Love/Hate Relationship Part 3

This probably should have been my first blog. After all, anyone who knows me knows I complain about LA weather almost on a daily basis. Its so ugly. Its all the same. Always warm, sometimes hot. It never rains, and when it does, it is the most pitiful excuse for rain. Californians thrive in boring weather, and they run in terror at interesting weather (and make sure to complain about it too). I love a little bit of snow each year, lots of rain, and especially 4 distinct seasons. In California the seasons are:

Summer: Hot
Fall: Hotter, with fires
Early Winter: Warm
Winter: Warm (some days cool), with a little bit of rain
Spring: Warm, getting hot

LA is also a desert, but we have artificially made it green. I remember hiking up a mountain, and seeing a big yellow valley, with square patches of green. It was very ugly and sad.

What do I love?

Summer’s aren’t as humid as in Georgia. It can get very hot, but it is no where near as miserable as I remember on the east coast. The consistent weather can be nice, because it is easier to plan outdoor events. Although I miss rain and thunderstorms, I do not miss those 6 week stretches of rain. I have a feeling I probably enjoy the constant “paradise” temperatures more than I realize. I am sure I will miss it (only a bit) if we move.


So that’s part 3 of why I love and hate SoCal.
Read more...

Analogy of Scripture

I want to talk a bit about the analogy of scripture. This is also known as the principle of scripture interpreting scripture. The reasoning behind this goes something like this:
God is the source of truth and is unified without contradiction
Scripture is God’s revelation, so it to reflects his character of truth and unity
Because of this, we can use scripture to interpret scripture
Because of this, the more difficult passages should be interpreted by the clear passages


However, I think there are a number of dangers with this reasoning.

1) This reduces the theology of scripture to basic formulas of logic. We must assume that the Bible in all its diversity (of authors, times, etc.) results in a perfect mathematical unified picture of theology. The reality is that this simply is not the case. Good biblical scholarship rightly recognizes the tension of various themes. For example, we presently experience the kingdom and its blessings in Christ, the promises of God have been fulfilled in the present. Thus, we have a realized eschatology -- the future is now. But in tension with this is the reality that things are not all right, the promises are not fulfilled entirely. We still wait for the return of our king and fullness of his kingdom. This is a future eschatology. The New Testament clearly points to both. We cannot reduce this tension to a simple philosophical formula. Any understanding of the Trinity or incarnation of Christ clearly reflects this tension. Any good study of the issue of divine sovereignty and human freedom should reflect this.

There is fundamentally a difference between biblical tension and biblical contradiction. The Trinity might be construed as a contradiction, but biblically it is a tension. There are themes that stress both the division and unity of God. The reality is that God’s truth is complex and infinitely surpasses our finite human understanding. This does not allow for God’s truth to be clearly a contradiction, but it does mean that there are aspects of God’s character and action that we cannot fully break down and understand. This is a very difficult line to walk, as there are plenty of theologians who affirm tension, but for all practical purposes describe contradiction. This is also difficult because there is a lot of ambiguity as to how to avoid affirming contradiction without “ironing out” a tension.

2) It is difficult to decide what “clear” and “difficult” passages are. There are no biblical criteria. The reality is that there are biblical themes that lie in tension. It seems as if there are no checks and balances for the exegete in deciding what passages are clear. It is all to easy to instead reduce passages which contradict one’s theological system as the “difficult”, and the passages that are in harmony as “clear”. The best example I can think of is Hebrews 6:4-6. This passage brings out some of the worst of some of the best exegetes. Calvinists come up with a number of different options for how to understand this apparent “difficult” passage (because they reject that believers can fall away) and appeal to John 6:37-39 (one of the strongest affirmations of Calvinism). Arminians likewise stumble over this passage, not because it apparently teaches that believers can fall away, but because if it happens it is permanent.

3) This principle can circumvent the basic principles of exegesis. Unlike #2, some theologians will simply rule out some interpretations while exegeting a passage based on prior theological conviction (which in turn is based on certain passages). It is unfortunate, but these same theologians will describe how “the whole testimony of scripture” stands against this interpretive option, so it cannot be allowed. But this is not good exegesis. If the option is reasonable within the bounds of literary and historical context, then it should be given a fair hearing.

4) This reverses the exegetical process. The process of exegesis begins with the smaller parts and works towards the whole. This means you have to start with each sentence, putting together what it means. This then is interpreted in the context of paragraphs, chapters, and books. (This is essentially Osborne’s hermeneutical spiral: the spiral from small units of thought to context and back again, ideally ever spiraling closer and closer to the truth). Once one has a good grasp on the themes and meaning of a book, then we can gather together all these themes and build the big picture of scripture. We cannot start with a theological system, because this will impose meaning on exegesis.

