that everything gets done with excellence, without being the center of attention.
I argued: in theory, the best man will win out because the voters have been informed of what each candidate believes, and televised debates help inform voters. I agree with this still... but the problem is that I qualified my statement by saying: In theory.
Theoretically, I could fly unaided by any machine. Theoretically, I could walk on the moon. Theoretically, black could be white and white could be black... in an alternate universe. But theses are not to be built on theories. Especially when the evidence shows that when human nature is taken into account, it seems that the opposite case is true.
In my thesis, I think I wanted to argue that televised debates should help elections. They ought to. That would be ideal. However, my way of seeing what the world should be like obscures what the world is like. I look forward with hope and thus see the present inaccurately. It is thus true that my gift has a negative aspect to it. I would say I am gifted with the ability to look into a potential future and see what could become of a situation. But then, I sometimes forget that the potential future is only a potential.
Such was the case with my paper. At the time I wrote my negative arguments, I actually found them pretty convincing. Then I didn't do a good job answering those objections, and ultimately (in my paper), I cut out the objections section altogether. In fact, leaving my paper as I had submitted it, I think the reader might actually be persuaded against my conclusion than for it. The weird thing is, I think I might agree with them.
I find my second two negative arguments to carry the most weight. For the one about the leaders, I think that a workhorse kind of President may be better for the nation. Then again, if a President's job is to "preside," maybe he doesn't need to be a level five leader. This causes me to think: what should the executive position of our government look like? What ought he do? What kind of person would fit that position best? I'll leave those questions for us to consider.
My other negative argument is the most convincing to me. I don't have a very idealistic view of our culture. It's taken itself to Hell in a hand-basket. Think about appeals to the masses. What is being appealed to? What appeals to people? Sex, money, and power. Then everything else under the sun. I know there are some people who are concerned about the government and what it becomes, and honestly consider each candidate to discover who is the best man (or woman) for the job. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I think about a million men who sit by their T.V.s watching the Superbowl with a beer in on hand and the remote in the other. What happens when those million men go to the polls? If all you live for is sports, then maybe you'll just vote for the guy who uses sports analogies... because you can relate to him better than the other guy. Maybe you don't vote at all, and leave that to people who have something to gain from a particular candidate, and that selfish ambition is why they are voting for that candidate.
The Framers of the Constitution created a document that worked with human nature. Yet putting political debates on television seems to go against the very idea of television. When watching television, aren't we supposed to be entertained? So what subconscious message is being sent? Politics should entertain us? We should vote for the candidate we like just like we would on American Idol?
I think I disagree that televising election debates is a good thing. But I think my problem doesn't lie with the debate, or the election, or the politics, but the television. And I would add, the deeper issue of the culture (who is voting). I've explained what I now think. Do you agree? The pieces just don't add up. My thesis is wrong.
Briefly, why is human nature so depraved? I think to the Bible passage that says: "The heart is deceitful above all else. Who can know it?" Why do we want things like sex, money, and power... but in such a messed up way?
It is because of the Fall. Sin messed up everything. When Adam chose to disobey God and eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, his choice was so destructive and insidious that all of his children have lived with that sinful nature. Sin is twisting what is good into a form so that it is no longer good. It is placing self above God and others. It is living at less than what we ought to live at, while forgetting how we ought to live.
The good news is that Jesus came to make us right with God. What He did is changing the world for the better even now, and that will be completed when Jesus comes again. Creation will be regained. And the political problem will be solved. That's looking forward. And oh, what a good and real future that is.
I argued that there are positives and negatives to televised debates, but I said that the potential for positive influence outweighed the negative, so it was a good thing that these debates were televised. It is good because it informs the voters and allows the candidates message to go out to a greater audience than just where the candidate has physically travelled. It also forces candidates to be effective communicators. However, it has three negative influences. One, it causes the media to turn elections into a scorecard of "who's winning." Two, it makes the candidates "appeal to the masses," since voters can be swayed by emotion, it allows them to feel informed without actually causing them to make wise decisions. And three, it reduces the chances of getting great, "Level Five" leaders--leaders who do a great job leading companies are often not very charismatic; rather, they do a good job of assigning praise to others and making sure that everything gets done with excellence, without being the center of attention.
I argued: in theory, the best man will win out because the voters have been informed of what each candidate believes, and televised debates help inform voters. I agree with this still... but the problem is that I qualified my statement by saying: In theory.
Theoretically, I could fly unaided by any machine. Theoretically, I could walk on the moon. Theoretically, black could be white and white could be black... in an alternate universe. But theses are not to be built on theories. Especially when the evidence shows that when human nature is taken into account, it seems that the opposite case is true.
In my thesis, I think I wanted to argue that televised debates should help elections. They ought to. That would be ideal. However, my way of seeing what the world should be like obscures what the world is like. I look forward with hope and thus see the present inaccurately. It is thus true that my gift has a negative aspect to it. I would say I am gifted with the ability to look into a potential future and see what could become of a situation. But then, I sometimes forget that the potential future is only a potential.
Such was the case with my paper. At the time I wrote my negative arguments, I actually found them pretty convincing. Then I didn't do a good job answering those objections, and ultimately (in my paper), I cut out the objections section altogether. In fact, leaving my paper as I had submitted it, I think the reader might actually be persuaded against my conclusion than for it. The weird thing is, I think I might agree with them.
I find my second two negative arguments to carry the most weight. For the one about the leaders, I think that a workhorse kind of President may be better for the nation. Then again, if a President's job is to "preside," maybe he doesn't need to be a level five leader. This causes me to think: what should the executive position of our government look like? What ought he do? What kind of person would fit that position best? I'll leave those questions for us to consider.
My other negative argument is the most convincing to me. I don't have a very idealistic view of our culture. It's taken itself to Hell in a hand-basket. Think about appeals to the masses. What is being appealed to? What appeals to people? Sex, money, and power. Then everything else under the sun. I know there are some people who are concerned about the government and what it becomes, and honestly consider each candidate to discover who is the best man (or woman) for the job. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I think about a million men who sit by their T.V.s watching the Superbowl with a beer in on hand and the remote in the other. What happens when those million men go to the polls? If all you live for is sports, then maybe you'll just vote for the guy who uses sports analogies... because you can relate to him better than the other guy. Maybe you don't vote at all, and leave that to people who have something to gain from a particular candidate, and that selfish ambition is why they are voting for that candidate.
The Framers of the Constitution created a document that worked with human nature. Yet putting political debates on television seems to go against the very idea of television. When watching television, aren't we supposed to be entertained? So what subconscious message is being sent? Politics should entertain us? We should vote for the candidate we like just like we would on American Idol?
I think I disagree that televising election debates is a good thing. But I think my problem doesn't lie with the debate, or the election, or the politics, but the television. And I would add, the deeper issue of the culture (who is voting). I've explained what I now think. Do you agree? The pieces just don't add up. My thesis is wrong.
Briefly, why is human nature so depraved? I think to the Bible passage that says: "The heart is deceitful above all else. Who can know it?" Why do we want things like sex, money, and power... but in such a messed up way?
It is because of the Fall. Sin messed up everything. When Adam chose to disobey God and eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, his choice was so destructive and insidious that all of his children have lived with that sinful nature. Sin is twisting what is good into a form so that it is no longer good. It is placing self above God and others. It is living at less than what we ought to live at, while forgetting how we ought to live.
The good news is that Jesus came to make us right with God. What He did is changing the world for the better even now, and that will be completed when Jesus comes again. Creation will be regained. And the political problem will be solved. That's looking forward. And oh, what a good and real future that is.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
King Tut
For the first time, King Tut is being revealed to the public...in person. 85 years ago, Howard Carter found the tomb, famous because it is the only one that has been completely untouched by grave robbers. Tut was found in the tomb with all of his belongings--a massive horde gold and artifacts. Only today, Tut has been put on display.
King Tut got a CAT scan in 2005 and the scientists found that his body had been broken in 18 places. It seems like he died due to an infected fracture in his thigh, but that is uncertain. Essentially, the destruction was so bad that the scientists decided to only put his head on display. The rest of his body was not displayed. The mummy is not well preserved, as far as mummies go.
I am reminded of the trip I took to Philadelphia to see the King Tut exhibit last semester. I went with Dr. Bleattler's Egypt class just for the experience. When I got there, I was disappointed that King Tut was not there, but I should not have been disappointed. The sheer number of things in the many rooms was spectacular. It ended showing a projected image of King Tut, as well as the coffin of someone else (his mother?) whose coffin was made of three layers of solid goal and weighed many hundreds of pounds. At the time, I calculated the amount of money that it would have cost to make it, and I don't remember now, but it was certainly in the millions. And that did not even take into account the fact that it is a priceless historical artifact. What a find!
At the museum, I also saw a show on the Kings in a planetarium. I've only been in a planetarium once or twice before, and it was fascinating. Staring up at the domed ceiling, it almost seemed like a gigantic IMAX theater. The video explained the Valley of Kings and how the Egypians were amazed by the stars. It gave me an interesting look into their culture.