Of course, nobody actually can function this way. We all have a theology even if we do not think we do. The point is that we must always be letting the text itself challenge our theology, so that in the same we the hermeneutical spiral uses context to interpret words, and words to interpret context, the text will shape our theology, so that our theology conforms to the text and not our presuppositions.



What are the benefits of this principle, if the above cautions are heeded? First and foremost, it is necessary to achieve the “big picture” of scripture. Each book has its own set of themes, and each author has a purpose and intended shape for these themes. But these themes also build off of each other. For example, Sailhamer argues that all of scripture is essentially a commentary and exposition on the Pentateuch. That the themes of the Pentateuch are repeated, expanded, and commented on by every biblical author. This means that if Paul’s doctrine of justification is such a commentary, then we first need to understand the themes of sin, grace, debt, redemption, forgiveness, etc. in the Pentateuch. Once we have a grasp of how those themes operate there, then we can move through the rest of scripture and observer those same themes, ultimately arriving at Paul and seeing how Paul maneuvers these themes. In a sense, this process is just that: the text interpreting the text. But it is more watching how later authors comment and manipulate (in a positive way) prior biblical themes.

This is not an easy task. It requires a lot of work, and requires a solid comprehension of scripture. I would love to see somebody approach systematic theology in this way. Instead of repeating the questions, grids, and debates of the last 2000 years, they would assimilate the biblical themes and paint a systematic theology of biblical theology. Something like Ladd, something like Grudem, but something altogether different.
Read more...

Dream Theater’s Compositional Style

I have loved Dream Theater's music for a long time, over 10 years now. I've watched an amazing band explore new territory, and mature musically far beyond most. Many people I've talked to find the band revolting. They either can't stand the vocalist's style (which was difficult for me at first), comparing it with 80's hair bands. Or, because some songs are heavy and have fast solos, they instantly put it into the mindless shred category. Most will recognize their talent, but add the qualifier that its just not "my style".

I can respect this, but I think that if you can get past the vocal style, there is a lot every musician can learn from the band. Its not the crazy time signatures, or how fast they can play, but their compositional style. I thought I'd collect a few of my thoughts here on what currently is impressing me about this.

1) First, they use repetition and restatement creatively. In a lot of ways, Dream Theater's music demonstrates many of the qualities of good classic music. This means that a given song might only have a few themes, but throughout the song these themes are not just repeated mindlessly (like so much other music would with just 1 or 2 themes), but develop them. This can mean different instruments will play the theme each time it is repeated, or the theme is changed slightly, or there will be radically exposition on the theme. Sometimes a vocal theme from early in the song will make up a lot of the exposition in the instrumental section.

2) Second, they incorporate a lot of themes into one song. In contemporary worship, all too often songs only have 2 themes, with a possible third as a bridge. The better recording artists will often have a creative intro for some songs, and might even have a pre-chorus. However, Dream Theater songs rarely have less than 5 different themes.

For example, a normal song probably has something like:

Intro > Verse > Chorus > Verse > Chorus > Bridge > Chorus

That's 3-4 themes (depending on the intro).

However, with that structure, Dream Theater would do something more like this:

Intro > Transition Riff > Verse > Pre-Chorus > Chorus > Transition Riff > Verse > Pre-Chorus > Chorus > Bridge > Riff 2 > Riff 3 > Chorus

The point is that they repeat riffs, but they have a lot of other creative riffs added. This brings an inexplicable depth to a song. There is enough repetition that the song is memorable, and the themes are related enough that the song flows. This is the hardest part. Coming up with a series of 5-6 riffs that connect in an obvious way can be very tough.

3) They don't get overburdened by a typical "full" sound. This is especially pointed towards worship music again. I just can't get over how so many worship bands think that they need 1-2 people on acoustic trying to do all the jobs of the entire band (rhythm, bass, soup, lead, etc.). A lot of Dream Theater songs are actually very simple. Some riffs are only one chord, but the melody and riff are strong enough to carry the riff. I've heard several professional worship bands that sorta get this. Now, undoubtedly there are appropriate times when you want such a huge sound that it just smacks people in their faces, but this must only be used for effect. So many worship teams have 1-2 people over-playing on their acoustics, + 1-2 on electric, piano, etc. This results in a very messy, overlapping sound that is just ugly.

This really means separating out the rolls and keeping it that way. Percussion takes care of the rhythm, "soup" instruments provide the necessary filler, and melody instruments drive alongside the bass. Keeping these rolls tasteful and distinct really gives a riff character.