At my old school, second grade was the Egypt year, where all of the students spent the year studying Egypt as their history class. I, unfortunately, missed that experience because of the way the school was structured when I was there. But as I have been learning more about Egypt in Western Civ last year and through trips and newspaper articles, it has made me wonder about the culture. Dr. Bleattler says, it's not that the Egyptians were obsessed with death, which is what it seems like to us today. Rather, they were obsessed with life.
The culture intrigues me. In a way, it is very similar to Christianity in that they believe in the immortality of the soul, the importance of life, and the existence deity. However, it is very misguided and dissimilar in that they were concerned about the pharoahs as gods and believed in many gods. However, I sense a seed of truth in their belief that eternal life is important and worth striving for. The interesting difference is that what happens in the afterlife depends on how the person is buried and treated AFTER he dies. In the Christian perspective, it all depends on what happens BEFORE you die. And clearly, there are many differences between the gods of Egypt and the I AM. But in striving for eternal life, as is evidence through the mummification and tombs and pyramids, they spent more effort toward it than potentially any other culture. I respect them for that. They were so concerned with what was transcendent that they spent much of their life seeking a way to gain a better life. What would happen if more people did that today? What if many Americans were not so concerned with sex, money, power, and the rest, and instead sought what was good for their souls? Would not more turn to Christ Jesus and live a life that is fulfilling, on earth AND beyond? But it does not happen.
How could one change culture in this way? How could people like you and me instill in the culture at large a desire to seek life? After all, there's only on thing that's absolutely sure (and in the case of every human being, save two), and that is death. Everyone dies. So why not spend a part of your life to determine what will happen after you die? Why leave yourself resigned to the idea that you are going to live your life and die, and that's all? What about the rest of eternity?
We occasionally hear about the whackos that have themselves frozen shortly after they die, with the hope that medicinal technology will get so good in a hundred-plus years, that they will be able to be brought back out of their state of hibernation and brought back to life. Some people are concerned about life...but they think medicine is the answer. The Egyptians believed that preparing a place for the deceased gave them the ticket to life. Christians, like myself, believe that Jesus is the answer. Why are we right?
Truly, the Bible is the only comprehensive, completely defensible worldview. It makes the most logical sense when viewed within itself. I coheres. What I mean by this is, if you grant the starting assumptions, such as a creation and the fall of humanity, then the rest follows logically. Like any worldview, it requires faith to believe the starting premises and certain points.
While that is a good rational reason for Christianity (albeit it takes volumes of explaning to express), the real way to prove that Christianity is true is by looking at how a Christian is supposed to live (and how Jesus Christ himself lived). The two commandments are to love God and love others. In a world filled with brokenness and hate, Christianity often comes as a welcome relief. As Dinesh D'souza said in the debate that was held by TKC, Christians are responsible for many of the great, loving things in the world. I agree. It's true that many Christians do not live up to the right standards. But if anything, that is further proof that what they say is right: the world is broken because of sin and not what it should be, but God has come to change that and is changing them. There is no more powerful a testimony than that of a changed life.
Well King Tut may have tried to get eternal life, but he did not find the one true God. Blessings be on all those who do find Him, whether they are kings or not.
King Tut got a CAT scan in 2005 and the scientists found that his body had been broken in 18 places. It seems like he died due to an infected fracture in his thigh, but that is uncertain. Essentially, the destruction was so bad that the scientists decided to only put his head on display. The rest of his body was not displayed. The mummy is not well preserved, as far as mummies go.
I am reminded of the trip I took to Philadelphia to see the King Tut exhibit last semester. I went with Dr. Bleattler's Egypt class just for the experience. When I got there, I was disappointed that King Tut was not there, but I should not have been disappointed. The sheer number of things in the many rooms was spectacular. It ended showing a projected image of King Tut, as well as the coffin of someone else (his mother?) whose coffin was made of three layers of solid goal and weighed many hundreds of pounds. At the time, I calculated the amount of money that it would have cost to make it, and I don't remember now, but it was certainly in the millions. And that did not even take into account the fact that it is a priceless historical artifact. What a find!
At the museum, I also saw a show on the Kings in a planetarium. I've only been in a planetarium once or twice before, and it was fascinating. Staring up at the domed ceiling, it almost seemed like a gigantic IMAX theater. The video explained the Valley of Kings and how the Egypians were amazed by the stars. It gave me an interesting look into their culture.
At my old school, second grade was the Egypt year, where all of the students spent the year studying Egypt as their history class. I, unfortunately, missed that experience because of the way the school was structured when I was there. But as I have been learning more about Egypt in Western Civ last year and through trips and newspaper articles, it has made me wonder about the culture. Dr. Bleattler says, it's not that the Egyptians were obsessed with death, which is what it seems like to us today. Rather, they were obsessed with life.
The culture intrigues me. In a way, it is very similar to Christianity in that they believe in the immortality of the soul, the importance of life, and the existence deity. However, it is very misguided and dissimilar in that they were concerned about the pharoahs as gods and believed in many gods. However, I sense a seed of truth in their belief that eternal life is important and worth striving for. The interesting difference is that what happens in the afterlife depends on how the person is buried and treated AFTER he dies. In the Christian perspective, it all depends on what happens BEFORE you die. And clearly, there are many differences between the gods of Egypt and the I AM. But in striving for eternal life, as is evidence through the mummification and tombs and pyramids, they spent more effort toward it than potentially any other culture. I respect them for that. They were so concerned with what was transcendent that they spent much of their life seeking a way to gain a better life. What would happen if more people did that today? What if many Americans were not so concerned with sex, money, power, and the rest, and instead sought what was good for their souls? Would not more turn to Christ Jesus and live a life that is fulfilling, on earth AND beyond? But it does not happen.
How could one change culture in this way? How could people like you and me instill in the culture at large a desire to seek life? After all, there's only on thing that's absolutely sure (and in the case of every human being, save two), and that is death. Everyone dies. So why not spend a part of your life to determine what will happen after you die? Why leave yourself resigned to the idea that you are going to live your life and die, and that's all? What about the rest of eternity?
We occasionally hear about the whackos that have themselves frozen shortly after they die, with the hope that medicinal technology will get so good in a hundred-plus years, that they will be able to be brought back out of their state of hibernation and brought back to life. Some people are concerned about life...but they think medicine is the answer. The Egyptians believed that preparing a place for the deceased gave them the ticket to life. Christians, like myself, believe that Jesus is the answer. Why are we right?
Truly, the Bible is the only comprehensive, completely defensible worldview. It makes the most logical sense when viewed within itself. I coheres. What I mean by this is, if you grant the starting assumptions, such as a creation and the fall of humanity, then the rest follows logically. Like any worldview, it requires faith to believe the starting premises and certain points.
While that is a good rational reason for Christianity (albeit it takes volumes of explaning to express), the real way to prove that Christianity is true is by looking at how a Christian is supposed to live (and how Jesus Christ himself lived). The two commandments are to love God and love others. In a world filled with brokenness and hate, Christianity often comes as a welcome relief. As Dinesh D'souza said in the debate that was held by TKC, Christians are responsible for many of the great, loving things in the world. I agree. It's true that many Christians do not live up to the right standards. But if anything, that is further proof that what they say is right: the world is broken because of sin and not what it should be, but God has come to change that and is changing them. There is no more powerful a testimony than that of a changed life.
Well King Tut may have tried to get eternal life, but he did not find the one true God. Blessings be on all those who do find Him, whether they are kings or not.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Licenses for Illegal Immigrants??
[Disclaimer: This is a long post that deals with a lot of complex issues and includes lots of ties between different ideas. So before you read it, you may want to make yourself some of your favorite tea, find a nice place to recline, and then jump in. The author of this post discusses and attempts to resolve many tensions between political and moral obligations, probably unsuccessfully. Enjoy.]
Saturday, the Bush Administration and New York agreed on new drivers licenses that are "federally approved secure licenses." It is the fourth state to do so, following Arizona, Vermont, and Washington. Arizona, for example, has a 3-in-1 license which is intended to: act as a driver's license, a passport-like document, AND proof of U.S. citizenship. Because it has the same security and utility in North America as a passport, it is going to be useful for those Arizonans who regularly drive across the border and buy stuff. However, New York has taken a radically different approach.
New York is offering three-tiers of licensing. The first tier is similar to AZ's in that it is a passport-grade ID card. The second tier meets federal standards for the Real ID act, which is an attempt to make it much harder for terrorists and illegal immigrants to get the ID. Sounds good so far. But the third tier is a license specifically for "undocumented immigrants." What does that mean? NY is giving licenses to illegal immigrants.
First of all, I want to point out that Homeland Security is not very happy about this. Giving illegal immigrants licenses seems to validate and affirm their existence here, which sends the wrong message. But the spokesperson for Homeland Security said that there was nothing he could do about the situation, because the federal government gives the states power on this issue.
What I don't understand about the situation is: why would an illegal immigrant get such a license that would tag them as obviously illegal? I know that will prevent them from being arrested if they get pulled over, but isn't that the lesser of two evils? If you have a license that points you out as illegal, then the NY governor could later decide that he wants to crack down on illegal immigrants and everyone with the ID would be far more easily rooted out. There was a quote in the CNN article that said: "Officials, however, would not say whether that meant local law enforcement could use such a license as probable cause to detain someone they suspected of being in the U.S. illegally." I suspect that it at least opens up this door.
The article further states that 500,000 to 1,000,000 are undocumented immigrants are living in NY and many of these are driving with no license and no insurance, or fake-licenses. That sure seems like a problem to me. And I'm not sure that they way to fix the issue is by giving them a license.
What is the difference between illegal and undocumented immigrants? I'm not entirely sure. If you are an immigrant who has no documentation, doesn't that make you illegal? Is that just the nicer way of saying it? I suspect so.
With a million illegal immigrants in NY, this is a considerable problem. In some ways, these people help the economy by working for less than minimum wage (which I think is an unfair price floor...what right does the federal government have to say what a legal hourly wage is and that anyone employing someone for less than that is in trouble with the law? But that's another discussion). Yet I'm sure it creates problems with taxes and loyalty to the U.S. But what are the moral implications of this growing mess?
In an effort to keep the post to a managable length, I want to just make a few points to encourage thought on how a Christian (or morally-concerned person) ought to think about immigration.
Jesus tells us to love our neighbor. He does not qualify with: "whether your neighbor is there legally or not." This is obviously because in Jesus' day, his culture was not experiencing the same political issues because nations did not exist in the sense that they do today. So what if my neighbor is an illegal immigrant? Is it right to love them and help them by doing what you can to help them evade the gaze of Big Brother? Or is it more loving to the rest of your neighbors to rat-out this illegal neighbor? Is it wrong for you to not bring it to the attention to the government, because the government ought to know who is within its bounds legally so that it can expel (or legalize) those "undocumented" immigrants?
This sounds very much like a theological-political problem-of-sorts. It is similar to the kind of moral dilemma of Cory ten Boom...who should you obey first, the government or your conscience? What is your moral responsibility before God? And what rights do you have? What rights does the government have?
I usually find it helpful to step away from the questions that are right in front of me and look at the siutation from the perspective of: "what is the spirit of the situation?" More specifically, how could I be most honoring to God in this situation? I suspect the answer varies from case-to-case. Sometimes, the Spirit will prompt you to help that illegal immigrant; in other situations, it is necessary to turn that person in. And I think it is beneficial to ask: What is the role of government? It is to protect its people and ensure their liberties (at least, as understood in the context of America). So if the influx of more and more illegal immigrants means that U.S. citizens are going to be hurt economically, then the government ought to fix the problem. Economic hurt would be the symptom, the entrance of illegal immigrants would be the problem. What is the best way to fix the problem?
I am reminded of a decision that the Framers of the Constitution came to in 1789. One of the Southern representatives agreed that slavery was not a good thing, but also admitted to make it illegal and remove all slaves immediately was impossible. Thus he proposed that allowing the South twenty years to stop the importation of slaves would be the best compromise. I believe the wisdom of taking a gradual approach is very pertinent in the case of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Thinking specifically of the Mexican border, taking the time to build a complete fence ought to help as a preventative measure. Then discovering the immigrants still in the U.S. and deporting them in waves back to their country of origin over the course of many years would be wise. And just because a child of an illegal immigrant was born on U.S. soil ought not make that child a legal citizen...and even if it does, that does not mean that the parents deserve to stay. In the interests of not breaking up families, the parents and children ought to be sent back together. "What is citizenship?" is a question that will have to be determined in order to resolve the situation. Additionally, if all of the illegal immigrants were sent back in the same wave (it's not possible, but for the sake of emphasis, let us consider), the economic damage that would occur in many companies in the U.S. would be monstrous. That is why a gradual approach is wise. I would be more prone to vote for a candidate next year who has a thoughtful, long-range plan on how to deal with this immigration issue.
They say that history, if not remembered, repeats itself. We ought not forget what happened to Rome. Please do not misinterpret my analogy. When Rome ruled in the days of Julius Caesar and even much later in the days of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman world was very secure from barbarian invasions. Rome was the ultimate military force in the world. But slowly, over the next two centuries, barbarians continued to be enveloped into the Roman Empire. Because the best way to prove loyalty and get presitige was by being in the army, many barbarians were in the army. Then Rome started having some serious problems. In 410 A.D., the Vandals invaded the empire and sacked Rome. The Visigoths did it again in 455 A.D. And of course, Rome finally fell in 476 A.D., thus ending the rule of the Romans. But the reason that Rome fell to the barbarians was two-fold. First, the empire was getting soft with depravity, but the second reason was that the Roman legion continued to be watered-down with barbarians who were not loyal to Rome, nor as talented and disciplined warriors. Thus the fifth century brought about significant defeats of Rome, which lead the their demise.
I point this out to encourage thought: Is the U.S. going through the same thing? Surely, the situation is more economic than militaristic, but the situation could ultimately have similar, devestating results. Are illegal immigrants weakening our country? How could they not be? They don't know the language and they don't have the loyalty, nor the skills! If that's not weakening, I'm not sure what to call it. And if we are being weakened, at what point does the weakness cause the nation to start breaking apart?
When it comes down to it, I'm very uncertain on what course of action ought to be taken. But, as Jim Collins encourages leaders to do in his book, Good To Great, facing the brutal facts is the first step in fixing any problem and creating a great situation. This is an issue that must be addressed, and very soon, as whatever strategy that is selected ought to be considered wisely over a period of time, and it will surely take even longer to implement. I'm not even sure that 20 years would be enough time, but that's a good start. Is what NY doing going to help the situation? I don't know. It is certainly unusual, and could prove beneficial down the road. After all, having more information is usually a good thing. But doesn't it send the wrong message to illegal immigrants? And even if not, what immigrants would actually go and get the license? 500,000 people? Doubtful.
Regardless of what happens politically, I realize that I am called to love and care for those in need. So as a Christian, I will see what I can to do to help these people on an individual level, with the intention of expanding the kingdom of God and making the world a better place. What would Jesus do (despite its terribly cliche nature) is a truly pertinent question here. So I will do my best to love these fellow image-bearers of God.
On a more cynical note, maybe I should start learning Spanish so that I can continue to order that double-cheeseburger of the dollar menu....
Saturday, the Bush Administration and New York agreed on new drivers licenses that are "federally approved secure licenses." It is the fourth state to do so, following Arizona, Vermont, and Washington. Arizona, for example, has a 3-in-1 license which is intended to: act as a driver's license, a passport-like document, AND proof of U.S. citizenship. Because it has the same security and utility in North America as a passport, it is going to be useful for those Arizonans who regularly drive across the border and buy stuff. However, New York has taken a radically different approach.
New York is offering three-tiers of licensing. The first tier is similar to AZ's in that it is a passport-grade ID card. The second tier meets federal standards for the Real ID act, which is an attempt to make it much harder for terrorists and illegal immigrants to get the ID. Sounds good so far. But the third tier is a license specifically for "undocumented immigrants." What does that mean? NY is giving licenses to illegal immigrants.
First of all, I want to point out that Homeland Security is not very happy about this. Giving illegal immigrants licenses seems to validate and affirm their existence here, which sends the wrong message. But the spokesperson for Homeland Security said that there was nothing he could do about the situation, because the federal government gives the states power on this issue.
What I don't understand about the situation is: why would an illegal immigrant get such a license that would tag them as obviously illegal? I know that will prevent them from being arrested if they get pulled over, but isn't that the lesser of two evils? If you have a license that points you out as illegal, then the NY governor could later decide that he wants to crack down on illegal immigrants and everyone with the ID would be far more easily rooted out. There was a quote in the CNN article that said: "Officials, however, would not say whether that meant local law enforcement could use such a license as probable cause to detain someone they suspected of being in the U.S. illegally." I suspect that it at least opens up this door.
The article further states that 500,000 to 1,000,000 are undocumented immigrants are living in NY and many of these are driving with no license and no insurance, or fake-licenses. That sure seems like a problem to me. And I'm not sure that they way to fix the issue is by giving them a license.
What is the difference between illegal and undocumented immigrants? I'm not entirely sure. If you are an immigrant who has no documentation, doesn't that make you illegal? Is that just the nicer way of saying it? I suspect so.
With a million illegal immigrants in NY, this is a considerable problem. In some ways, these people help the economy by working for less than minimum wage (which I think is an unfair price floor...what right does the federal government have to say what a legal hourly wage is and that anyone employing someone for less than that is in trouble with the law? But that's another discussion). Yet I'm sure it creates problems with taxes and loyalty to the U.S. But what are the moral implications of this growing mess?