4) They have very interesting chord progressions. So many songs just rely on the basic I IV V chords, and only use open voicings. This is beyond cliché, for me personally it is to the point of sickening. First, you don't need to fill empty space with chords, you can simply have a riff that builds off the chord in an interesting way. Second, Dream Theater often only uses simple chords, but uses very tasteful filler chords like secondary dominants. Very simple theory, but they know just the right spots to throw a sweet substitution in.

5) Dynamics. This simply cannot be overstressed. Dream Theater songs build, fall off, and weave through a storyline. So many other songs follow very simple patterns, or just maintain throughout. This is boring, and very unmusical. Music is supposed to tell a story, and it does that through dynamics, who plays what where, the intensity, the fullness, etc.

6) Riff length. This falls under a couple of the above, but it has always fascinated me how Dream Theater almost never repeats a simple 4 measure progression as part of a riff. Many of there riffs are 8 measures long, and if the riff repeats, there will usually be substantial variation on the last few measures of the repeat. This again requires a lot of work and creativity, but it pays off in having very original material, and again, the music tells a story.

Anyway, I could probably rant all day about this, but I'll stop for now. I might add more later though.

Read more...

Love/Hate Relationship Part 2

The second reason why I hate SoCal is its culture. I remember watching TV as a kid, and shows like “Saved by the Bell”, while interesting, just seemed odd. The kids ideals, the problems they struggled with, and their culture were so foreign and unattractive. Living out here for 8 years has not changed that perception. I will never understand the “surfer” cult, nor find its lifestyles and aspirations (what few there are) appealing. I cannot stand the “indi” cult. It is ugly, encourages bad art, and reminds me all to much of my adolescent attitudes. Further, the Hollywood cult is equally repulsive. Seeing what extravagant lifestyles these people live is sickening. It is not because I am envious and want that life, but because they have so much and are so empty. Further, they really do not produce much of anything of lasting value. So much of what comes out of Hollywood is filth, either because it is immoral, but mostly because it lacks any substance and is so commercialized. There are very few films or TV anymore that are genuinely good art.

Finally, I am tired of being uncomfortable because I cannot speak Spanish. I have no problem being a minority in SoCal, but it bugs me so much how so many people out here refuse to assimilate. This is America, English is our language. It is frustrating to know that if I have to find a retail job, it will be difficult just because I am not bilingual. It is frustrating to realize that there is at least a chance that if somebody hits me on the road, they might drive off because they do not have a license. But more than that, it is frustrating to be around people who have so much they do not know what to do with it, and seeing so many more who have almost nothing and are content with the scraps they do have.


I do however love SoCal because it is a great place to do ministry. There are so many strong churches in the area. I have a friend back east who cannot find a good church. His criteria are like mine, and are very basic. Biblically centered teaching, authentic worship, and a heart for ministry and discipleship. These are so basic, but so few churches get it right. For whatever reason, (perhaps the number of good Christian universities?) there are a number of very solid churches out here.

Additionally, there are a plethora of ministry opportunities. Back east, our ministry outreaches were washing people’s cars. Out here, there are so many opportunities to serve people in real need. I am at a church that gives me plenty of opportunities to teach (and to fail at it so that I can learn and grow), opportunities with music, leadership, discipleship, mentorship, and so on. One of the biggest problems with larger churches is they have a large enough congregation to recruit only the best for ministries. This seems counter intuitive, there should always be enough opportunities for available talent, but for whatever practical reason, this is not always the case. But it is exciting to be a part of a church that values its entire body, and pushes hard to get everyone involved. I have grown so much as a result of this, where if I had been in another church back east, I might not have grown at all.

So that’s part 2 of why I love and hate SoCal.
Read more...

On Chomsky

I cannot say I’ve read much Chomsky. But, I recently read this interview.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18257

He is a very interesting fellow. I find it a bit humorous that he is “America’s greatest intellectual”. From what I understand, I do not know if he is really academically qualified to be an expert on politics, (I thought his field of study was linguistics), but really in our society today, this shouldn’t be surprising. After all, it is far too common for somebody to speak with “authority” outside their sphere of expertise.

Chomsky’s article is interesting, humorous, and infuriating. He has a lot of insights, but draws a lot of wrong conclusions in my opinion. Chomsky certainly thinks himself a scholar of popular thought. He seems to pride himself in identifying with the vast majority over against the oppressing powers. This dichotomy already is difficult. I am not convinced that such a clear oppressive power system is in place in America. Certainly public opinion of the government is extremely poor (and Congress has been far less popular than Bush for a long time now).

I think part of the problem is two fold. First, everyone thinks that the world around us is not right. We think and recognize that policies are wrong, we realize that others are using power to take advantage of us, we see injustice, we experience powerlessness, and so on. I cannot help but think that this recognition of the wrongness of the world goes beyond politics and to something more profound. Chomsky would not like this (I imagine), but I think he is hitting on our innate, spiritual recognition of sin in the world and our need for God. We all recognize that the world is flawed, we see injustice and oppression, and even if we do not like the term, evil in a variety of forms. No political philosophy will solve this problem, only the Gospel. Though, I do think that conservative politics ultimately are built on a recognition of evil and are thus more effective at properly (and Biblically) restraining it.

Second, just because we recognize oppression and evil does not mean that there is an “establishment” that is doing this to us. It seems a common thing to try and explain this evil in the world by vilifying an organization and imbuing it with almost divine like qualities (which in itself could be significant of the real issue at stake). Of course there are not extraterrestrials controlling the world secretly, nor is there (likely) an evil government conspiracy to subdue the population. These are simple explanations, but are far from plausible. After all, if the government was capable of that level of organization and efficiency.... well, it obviously isn’t. I’m not saying Chomsky is Fox Mulder, but he definitely has his Mulder moments.

It is very easy to idealize the situation into “bad guys” oppressing the “masses”, but this is unfair. Part of this is because it will be very difficult to decide who is in these different classes. Further, humanity cannot function without leaders, and leaders will always have to make decisions. Chomsky rather seems to idealize a “pure” democracy, where popular opinion dictates everything. I am not a historian, but I do not think there is evidence that this actually works. Even at the smallest level, leadership is always needed in order to provide organization and direction. Further, leadership is about seeing the big picture in a way that might not be possible for those who are in specialized roles. Of course human nature corrupts leadership, and we have far more examples of bad leadership in history than good, but I sure hope Chomsky does not really believe that removing all leadership and making every person on the planet have equal say in decisions is really a good thing. But it definitely appears that is his opinion.

Chomsky also seems to assume a lot of the American public. He points out that if it were up to the public, we would have had a universal healthcare system 20 years ago. I think at the heart of this is he believes Americans are liberals, and although this sounds unfair, I get the impression he feels that businessmen and politicians are the ones who are pushing foreign ideas on the people. This certainly is not fair at all. Chomsky likes quoting statistics, but I do not believe this accurately reflect people’s opinions. People will respond to attractive promises like “free healthcare”, but they might not be informed to understand the drawbacks.

Chomksy sees an uninformed society that makes decisions based on attractive images that convey no substantial content. He is insightful in realizing that people are attracted to superficial images, and I think he really hits the nail on the head with Obama. Obama is a “blank slate” of sorts that people can easily project their ideals on. He is charismatic, and is full of short and simple platitudes that convey no content at all. “Change” is not always a good thing after all, the real question is not “change” for change’s sake, but “change to what?”.

This gets at one of Chomsky’s biggest weaknesses (at least in this interview). Its the whole chicken and egg question. Is the society uninformed because of the (oppressive?) business powers and their propaganda, or are businesses and politicians able to get away with such superficiality because people no longer know how to think and are saturated in an entertainment driven society?

I recently read in a WoW forum an application for one of the better guilds on my server. Because this guild is very good, the applicant recognized that he needed to make a strong case for his commitment to weekly raids. He pointed out that he plays the game 8-12 hours every day of the week. He was in college (now he’s 27), but he dropped out partly due to the game. He currently only works a basic retail job so that he can play the game the rest of his day. This is horrifying! This person has gave up any real productive future in order to play a video game seemingly for the rest of his life.

This is not what humans were meant for. This is not a meaningful life. But this is our society: we work 8 hours a day, and then try to cram as many forms of entertainment into the rest of our free time. We are not interested in thinking, studying, or engaging in philosophical discussions. We are cynical of “scholars” and possibly even afraid of them. Is this because of an oppressive propaganda machine, or is the propaganda a result of a fading society? I think it is the latter. This is partly due to the quick rise of technology and the resulting forms of entertainment. It is also due to our entitlement attitude towards a life of luxury. I think we can also put some blame on our educational system for loosing sight of the value of a real education in place of themes of “tolerance” and a post-modern epistemology.

A final critique of this interview is Chomsky’s liberalism. One of the scariest things about liberalism is its forceful equality. This is the heart of socialism. It is scary because it is so counter human nature. Our differences are what drive us to improve on ourselves. Chomsky uses terms like “free market” which I would think imply this principle. But, I’m pretty sure for Chomsky “free market” means a market where all players are made equal. This simply does not work. My definition of free market is where hard work are rewarded. Humanity is not productive when we are not allowed to work for our own greed and ambition. This is not a pretty picture, but we cannot “fix” humanity with a political system. At least this approach works, and under the right checks and balances can work very well.