In an effort to keep the post to a managable length, I want to just make a few points to encourage thought on how a Christian (or morally-concerned person) ought to think about immigration.
Jesus tells us to love our neighbor. He does not qualify with: "whether your neighbor is there legally or not." This is obviously because in Jesus' day, his culture was not experiencing the same political issues because nations did not exist in the sense that they do today. So what if my neighbor is an illegal immigrant? Is it right to love them and help them by doing what you can to help them evade the gaze of Big Brother? Or is it more loving to the rest of your neighbors to rat-out this illegal neighbor? Is it wrong for you to not bring it to the attention to the government, because the government ought to know who is within its bounds legally so that it can expel (or legalize) those "undocumented" immigrants?
This sounds very much like a theological-political problem-of-sorts. It is similar to the kind of moral dilemma of Cory ten Boom...who should you obey first, the government or your conscience? What is your moral responsibility before God? And what rights do you have? What rights does the government have?
I usually find it helpful to step away from the questions that are right in front of me and look at the siutation from the perspective of: "what is the spirit of the situation?" More specifically, how could I be most honoring to God in this situation? I suspect the answer varies from case-to-case. Sometimes, the Spirit will prompt you to help that illegal immigrant; in other situations, it is necessary to turn that person in. And I think it is beneficial to ask: What is the role of government? It is to protect its people and ensure their liberties (at least, as understood in the context of America). So if the influx of more and more illegal immigrants means that U.S. citizens are going to be hurt economically, then the government ought to fix the problem. Economic hurt would be the symptom, the entrance of illegal immigrants would be the problem. What is the best way to fix the problem?
I am reminded of a decision that the Framers of the Constitution came to in 1789. One of the Southern representatives agreed that slavery was not a good thing, but also admitted to make it illegal and remove all slaves immediately was impossible. Thus he proposed that allowing the South twenty years to stop the importation of slaves would be the best compromise. I believe the wisdom of taking a gradual approach is very pertinent in the case of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Thinking specifically of the Mexican border, taking the time to build a complete fence ought to help as a preventative measure. Then discovering the immigrants still in the U.S. and deporting them in waves back to their country of origin over the course of many years would be wise. And just because a child of an illegal immigrant was born on U.S. soil ought not make that child a legal citizen...and even if it does, that does not mean that the parents deserve to stay. In the interests of not breaking up families, the parents and children ought to be sent back together. "What is citizenship?" is a question that will have to be determined in order to resolve the situation. Additionally, if all of the illegal immigrants were sent back in the same wave (it's not possible, but for the sake of emphasis, let us consider), the economic damage that would occur in many companies in the U.S. would be monstrous. That is why a gradual approach is wise. I would be more prone to vote for a candidate next year who has a thoughtful, long-range plan on how to deal with this immigration issue.
They say that history, if not remembered, repeats itself. We ought not forget what happened to Rome. Please do not misinterpret my analogy. When Rome ruled in the days of Julius Caesar and even much later in the days of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman world was very secure from barbarian invasions. Rome was the ultimate military force in the world. But slowly, over the next two centuries, barbarians continued to be enveloped into the Roman Empire. Because the best way to prove loyalty and get presitige was by being in the army, many barbarians were in the army. Then Rome started having some serious problems. In 410 A.D., the Vandals invaded the empire and sacked Rome. The Visigoths did it again in 455 A.D. And of course, Rome finally fell in 476 A.D., thus ending the rule of the Romans. But the reason that Rome fell to the barbarians was two-fold. First, the empire was getting soft with depravity, but the second reason was that the Roman legion continued to be watered-down with barbarians who were not loyal to Rome, nor as talented and disciplined warriors. Thus the fifth century brought about significant defeats of Rome, which lead the their demise.
I point this out to encourage thought: Is the U.S. going through the same thing? Surely, the situation is more economic than militaristic, but the situation could ultimately have similar, devestating results. Are illegal immigrants weakening our country? How could they not be? They don't know the language and they don't have the loyalty, nor the skills! If that's not weakening, I'm not sure what to call it. And if we are being weakened, at what point does the weakness cause the nation to start breaking apart?
When it comes down to it, I'm very uncertain on what course of action ought to be taken. But, as Jim Collins encourages leaders to do in his book, Good To Great, facing the brutal facts is the first step in fixing any problem and creating a great situation. This is an issue that must be addressed, and very soon, as whatever strategy that is selected ought to be considered wisely over a period of time, and it will surely take even longer to implement. I'm not even sure that 20 years would be enough time, but that's a good start. Is what NY doing going to help the situation? I don't know. It is certainly unusual, and could prove beneficial down the road. After all, having more information is usually a good thing. But doesn't it send the wrong message to illegal immigrants? And even if not, what immigrants would actually go and get the license? 500,000 people? Doubtful.
Regardless of what happens politically, I realize that I am called to love and care for those in need. So as a Christian, I will see what I can to do to help these people on an individual level, with the intention of expanding the kingdom of God and making the world a better place. What would Jesus do (despite its terribly cliche nature) is a truly pertinent question here. So I will do my best to love these fellow image-bearers of God.
On a more cynical note, maybe I should start learning Spanish so that I can continue to order that double-cheeseburger of the dollar menu....
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize is one of mankind's most prestigious modern awards. It has been granted to great men and women like Martin Luther King Jr. (in 1964). Two European scientists won the prize this year in the arena of physics for their work in discovering and developing giant magnetoresistance. Essentially, this is what makes magnetic hard drives possible. They developed this in 1988, and its use has exploded since then. I'm using a computer that contains the fruit of their invention right now. It is in all of the iPods with spinning hard drives. There are millions of these devices. That is a life-changing discovery--well worth being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for.
However, of the recipients of this year's Nobel has been the subject of some controversy. Another prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore (and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for his work explaining and popularizing the phenomenon of global warming. Global warming? Apparently, enough people have accepted the truth (or been brainwashed, depending on what camp you're in) that global warming is a real threat to our world and is perhaps the most significant threat of the 21st century. But in the case of the European scientists, they worked on something twenty years ago that has been proven as drastically beneficial to the human race. There are still enough people who doubt the validity of global warming that this award is being questioned: Was this a political move? Could this be what it takes to get Gore into the 2008 Presidential Race?
Gore has said that unless Hillary Clinton makes a large mistake, she is unbeatable in his estimation (at least in the Democratic Party). Thus he would not enter the race at this point. Smart move. I tend to agree. A Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar (or was it an Emmy?) for his film: An Inconvenient Truth, won't be enough to cause a great number of Americans to vote for him.
But what about this idea of global warming itself? According to CNN, the film has nine errors in it. I wrote my high school senior thesis about hydrogen and its role as a fuel in the future...I believe you can capture some of that in one of my previous blogs here. But I researched the argument for global warming somewhat, and at the time of my thesis defense, I was torn. I argued that global warming might have some weight to it. Before that, I thought it was ridiculous. Now, I'm just not sure. But I am hearing more and more about it. Whether it's true or not, a lot more people are beginning to believe it.
In the CNN article that I read, some Democrats commented on the situation. One of them said: "America and the Earth need a hero right now, someone who will transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world." Sounds to me like that person is looking beyond just a strong political leader. It sounds to me like they are looking for Jesus. Who else it the Prince of Peace, the Hope of the World?
Whether or not it was a political move to give Gore the prize, whether or not global warming is a true threat, it seems to me that there is a deeper fear at work. People think about the future, and they see a world that is falling apart. Pardon the gross generalization, but It is interesting that Christians see this as an opportunity to laugh at the "dumb tree-huggers." Don't you sense something is wrong? Non-Christians are caring more about creation and keeping it wholesome than Christians are.
This may spawn from the evangelical misunderstanding of Heaven. For so long, Christians have been taught that Man fell and that Jesus came to save. I've mentioned this before, but that is simply a fractured view of the gospel. Christians ought to be the first proponents for the "upkeep" of the earth.
Hang with me for a minute. God has been teaching me a lot lately about abiding in Him (John 15). To truly abide in Jesus, I need to be in the Word and prayer and community. I need to be practicing the spiritual disciplines. When I do that, I will prepare my heart for the Spirit to do His work. God is fully responsible for the growth, but I am responsible for allowing God to have a place in my heart. He is a gentleman. He says, "I stand at the door and knock." If I don't invite Him in to do His work, then He will allow me to go my own way. But when He does work in me, I grow to love Him and others more. When I love others, it's not out of a sense of obligation ("oh darn, I have to love my roommates AGAIN"). It should be because I am so filled with the love of God, that it just pours out of my soul.
The reason that last paragraph connects with what's above it is because of this: when I love others like Jesus did, I will not view those "tree-huggers" as less than intelligent. I will not look down on them and condescend them because of their "obscene devotion to the earth." I will instead see them as souls in need of a true savior, in need of one worth living and dying for. I won't look down on those that bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize as foolish people with a sinister ulterior motive. I'll see them as people who have decided to make a judgment that may have been better postponed, but I give them the benefit of the doubt. That does not mean that I go along with these people. But I do not attack them. When was the last time that Jesus said to go around laying into your opponents? Last time I recall, He healed the ear of a servant who zealous Peter chopped off. What a symbolic act...healing the ear...so that the servant might hear clearly the voice of his savior.
My pastor gave a sermon today on being salt and light in the world (Matthew 5). The point that stuck out to me most was this: the Bible, the Word of God is our authority...but how we live our life and spread God's unconditional love is our credibility. So the lesson that I learned is this: even when people I don't think deserve honor or grace or even kindness cross my path, I am to be loving and sacrifice of myself anyway--as if I were serving Jesus himself--and this is what makes Christianity credible and honors and glorifies God. That is my prayer. So help me Jesus.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
However, of the recipients of this year's Nobel has been the subject of some controversy. Another prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore (and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for his work explaining and popularizing the phenomenon of global warming. Global warming? Apparently, enough people have accepted the truth (or been brainwashed, depending on what camp you're in) that global warming is a real threat to our world and is perhaps the most significant threat of the 21st century. But in the case of the European scientists, they worked on something twenty years ago that has been proven as drastically beneficial to the human race. There are still enough people who doubt the validity of global warming that this award is being questioned: Was this a political move? Could this be what it takes to get Gore into the 2008 Presidential Race?
Gore has said that unless Hillary Clinton makes a large mistake, she is unbeatable in his estimation (at least in the Democratic Party). Thus he would not enter the race at this point. Smart move. I tend to agree. A Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar (or was it an Emmy?) for his film: An Inconvenient Truth, won't be enough to cause a great number of Americans to vote for him.
But what about this idea of global warming itself? According to CNN, the film has nine errors in it. I wrote my high school senior thesis about hydrogen and its role as a fuel in the future...I believe you can capture some of that in one of my previous blogs here. But I researched the argument for global warming somewhat, and at the time of my thesis defense, I was torn. I argued that global warming might have some weight to it. Before that, I thought it was ridiculous. Now, I'm just not sure. But I am hearing more and more about it. Whether it's true or not, a lot more people are beginning to believe it.
In the CNN article that I read, some Democrats commented on the situation. One of them said: "America and the Earth need a hero right now, someone who will transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world." Sounds to me like that person is looking beyond just a strong political leader. It sounds to me like they are looking for Jesus. Who else it the Prince of Peace, the Hope of the World?
Whether or not it was a political move to give Gore the prize, whether or not global warming is a true threat, it seems to me that there is a deeper fear at work. People think about the future, and they see a world that is falling apart. Pardon the gross generalization, but It is interesting that Christians see this as an opportunity to laugh at the "dumb tree-huggers." Don't you sense something is wrong? Non-Christians are caring more about creation and keeping it wholesome than Christians are.
This may spawn from the evangelical misunderstanding of Heaven. For so long, Christians have been taught that Man fell and that Jesus came to save. I've mentioned this before, but that is simply a fractured view of the gospel. Christians ought to be the first proponents for the "upkeep" of the earth.
Hang with me for a minute. God has been teaching me a lot lately about abiding in Him (John 15). To truly abide in Jesus, I need to be in the Word and prayer and community. I need to be practicing the spiritual disciplines. When I do that, I will prepare my heart for the Spirit to do His work. God is fully responsible for the growth, but I am responsible for allowing God to have a place in my heart. He is a gentleman. He says, "I stand at the door and knock." If I don't invite Him in to do His work, then He will allow me to go my own way. But when He does work in me, I grow to love Him and others more. When I love others, it's not out of a sense of obligation ("oh darn, I have to love my roommates AGAIN"). It should be because I am so filled with the love of God, that it just pours out of my soul.
The reason that last paragraph connects with what's above it is because of this: when I love others like Jesus did, I will not view those "tree-huggers" as less than intelligent. I will not look down on them and condescend them because of their "obscene devotion to the earth." I will instead see them as souls in need of a true savior, in need of one worth living and dying for. I won't look down on those that bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize as foolish people with a sinister ulterior motive. I'll see them as people who have decided to make a judgment that may have been better postponed, but I give them the benefit of the doubt. That does not mean that I go along with these people. But I do not attack them. When was the last time that Jesus said to go around laying into your opponents? Last time I recall, He healed the ear of a servant who zealous Peter chopped off. What a symbolic act...healing the ear...so that the servant might hear clearly the voice of his savior.
My pastor gave a sermon today on being salt and light in the world (Matthew 5). The point that stuck out to me most was this: the Bible, the Word of God is our authority...but how we live our life and spread God's unconditional love is our credibility. So the lesson that I learned is this: even when people I don't think deserve honor or grace or even kindness cross my path, I am to be loving and sacrifice of myself anyway--as if I were serving Jesus himself--and this is what makes Christianity credible and honors and glorifies God. That is my prayer. So help me Jesus.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Sunday, October 7, 2007
What's with all of the shootings?
Crandon, Wisconsin. Sunday, October 7th. 2:45am.
Tyler Peterson was a 20 year-old deputy who killed six people, then died himself (probably suicide). This took place at a party where a bunch of young adults were having pizza and watching a movie. The motive and the situation was not clear, but what is clear is that a number of people are now dead. Apparently, Peterson was taken out by a sniper after someone in the house called the police. In the CNN news report, one of the girls, Karly Johnson, 16, was interviewed and knew him said:
"He was nice. He was an average guy. Normal. You wouldn't think he could do that."
As I read this, I heard the all-too common echoes from other recent tragedies come to my mind. My memories start with Columbine. Roughly 16 students die in what seems to be a killing modelled after the "Matrix." The killers cooly killed classmates and friends before claiming their own lives. They left a mess. I was reminded of the sniper, who killed about 8 people at random locations. It turned out that "the sniper" was an Islamic father and son team who thought they were doing a good thing. The son was 17 years old. Virginia Tech screams out as one of the more recent tragedies. My cousin-in-law went there; and since I am from Maryland, it's hard not to hear of people who were personally hurt by the shootings. You would practically have to have been cut off from all news to have not heard about it. Speaking of close to home, I am reminded of a shooting that took place in the Annapolis Mall, which is where I worked over the summer, and I had at least a couple of good friends right there when it happened. A man ended up shooting several people before being gunned down himself. I know there are other examples, but just these have come to mind at the moment.
It is sad that so many incidents of this sort occur. In this most recent murder, a 14 year-old girl was shot. It reminds me of the recent pain and losses that have happened at The King's College. Ben's sister died in a car crash. Brekly's dad is in the hospital and not doing well. Katelyn's grandmother just died. Kurtis has cancer. The list goes on.
I have a couple of reflections, one on the specific shooting that I referenced, and one of tragedy in general.
In the shooting, the reason that the girl's quote jumped out at me is because she would have never guessed that Peterson would have gone on that rampage. It seems like I've heard that before. People are surprised. "He seemed like a normal guy." "I don't know what happened." "I never saw it coming." Why do they do it? Is it because of violence in video games and T.V.? Some would say so. Remember how one guy created a video game that let you re-enact the killings at Virginia Tech? Some say that war games are turning young men into mindless killers. There may be some truth to that. But it is a very broad, sweeping generalization...and not the status quo. As John Elderedge would say, something is deeply wrong with the masculine psyche. These are symptoms of a larger problem in our culture. I would tend to agree. What specifically those problems are, I'd have to reflect on more.
But second, why is there so much grief, in the world, and specifically now, at Kings? That is two different questions. The first can be answered: we are in a fallen world, and we still have the consequences of sin slap us in the face every day. The second question is harder to answer, because it is much closer to home. For some here at Kings, it strikes right at home. But why? Is it not enough that we are working to further the Kingdom of God to shape the world? Will God not protect us as we do this great work? I ask: did he protect Jesus? Did he protect Paul? Did he protect Stephen? Did he protect Peter? Justin Martyr? Christians have been often the ones to suffer in a society. This is not because God has given up on them, or because God is not powerful enough to save. Satan may be a big reason behind it. And as Jesus said, the world hates those whom He loves. It's just such a shock when we are the ones attacked because we live in a "safe" country. In a "safe" culture...as long as you don't stand out too much. Americans have been trained to be tolerant (like a castrated animal...but that's material for another blog). Christians, particularly here at Kings are surprised. At least I know that I am surprised. I trust God, but I question his reasons. I question in a wondering way, not in an accusitory way. I believe he is powerful, he is knowing, and he is good. But I don't understand all of the details.
Neither did Job. If I got nothing else out of Dr. Lockett's lecture last year on Job, it is that God is great and God is near, and that is enough. Sometimes, we just don't get an explanation. But I have my guesses.
The Kings community signed a covenant before God, saying that we will abide. The leaders are working to abide in Jesus (think John 15). Maybe we are being attacked harshly because we are doing things right. Satan seems to like to work subtly. But when that fails, he pulls out the big guns. It could be that it is not Satan at all, but that God is testing us. Will be truly abide, even though he is testing us?