Chomsky is a very insightful man. I should read more of him, because I know he is popular in many circles. He is challenging because his conclusions and perspective are so entirely foreign. He is humorous because at times he becomes overly sensational viz. Michael Moore. (Like in implying that Europeans are healthier than Americans because they are taller, or that America orchestrated our victory in WW2 in order to have global power). He is also frustrating because he does get at real issues and real problems. Guys like Chomsky will always be good to break misconceptions about leaders. Bush is not God’s gift to man, he is a flawed leader, and has made plenty of mistakes. I still think the man has done far more good than evil, but history will have to be the judge.
Read more...

A love/hate thing with California

I've decided to do a 5 part series on things I love and things I hate about living in SoCal.

The first reason why I hate living in SoCal is the drivers. I'm sure every big city has its host of bad drivers, but in my mind drivers out here are the worst. I have to admit, it is kind of nice that there is the unspoken rule (well, not quite so unspoken) that everyone drives 10 over. I still get nervous around police, but when they are obviously cruising at 15-20 over, I guess its not that big of a deal. But SoCal drivers are some of the most arrogant and reckless drivers around. I get overwhelmed with the most powerful anger whenever I am cutoff by somebody weaving through dense traffic, or think its just funny to drive on the shoulder to pass you on an on ramp.

Its not just that people are arrogantly pursuing the futile goal of getting just one more care ahead, but its the fact that their doing so not only slows down traffic (as everyone breaks to avoid an accident), but also endangers lives. And worse, when there is an accident (which is very frequent), that slows everyone down even more. And all of this is for the sake of getting someplace faster, which in the end this kind of recklessness only shaves seconds off of your arrival time. I'll be addressing this more later, but it is an attitude of entitlement, an attitude of selfishness, and an attitude of... stupidness. :)

I've been in so many close calls where somebody was acting foolishly, and its only by the grace of God that I have yet to have an accident out here. My wife can attest to this though, every time I get in any kind of traffic, I am a very angry person. Such emotions of frustration and even hatred wash over me, and it really surprises me how intense these can get.

Although this is unrelated to the drivers, stop lights definitely do not help my attitude. It seems like you hit almost every one when you are running late, and many of these are for old ladies to cross the street, or one car to make a left turn.

The first reason why I love living in SoCal is family, friends, and church.

Right now, I only have an uncle out here (who I really wish I made a greater effort to get to know better), but most of Marcy's immediate family is still only a short drive away. I still have not grown as close to them as Marcy has to my family, but they are my family, and I do love them. If/when we move, I will miss being close to them, even though I do not always take advantage of their close proximity.

I also have a number of good friends out here. I'd wager that I have more close friends out here than I ever did in Ga. I've also plugged into a church that I feel is unique. It definitely has its share of problems, but the leadership seems to really "get it" about some of the more important things, and it is a solid community that is ministry focused, and biblically centered. These are such basic qualities that should be a part of the church, but many churches fall short today.

I've often been afraid that if/when we move, we'll be hard pressed to find a church as strong and vibrant. Its such a great balance where we are at, the community is small enough that you can easily know many people in the body, and large enough that we are able to undertake some ambitious ministry and missions tasks. It is also nice (and frustrating) to be in a community where you do not have to be an expert in your field to be needed / used.

So that's part 1 of what I love and hate about living in SoCal.

Read more...

Perversion and Culture

I am utterly amazed at the acceptable perversion in our culture. I get the privilege of listening to kids 8-12 play in the pool and not only use some of the vilest language, but also comfortably navigate all types of sexual innuendo. I know this is no startling revelation, but I have been coming across teenage girls more and more that seem innocent enough, but will match any boy of equivalent age in sexual and coarse joking.

It seems our American culture is at an impasse of sorts. We want to be open and free with all forms of ..I've heard it said in the good tradition of European sexuality). But we still have some remnants of a previous age's morality. There is an invisible line that dictates acceptable standards of content for broadcast material, yet all forms of media are not trying to walk that line, but significantly push it. After all, some of the "best" television is "edgy", "pushing the standards", etc. This might be all in the name of a freer sexuality, but the end result is always a more blatant sexuality.

We could lament our culture and predict that this is the worst humanity has ever gotten, and the parousia must be around the corner. I do not think this is the best line of reasoning. A friend of mine once argued that it is almost better the way things are now, because apparently people still thought the same way 50 years ago, they just were forced to act and think in hiding. It was a sexually repressed culture after all.