May we, like the victims of the party in Wisconsin, overcome our surprise and ask answers. But when we ask the answers, may we come to the conclusion that whatever happens to us and those around us, we still know how to live. The Oakes said it best. Ginger Oakes said, "The Christian life is the best life." She said this after months of dealing with her husband's bout with cancer. And President Stan Oakes himself said: "I want to be a servant of Jesus Christ. That's the best life." May we agree.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Tyler Peterson was a 20 year-old deputy who killed six people, then died himself (probably suicide). This took place at a party where a bunch of young adults were having pizza and watching a movie. The motive and the situation was not clear, but what is clear is that a number of people are now dead. Apparently, Peterson was taken out by a sniper after someone in the house called the police. In the CNN news report, one of the girls, Karly Johnson, 16, was interviewed and knew him said:
"He was nice. He was an average guy. Normal. You wouldn't think he could do that."
As I read this, I heard the all-too common echoes from other recent tragedies come to my mind. My memories start with Columbine. Roughly 16 students die in what seems to be a killing modelled after the "Matrix." The killers cooly killed classmates and friends before claiming their own lives. They left a mess. I was reminded of the sniper, who killed about 8 people at random locations. It turned out that "the sniper" was an Islamic father and son team who thought they were doing a good thing. The son was 17 years old. Virginia Tech screams out as one of the more recent tragedies. My cousin-in-law went there; and since I am from Maryland, it's hard not to hear of people who were personally hurt by the shootings. You would practically have to have been cut off from all news to have not heard about it. Speaking of close to home, I am reminded of a shooting that took place in the Annapolis Mall, which is where I worked over the summer, and I had at least a couple of good friends right there when it happened. A man ended up shooting several people before being gunned down himself. I know there are other examples, but just these have come to mind at the moment.
It is sad that so many incidents of this sort occur. In this most recent murder, a 14 year-old girl was shot. It reminds me of the recent pain and losses that have happened at The King's College. Ben's sister died in a car crash. Brekly's dad is in the hospital and not doing well. Katelyn's grandmother just died. Kurtis has cancer. The list goes on.
I have a couple of reflections, one on the specific shooting that I referenced, and one of tragedy in general.
In the shooting, the reason that the girl's quote jumped out at me is because she would have never guessed that Peterson would have gone on that rampage. It seems like I've heard that before. People are surprised. "He seemed like a normal guy." "I don't know what happened." "I never saw it coming." Why do they do it? Is it because of violence in video games and T.V.? Some would say so. Remember how one guy created a video game that let you re-enact the killings at Virginia Tech? Some say that war games are turning young men into mindless killers. There may be some truth to that. But it is a very broad, sweeping generalization...and not the status quo. As John Elderedge would say, something is deeply wrong with the masculine psyche. These are symptoms of a larger problem in our culture. I would tend to agree. What specifically those problems are, I'd have to reflect on more.
But second, why is there so much grief, in the world, and specifically now, at Kings? That is two different questions. The first can be answered: we are in a fallen world, and we still have the consequences of sin slap us in the face every day. The second question is harder to answer, because it is much closer to home. For some here at Kings, it strikes right at home. But why? Is it not enough that we are working to further the Kingdom of God to shape the world? Will God not protect us as we do this great work? I ask: did he protect Jesus? Did he protect Paul? Did he protect Stephen? Did he protect Peter? Justin Martyr? Christians have been often the ones to suffer in a society. This is not because God has given up on them, or because God is not powerful enough to save. Satan may be a big reason behind it. And as Jesus said, the world hates those whom He loves. It's just such a shock when we are the ones attacked because we live in a "safe" country. In a "safe" culture...as long as you don't stand out too much. Americans have been trained to be tolerant (like a castrated animal...but that's material for another blog). Christians, particularly here at Kings are surprised. At least I know that I am surprised. I trust God, but I question his reasons. I question in a wondering way, not in an accusitory way. I believe he is powerful, he is knowing, and he is good. But I don't understand all of the details.
Neither did Job. If I got nothing else out of Dr. Lockett's lecture last year on Job, it is that God is great and God is near, and that is enough. Sometimes, we just don't get an explanation. But I have my guesses.
The Kings community signed a covenant before God, saying that we will abide. The leaders are working to abide in Jesus (think John 15). Maybe we are being attacked harshly because we are doing things right. Satan seems to like to work subtly. But when that fails, he pulls out the big guns. It could be that it is not Satan at all, but that God is testing us. Will be truly abide, even though he is testing us?
May we, like the victims of the party in Wisconsin, overcome our surprise and ask answers. But when we ask the answers, may we come to the conclusion that whatever happens to us and those around us, we still know how to live. The Oakes said it best. Ginger Oakes said, "The Christian life is the best life." She said this after months of dealing with her husband's bout with cancer. And President Stan Oakes himself said: "I want to be a servant of Jesus Christ. That's the best life." May we agree.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Literally Drowning in NYC
"We've got only a few decades to save the world: Somewhere between 2030 and 2050, if current trends persist, atmospheric CO2 levels will hit 500 parts per million, temperatures will rise 2 degrees, and the Greenland ice cap will begin turning to slush, causing sea levels to rise 20 feet."
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant_renew
I'm not a doomsday environmentalist. I don't think that the entire world as we know it will be utterly destroyed because of some environmental response to pollution. I've watched The Day After Tomorrow, and I think it is good fiction...but fiction nonetheless. However, this recent Wired article got me thinking.
A couple of years ago, I decided to research hydrogen technology for my senior thesis in high school. Hydrogen intrigues me because it is a clean energy source. You don't have to be the premiere environmental PH.D. in the world to realize that releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere probably isn't a good thing. As I researched what was happening to the environment, I heard more and more about the coming disaster. One of the things that I discovered was that the Arctic Icecap was melting at an unprecedented rate. Satellite images of the last 30 years show a dramatic decrease of ice. Now Wired seems to be saying that this theory is justified. At the time, I wasn't completely sold, but was far more sympathetic to the argument than my surrounding Christian community. They were still in the state of disbelief.
I think that today, some Christians still don't think anything of Al Gore's cries to save the environment. But it seems that a growing number are responding. If it is true that the ocean would rise even a meter (as another article I recently read said would happen...and there's nothing we could do to stop it), then that is going to affect dramatic portions of the world. A rise of 20 feet of the sea level would effectively eliminate Manhattan. What should be the Christians's response?
First, whether or not we believe such a catastrophic event will take place, we should think about what The Creation Mandate says. As humans, we are to take dominion over the earth; to care for it and subdue it. The world is certainly being subdued. But Christians must ask themselves, what ought we do to care for God's earth? If this issue came to the forefront of second century Christians, I'm sure there would be an apathetic attitude by many, for the Gnostic heresy had quite a foothold and so people believed that matter was evil. Why ought they care about the earth?
American Christian evangelicals, with their lack of focus on the four-part gospel, means that many Christians forget (or do not know) that the world will be renewed at the end of time. They see that there is a sinful world, and that Jesus came to save people and take them to Heaven...end of story. I admit, that's a bit of a straw man, but you get my jist. Instead, Christians ought to focus on a four-part gospel: God created a good world, it was corrupted by man's Fall because of sin, Jesus came to redeem mankind, and Jesus is coming again to make all things right and make all things new! Because the earth will not pass away but be renewed, it is important. So instead of abandoning it, we ought to cultivate it as we were made to do.
Second, Christians should not entirely dismiss the idea of rising oceans. Suppose it was going to take place, albeit over the course of many years. As Christians ought to have a heart for people, and the rising water will put people into a worse situation, Christians should be concerned at plan appropriately to lead relief efforts. Imagine Katrina on a global scale. If we are the hands and feet of Jesus, we should bring healing and life like He did.
Third, Christians should do what they can to not pollute the atmosphere. Personally, I would love to get a hybrid vehicle. Not only does it help the environment, but it saves money that is normally spent on gas! It is worth investing thought into what can be done.
I hope I haven't seemed obsessively concerned about environment. As with all things in life, there needs to be balance. From my attempts in the past, I have discovered that finding and articulating where exactly a Christian's mindset should be regarding the environment is not easy. But maybe, if nothing else, my post will cause you to put some thought into the topic.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant_renew
I'm not a doomsday environmentalist. I don't think that the entire world as we know it will be utterly destroyed because of some environmental response to pollution. I've watched The Day After Tomorrow, and I think it is good fiction...but fiction nonetheless. However, this recent Wired article got me thinking.
A couple of years ago, I decided to research hydrogen technology for my senior thesis in high school. Hydrogen intrigues me because it is a clean energy source. You don't have to be the premiere environmental PH.D. in the world to realize that releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere probably isn't a good thing. As I researched what was happening to the environment, I heard more and more about the coming disaster. One of the things that I discovered was that the Arctic Icecap was melting at an unprecedented rate. Satellite images of the last 30 years show a dramatic decrease of ice. Now Wired seems to be saying that this theory is justified. At the time, I wasn't completely sold, but was far more sympathetic to the argument than my surrounding Christian community. They were still in the state of disbelief.