I do know whether this is true or not, but I definitely cannot agree that it is better with "everything out in the open". First and foremost, a culture that is so openly vulgar and perverse can only move in one direction. Western civilization has lost any conscience, and all that is left is only the most minimalist morality. It is sad that children are growing up in a society where they experience not only peer pressure to have premarital sex and unheard of young ages, but also that they are quickly conditioned into the mindset of unrestrained freedom and entitlement to acting in the most degraded ways. This "open" and "free" environment might seem ideal because depravity isn't being hidden, but I think it is worse because its not only encouraging, but I think forcing many into bad lifestyle choices. Its like we're trying to socialize ourselves into thinking that whatever we want is okay, kids should be having sex, and if you are a guy with even the slightest bit of effeminacy you should rightly choose a gay lifestyle.

Of course humanity is naturally depraved, and this isn't just about sustaining an empty idealist facade. But it is sad to see a society fall as low as we have, especially one that was built on Christian virtues. Perhaps no society is immune to this, but we certainly have made a lot of progress in falling over the last 50 years. Just because this does not relate to salvation does not mean it is acceptable, it is still a sad state of things, and I think at some level something we should try to reverse.

Christians are called to endure evil societies, and live as lights in them. This does not mean that Christianity is about Christendom, but it does mean that if the church is functioning, one would hope to see a positive effect on society. At some level, it is hard not to wonder if the church has failed rather miserably, and the quick degeneration of Western society is the result. Sinful humanity will always be sinful outside of Christ, but shouldn't we see progress in the church instead of regress? I am no historian, but I can easily think of a few areas where this has been clear.

First, the enlightenment and later modernistic movements brought some terrifying blows on the church. It seems especially in the early 20^th century that many Christians took a defensive stance rather than went on the offensive. We "turtled" up, removed ourselves from society, and did everything we could to protect our children from the world. The more extreme side of the fundamentalist movement clearly demonstrates this, though the original movement was itself a good thing). It is almost as if, as soon as some powerful and dangerous ideas entered society, we quickly gave up and tried to hide.

They tried to kill God, and we surrendered. Again, this is only my impression from a limited knowledge of history, maybe I'm horribly wrong. But it deeply bothers me that some of the most profound thinkers during this same time period were shunned by many Christians (Lewis immediately comes to mind). In all honesty, it seems like the church is only recently beginning to recover from the initial attack of the enlightenment, and only now beginning to get together a counteroffensive. It only took us 200 years.

I think the battle against wrong ideas is important. It won't save people, but it will help affect the world for better, and who knows what kind of seeds this will sow? In the same light, I think we need to fight the battle for American culture. We cannot continue with an attitude of retreat. I doubt we will be able to transform culture, but I think we can at least expect to make an impact. There is no excuse for Christians giving into the cultural peer pressure on issues like morality. As Christians, we should never be ashamed of Paul's words in Phil. 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Christians who are in the film industry should not give in to compromising their morality in order to be "edgy". Nor should we sacrifice ideals of purity and righteousness in the name of not being legalists. Legalism and righteousness are very different things: one is an attitude of doing what's right for credit, another is doing what's right out of love. We need to stop acting like rebellious children who want to act in whatever way they want. We need to spiritually grow up, start being men and women of God who stand up for truth and purity.

I'm speaking as much to myself as to anyone else. I tolerate far too much, and have become desensitized to things that should be revolting. I've bought into the lie that "its not really that big of a deal", I've succumbed to this childish attitude of rebellion against all standards, and trivialized purity.

------

So, a bit of a harsh blog, and a bit random… perhaps I'm randomly connecting things that shouldn't be connected, I dunno.

Read more...

Leadership

A humorous moment from Atlantis was when McKay was recording his "final words" before he was about to die. They consisted mostly of ramblings and emotional introspection, but the humor was that every beat he would say "ah yes, back to my topic... Leadership."And every scene that came back to that recording, he had apparently yet again diverted from his topic.

For whatever reason, I feel compelled to offer some reflections on leadership. Whether or not this will degenerate into me rambling has yet to be seen. Further, it is possible (if not likely) that my presentation of thoughts on leadership (as with McKay) points more to a lack of leadership ability on my part, of which I freely confess.

So what is leadership? More importantly, what are the qualities of a good leader?

Here are a few thoughts of mine: (in no particular order)

1) Knowledge. This does not mean omniscience, or even specialized knowledge. Good leadership requires good comprehensive knowledge. Enough knowledge to always be able to see how thoughts ought to work, and how their parts generally should operate to accomplish their goal. A good leader will also have some degree of knowledge about how people function, and know how to recognize people's needs, reactions, etc.