I think that today, some Christians still don't think anything of Al Gore's cries to save the environment. But it seems that a growing number are responding. If it is true that the ocean would rise even a meter (as another article I recently read said would happen...and there's nothing we could do to stop it), then that is going to affect dramatic portions of the world. A rise of 20 feet of the sea level would effectively eliminate Manhattan. What should be the Christians's response?
First, whether or not we believe such a catastrophic event will take place, we should think about what The Creation Mandate says. As humans, we are to take dominion over the earth; to care for it and subdue it. The world is certainly being subdued. But Christians must ask themselves, what ought we do to care for God's earth? If this issue came to the forefront of second century Christians, I'm sure there would be an apathetic attitude by many, for the Gnostic heresy had quite a foothold and so people believed that matter was evil. Why ought they care about the earth?
American Christian evangelicals, with their lack of focus on the four-part gospel, means that many Christians forget (or do not know) that the world will be renewed at the end of time. They see that there is a sinful world, and that Jesus came to save people and take them to Heaven...end of story. I admit, that's a bit of a straw man, but you get my jist. Instead, Christians ought to focus on a four-part gospel: God created a good world, it was corrupted by man's Fall because of sin, Jesus came to redeem mankind, and Jesus is coming again to make all things right and make all things new! Because the earth will not pass away but be renewed, it is important. So instead of abandoning it, we ought to cultivate it as we were made to do.
Second, Christians should not entirely dismiss the idea of rising oceans. Suppose it was going to take place, albeit over the course of many years. As Christians ought to have a heart for people, and the rising water will put people into a worse situation, Christians should be concerned at plan appropriately to lead relief efforts. Imagine Katrina on a global scale. If we are the hands and feet of Jesus, we should bring healing and life like He did.
Third, Christians should do what they can to not pollute the atmosphere. Personally, I would love to get a hybrid vehicle. Not only does it help the environment, but it saves money that is normally spent on gas! It is worth investing thought into what can be done.
I hope I haven't seemed obsessively concerned about environment. As with all things in life, there needs to be balance. From my attempts in the past, I have discovered that finding and articulating where exactly a Christian's mindset should be regarding the environment is not easy. But maybe, if nothing else, my post will cause you to put some thought into the topic.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Evangelism
A few days ago, I went out to talk with high school students from NYC high schools at the Manhattan Mall on 32nd and 6th. I went as a part of Student Venture, a ministry to NYC high school students. Last year, some TKC students partnered with Student Venture to reach students at Norman Thomas. Further, the House of Thatcher focused this involvement as their City Engagement project. This year, they have contacted the House of Lewis about joining them in that endeavor. After discussing it as an Exec Team and sending some of our guys to an informational lunch, we decided as a House to commit to this project with the House of Thatcher. This is breaking new ground on the TKC front because, to my knowledge, no Houses have ever joined up for City Engagement. This year, we have already begun, and it is not even November. We are truly “raising the bar,” which is a mantra that has been taken up by Student Development for this year. They have raised the bar in the level of training they are giving their leaders, in the facilities for that training, in the gym membership and surely in other ways that I do not even know about yet or that do not come immediately to mind.
So I listened in the Student Lounge to Chris, the point-person for involvement with Student Venture. She talked a bit about the vision and how engagement takes place. It seems like they have thought this through quite well. It also seems like Student Venture’s influence is not limited to one high school. I would be interested in researching more about Student Venture on the internet. Pennie Gelwicks was heavily involved last year and is the point-person in the House of Thatcher. She invited and encouraged our House to participate.
That is a lengthy introduction to what I found myself doing. I was walking in the food court of the Manhattan Mall, approaching students with a couple of other Kings students, asking them in a survey questions about themselves. Particularly, I asked one person, due to the length of time we had and our assignment from Chris. I went through the questions. First, I asked about music preferences and other banal topics. It lead into the last three questions which were of a more personal nature. Did the person feel loved by friends and family? Did he feel loved by God? Did he want me to tell him more about that love that God had for him?
While I felt fine talking asking the first questions, I didn’t feel as comfortable when I hit those last questions. Why? What right do I have to pry into a complete stranger’s beliefs and personal feelings? We are told in Scripture to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the faith that we have in Christ Jesus. Perhaps my discomfort comes from the role-reversal. I am asking questions instead of giving answers. I believe that being proactive in things is good. But I don’t feel like I have earned a right to be heard by that stranger about why I think they should change their beliefs. It seems to be disingenuous. I’m selling them something.
Even if I have pure motives in witnessing to them, which obviously I do, I’m not at a good place to talk with them about spiritual things because I haven’t showed them the love of Jesus. Whenever Jesus or the early church shared the good news, it came with all the benefits of a changed life and the presentation was accompanied by acts of love. I think I would feel far more comfortable with sharing my faith if I did an act of service or kindness and was asked about why I did it. That, to me, is the perfect “in” to sharing my faith. But engaging strangers about their personal beliefs with the intention of changing their mind just feels wrong to me.
I may feel uncomfortable from my lack of experience and practice. It is normal to feel shy or intimidated by a new situation. It’s true, street evangelism is still a new thing for me. Maybe I’ll grow to love it. But I feel that the damage that can be done to the hearer by a purely rational presentation of the Gospel must often outweigh the good. The risk is high, maybe too high. When leaving someone with a tract or explanation of what Jesus did without any proof that Jesus is real in my life, am I stripping the news of goodness? When attempting to change a culture, one must first understand the culture, then speak to the culture in a way that appeals to it. If I am presenting to postmoderns, I ought to prove to them by my actions that what I am saying works. Maybe decades ago, the ground was fertile and all that was necessary was for the seed of the Good News to be sown. The culture was one that already had a knowledge of who Jesus was, maybe people just needed questions answered about how it applied to their lives. There was enough common ground and receptiveness that walking up to a stranger and telling them about what Jesus did for them was enough to bring them to their knees in tears. But I do not believe that is the situation we see today. In many ways, belief in Jesus could thoroughly explained in the most solid, rational way possible, but because the hearer has little concern for rational explanations, the news falls on deaf ears.
God’s message will go out and bear fruit. Of that there is no doubt. But it would be foolish for His disciples to approach unbelievers in an outdated and ineffective manner. As in any situation, a rhetorician who wants his argument to be heard must speak to the needs and desires of his listener. The speaker must determine which way of introducing his message would cause his listener to be the most receptive. I’d like to be able to say that the gospel is so obviously a blessing that anyone should be immediately receptive to it. But I do not think that such a view reflects reality.
I hope I haven’t sounded too harsh. I’m sure that The Spirit has used this kind of evangelism to great purposes in the past. It’s just that I question if such a method is really the preferred method of spreading the love of Jesus where I live today.
I’m excited about Student Venture and what will happen with that this year. I know that there will be plenty of opportunity to serve and relate with those high school kids on Fridays when they come to the Student Lounge. I hope to be a blessing to them there. I hope to be able to present to them the love of Jesus in a way that they can see and understand. And I pray that God moves in great ways as we, students of The King’s College seek to spread Jesus’ love and His Kingdom.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
So I listened in the Student Lounge to Chris, the point-person for involvement with Student Venture. She talked a bit about the vision and how engagement takes place. It seems like they have thought this through quite well. It also seems like Student Venture’s influence is not limited to one high school. I would be interested in researching more about Student Venture on the internet. Pennie Gelwicks was heavily involved last year and is the point-person in the House of Thatcher. She invited and encouraged our House to participate.
That is a lengthy introduction to what I found myself doing. I was walking in the food court of the Manhattan Mall, approaching students with a couple of other Kings students, asking them in a survey questions about themselves. Particularly, I asked one person, due to the length of time we had and our assignment from Chris. I went through the questions. First, I asked about music preferences and other banal topics. It lead into the last three questions which were of a more personal nature. Did the person feel loved by friends and family? Did he feel loved by God? Did he want me to tell him more about that love that God had for him?
While I felt fine talking asking the first questions, I didn’t feel as comfortable when I hit those last questions. Why? What right do I have to pry into a complete stranger’s beliefs and personal feelings? We are told in Scripture to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the faith that we have in Christ Jesus. Perhaps my discomfort comes from the role-reversal. I am asking questions instead of giving answers. I believe that being proactive in things is good. But I don’t feel like I have earned a right to be heard by that stranger about why I think they should change their beliefs. It seems to be disingenuous. I’m selling them something.
Even if I have pure motives in witnessing to them, which obviously I do, I’m not at a good place to talk with them about spiritual things because I haven’t showed them the love of Jesus. Whenever Jesus or the early church shared the good news, it came with all the benefits of a changed life and the presentation was accompanied by acts of love. I think I would feel far more comfortable with sharing my faith if I did an act of service or kindness and was asked about why I did it. That, to me, is the perfect “in” to sharing my faith. But engaging strangers about their personal beliefs with the intention of changing their mind just feels wrong to me.