2) Perspective. Good leaders are always able to see the big picture. As with knowledge, there is a need for awareness of the details, but a good leader will always see how each parts each function, and each step reaches the bigger goal, and is keenly aware when group diverts from its goal. On some level it is ideal for a good leader to be able to see when the smallest unite diverts, but this is not entirely necessary. What is more important is that the leader has a clear sense of the goal and a clear sense of how the parts will function to accomplish this goal.

3) Clarity. A good leader needs clarity in order to assess all the available information, filter out all of the irrelevant details, and then synthesize the correct decision. A good leader does not get confused when challenges arise. He does not get overwhelmed by their imposing nature, but is always sharp in seeing where such things actually pose a challenge to the goal, and what must be done to overcome these obstacles. This again does not require having the answer, but having enough comprehensive clarity not to be overburdened by an apparent challenge, and always maintaining clarity for the big picture. Further, the leader is aware of the needs of the individual parts, and is always factoring in the necessary steps in providing for these needs when appropriate.

4) Accuracy. A good leader probably will make mistakes, but he will always strive for accuracy. In our day and age, their is a common spirit of "fudging" the details, or getting by with the "gist". A good leader strives not necessarily for perfection, but that the parts function accurately, efficiently, and smoothly.

5) Lieutenants. A good leader will always assign skilled lieutenants. This means especially with bigger tasks involving several complex elements having people under the leader who work together well, and also posses some if not all of the qualities of a good leader. The lieutenant is necessary to supplement the leader's comprehensive knowledge with specialized knowledge, reporting the operation and needs of the individual parts (filtered appropriately), and advice and insight into problems based on their specialized knowledge. Lieutenants will likely know more than the leader in their specific field, but if the leader meats the criteria for knowledge, then they will trust his "big picture" knowledge, and submit their specialized knowledge appropriately. A good leader will also trust the input from his lieutenants, and filter this information through the "big picture" and direct them accordingly.

6) Confidence. A good leader recognizes his weaknesses, and also appropriately recognizes his mistakes. But a good leader never lets this lead to second guessing. This must be balanced with knowledge to that the leader is not overconfident, but also that when failures and challenges arise, that the group does not loose heart but can trust that their leader still knows what should be done and is capable of making the right decisions. Confidence does not mean being flawless, but a confident leader is astutely aware of what he can accomplish, what the group can accomplish, and does not let failure challenge what the group is capable of. Further, without confidence a leader will constantly second guess his decisions.

7) Communication. This will overlap with some of the above (especially accuracy). A good leader is able to communicate effectively. This means being able to convey information accurately and being able to accurately understand received information. This also means honest and accurate assessment of all input. A bad leader will simply ignore undesirable input of a subordinate.

8) Strength. A good leader may not possess physical strength, but definitely needs strength of will. This helps the group accomplish their goals when challenges arise, and helps maintain the unity and smooth operation of the group. Further, this is necessary when conflict arises.

9) Wisdom. This also falls under a few different categories, but essentially a good leader must have wisdom. This is not just knowledge or accuracy, but also knowing when and how is best to apply these skills.

The various difficulties that a leader may face:

1) Obstacles -- people, events, or things that get in the way of accomplishing the groups goal. These are either active or passive.

2) Conflict -- when the parts of the group no longer function together. This can be either interpersonal conflict, conflict of interest, or a breakdown of communication. This can also be when one part of the system is attempting to usurp leadership. A good leader knows how to respond to this in an appropriate, controlled, and rational manner. A bad leader will respond emotionally, or with inappropriate extremes.

3) Failure -- either part(s) or the whole fail, and the leader must know how to respond appropriately.

4) Decisions -- while decision making is an essential function of the leader, it is also the most difficult. Making good, rational, and accurate decisions is more than just the "flip of a coin". A good leader is able to assimilate all the relevant information, access the situation rationally, and conclude with an informed decision that he will stand by confidently. The most difficult time is when a decision has been made, and new information arises (either immediately, or later on). A good leader is able to assimilate the new information, and make any necessary corrections.

Finally, I will give some thoughts on what a good "follower" is.

First, he trusts his leader. Admittedly, this is something that at some level must be earned by the leader. In many situations, leadership is assumed and not earned, but the good leader will always take the necessary steps to earn trust. However, a good follower must respond with trust. For any leader to succeed, his subordinates must trust his decisions and perspective.