I may feel uncomfortable from my lack of experience and practice. It is normal to feel shy or intimidated by a new situation. It’s true, street evangelism is still a new thing for me. Maybe I’ll grow to love it. But I feel that the damage that can be done to the hearer by a purely rational presentation of the Gospel must often outweigh the good. The risk is high, maybe too high. When leaving someone with a tract or explanation of what Jesus did without any proof that Jesus is real in my life, am I stripping the news of goodness? When attempting to change a culture, one must first understand the culture, then speak to the culture in a way that appeals to it. If I am presenting to postmoderns, I ought to prove to them by my actions that what I am saying works. Maybe decades ago, the ground was fertile and all that was necessary was for the seed of the Good News to be sown. The culture was one that already had a knowledge of who Jesus was, maybe people just needed questions answered about how it applied to their lives. There was enough common ground and receptiveness that walking up to a stranger and telling them about what Jesus did for them was enough to bring them to their knees in tears. But I do not believe that is the situation we see today. In many ways, belief in Jesus could thoroughly explained in the most solid, rational way possible, but because the hearer has little concern for rational explanations, the news falls on deaf ears.
God’s message will go out and bear fruit. Of that there is no doubt. But it would be foolish for His disciples to approach unbelievers in an outdated and ineffective manner. As in any situation, a rhetorician who wants his argument to be heard must speak to the needs and desires of his listener. The speaker must determine which way of introducing his message would cause his listener to be the most receptive. I’d like to be able to say that the gospel is so obviously a blessing that anyone should be immediately receptive to it. But I do not think that such a view reflects reality.
I hope I haven’t sounded too harsh. I’m sure that The Spirit has used this kind of evangelism to great purposes in the past. It’s just that I question if such a method is really the preferred method of spreading the love of Jesus where I live today.
I’m excited about Student Venture and what will happen with that this year. I know that there will be plenty of opportunity to serve and relate with those high school kids on Fridays when they come to the Student Lounge. I hope to be a blessing to them there. I hope to be able to present to them the love of Jesus in a way that they can see and understand. And I pray that God moves in great ways as we, students of The King’s College seek to spread Jesus’ love and His Kingdom.
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
A Troublesome Situation
Some people make me angry. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, I can get irate. For example, when someone leaves $12 million to a spoiled dog. And I'm not pulling an ad hominem. This particular recipient is actually a canine.
Let me explain. A couple of weeks ago, a famous New York real estate owner, billionaire Leona Helmsley, died. She was one of the richest people in the world (369th to be exact, according to Forbes). From what I understand, this lady was a ruthless businessperson. In fact, the US media called her "The Queen of Mean." I'm not sure whether to agree or not, but given that she left more money for her dog than for any of her family, I think I'd agree. Albeit most of her fortune went toward charity. But maybe that's because she had no friends in life. Her dog, Trouble, was likely Helmsley's best friend.
Helmsley liked to call her dog "Princess." Trouble would eat gourmet human food, but only if it were hand-fed. The little pooch had a tenatious side--and would bite anyone it pleased, except for its master. Helmsley often found her dog's biting to be entertaining. An article in the New York Post, by Dareh Gregorian says that "many of those who had encounters with the dog over the years said she took after her infamous owner--demanding and mean." And the $12 million trust proves that the 8 year old Maltese was obsessed over.
Further, in the will, Helmsley's brother was only given $10 million. Two of her four grandchildren were given $5 million each; the other two received nothing for reasons that weren't explained in the will. But who in their right mind would spend $12 million on a D-O-G??
I don't know much more about Helmsley's life. Yet where she put her money tells me that she does not value family. And it tells me that she must not have had many friends. In fact, she probably had no REAL friends. And instead of making me mad, that saddens me.
It saddens me that someone would live their life, not growing in friendship and love with other human beings. It saddens me that someone would be so self-centered as to spend their life and resources like Helmsley did. It saddens me that Helmsley left this earth thinking more about her dog and what would happen to it than about her own soul and the souls of others.
True, I cannot discern her heart. But this kind of selfishness is saddening just because it is so prevalent. It points to a world that is broken and shattered. It reminds me of a world that is pursuing its own pleasures, seeking for fulfillment and running from the very Person who could make their lives complete. It reminds me of the Fall. And that reminds me that I too am a sinner.
I may not have $12 million dollars to put in my will when I die. I may not have $330 million that I won from the Mega Millions Lottery like just happened. I don't have ANY money when I am weighed on scales of that size. But I do have a couple of things that are worth far more than what Helmsley has.
I have TIME. She doesn't. Her clock expired at 89 years. I still have (if it is the Lord's will) many healthy years to go. As Professor Fotopulos said in my business class last week, time is our most valuable resource. And when it is spent, we can NEVER get it back.
And I have JESUS. Again, I don't know her heart, but given how she lived, I think I judge correctly in my statement. I am reminded of the old song: "I'd rather have Jesus than silver or gold, I'd rather be His than have riches untold. I'd rather have Jesus than houses or land, I'd rather be lead by His nail-pierced hand...Than to be the king of a vast domain, or be held in sin's dread sway. I'd rather have Jesus than anything this world offers today."
When I consider what I do have, I am not so angry that a dog inherits $12 million and I have never inherited a cent. Instead, I count my blessings and praise God because of the life that I have, the time he has given me, and the relationship I have with Him and with others. Solomon said it best. Meaningless, meaningless are riches for a life that is not fearing God and obeying His commandments. Part of me pities Helmsley and the soulless creature Trouble. I have the meaning than they could never experience. To fear, love, and serve Jesus is the ultimate pleasure in life.
Taking every thought captive,
Zachary
Let me explain. A couple of weeks ago, a famous New York real estate owner, billionaire Leona Helmsley, died. She was one of the richest people in the world (369th to be exact, according to Forbes). From what I understand, this lady was a ruthless businessperson. In fact, the US media called her "The Queen of Mean." I'm not sure whether to agree or not, but given that she left more money for her dog than for any of her family, I think I'd agree. Albeit most of her fortune went toward charity. But maybe that's because she had no friends in life. Her dog, Trouble, was likely Helmsley's best friend.
Helmsley liked to call her dog "Princess." Trouble would eat gourmet human food, but only if it were hand-fed. The little pooch had a tenatious side--and would bite anyone it pleased, except for its master. Helmsley often found her dog's biting to be entertaining. An article in the New York Post, by Dareh Gregorian says that "many of those who had encounters with the dog over the years said she took after her infamous owner--demanding and mean." And the $12 million trust proves that the 8 year old Maltese was obsessed over.
Further, in the will, Helmsley's brother was only given $10 million. Two of her four grandchildren were given $5 million each; the other two received nothing for reasons that weren't explained in the will. But who in their right mind would spend $12 million on a D-O-G??
I don't know much more about Helmsley's life. Yet where she put her money tells me that she does not value family. And it tells me that she must not have had many friends. In fact, she probably had no REAL friends. And instead of making me mad, that saddens me.
It saddens me that someone would live their life, not growing in friendship and love with other human beings. It saddens me that someone would be so self-centered as to spend their life and resources like Helmsley did. It saddens me that Helmsley left this earth thinking more about her dog and what would happen to it than about her own soul and the souls of others.
True, I cannot discern her heart. But this kind of selfishness is saddening just because it is so prevalent. It points to a world that is broken and shattered. It reminds me of a world that is pursuing its own pleasures, seeking for fulfillment and running from the very Person who could make their lives complete. It reminds me of the Fall. And that reminds me that I too am a sinner.
I may not have $12 million dollars to put in my will when I die. I may not have $330 million that I won from the Mega Millions Lottery like just happened. I don't have ANY money when I am weighed on scales of that size. But I do have a couple of things that are worth far more than what Helmsley has.
I have TIME. She doesn't. Her clock expired at 89 years. I still have (if it is the Lord's will) many healthy years to go. As Professor Fotopulos said in my business class last week, time is our most valuable resource. And when it is spent, we can NEVER get it back.
And I have JESUS. Again, I don't know her heart, but given how she lived, I think I judge correctly in my statement. I am reminded of the old song: "I'd rather have Jesus than silver or gold, I'd rather be His than have riches untold. I'd rather have Jesus than houses or land, I'd rather be lead by His nail-pierced hand...Than to be the king of a vast domain, or be held in sin's dread sway. I'd rather have Jesus than anything this world offers today."
When I consider what I do have, I am not so angry that a dog inherits $12 million and I have never inherited a cent. Instead, I count my blessings and praise God because of the life that I have, the time he has given me, and the relationship I have with Him and with others. Solomon said it best. Meaningless, meaningless are riches for a life that is not fearing God and obeying His commandments. Part of me pities Helmsley and the soulless creature Trouble. I have the meaning than they could never experience. To fear, love, and serve Jesus is the ultimate pleasure in life.
Taking every thought captive,
Zachary
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