Second, he must submit. It is all too common that "followers" will attempt to challenge and usurp their leader unless he has demonstrated a strong ability to lead. This only breaks down the system further, resulting in some level or another of anarchy. This is especially difficult for followers when the subordinate has superior leadership abilities (whether perceived or actual). Submission is a necessary skill in life, as every leader is in submission to someone else. Learning to practice submission makes a better follower, and makes better leaders. This can also be difficult when the follower's specialized knowledge seems to contradict the leader's apparent perspective knowledge and decisions. This can either be a result of bad communication (the leader is not communicating how the big picture alters the perspective on the specialized knowledge), bad leadership (the leader is not assimilating the specialized knowledge), or stubbornness (the subordinate is not submitting to the leaders perspective knowledge).

Third, he must follow. This falls under submission and trust, but is separate. Even when the follower disagrees, he must follow the decisions of the leader. When he attempts to challenge or usurp the leader, the system only breaks down. This only breeds disloyalty and division.

Human nature is sinfully flawed, and so there are no perfect leaders or followers. But this does not remove the ideal of the perfect leader, and every leader, whether over large or small ventures must pursue this ideal and attempt to grow and better himself.

Read more...

I don’t buy it

I talked a bit in a previous blog about how a Christian's identity in Christ, and the truth about Christ should impact how we think and live our lives. This is something I think about a lot... and I wanted to add one more thought.

As Christians we rightly affirm that truth, and freely proclaim it. But as my preaching professor liked to say, I don't think we "buy it". We say we believe this, but it doesn't always translate to action in our lives the way the biblical authors assume. There is some disconnect at some level, where what we affirm we don't fully buy into. The Biblical truth is supposed to transform our lives, and the process of salvation is supposed to be conforming our minds to God's. But why does it seem like this sometimes fails? Or why do we sometimes forget about it?

I've put a lot of thought into this question, and have yet come up with a conclusion that is satisfying. This is a deeply personal issue to me, because I feel like I have a decent grasp of the basics of scripture, yet I see so much filth in my life. I think there are several different reasons, and here are a few that I have come up with.

1) Christianity isn't what we really want. This is a harsh statement, but what I mean is that God's way of things is not what we want. The process of salvation, the development of faith, and the lifelong pursuit of trusting God in a significant way is opposite of what human nature wants.

For example, suppose a Sunday morning sermon went something like this:

Everyone stand up. Now get out your Bible's. Now open them to the exact middle (the middle of your bible, not the text itself). Now hold your Bible flat in your left hand, hold it out. With your right hand, place your middle finger on the exact middle of the open bible, and position two fingers on each open page, in exactly symmetrical spots. Now, for the next 5 minutes, focus all of your concentration and energy on the tips of your fingers. Feel the page, and as you concentrate, begin to feel the power of God emanate from the page, and channel into your soul through your fingers.

Although this is fiction and superstition, I guarantee church attendance would be up if this actually worked. If Christianity were about a literal infusion of "power" for 5 minutes every Sunday, people would be very excited. The point is not that true Christians do not want God, but that God's process of things is slow and hard, and is not always immediately experienced by our 5 senses. I think part of us deeply wants this, because this is how things appear "real" to us. We experience the world us with our five senses, and this is all that we know of what is "real". God is still real, and he is still experienced, but we don't see, feel, and hear him all the time.

2) We've bout into a lie about salvation.

I recently heard a sermon by Paul Washer that a friend directed me towards (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52906154239 ), and I think he might have hit on a significant part of why we don't buy it. We have a very unbiblical (he says heretical) pre-understanding about salvation.

For me, it started when I was a kid. I was told that Jesus lived in heaven, and that after I die I should want to live in heaven with Jesus (and presumably my parents and family). What I needed to do to get into heaven was say a prayer, and Jesus would come into my heart. As a kid, I imagined that when I said this prayer (something like magic words) then this little fairy like Jesus would flutter into my heart and let me into heaven.

Even though I know that this is far from the sum total of what it means to be a Christian, I think when faced with temptation a lot of times, even though I do not consciously think it, at some level there is the thought that "it is okay, because I said the prayer so heaven is not in danger". As I got older, I was taught the doctrine of grace. This meant that all of my sins were forgiven at the cross. This too can compound that unspoken voice when facing temptation, because not only did I say prayer when I was 5, but God will forgive me if I choose to sin.

It is said that the best heresy always has a good deal of truth to it, and just adds just enough falsehood in order to come up with a believable heresy. Paul Washer argues that our understanding of salvation as saying a prayer is such a heresy, because this "say a prayer and get into heaven" attitude removes all responsibility and action. He argues from Matthew 7 that Jesus says the road is narrow and the gate is small that lead to life. Although I do not agree with his strong Calvinist sentiments on the issue, I think he's really hit something here.

The biblical teaching is that the Christian life is tough. It is not about saying a magical formula and getting into heaven. It is about God's kingdom. It is about becoming a part of God's redemptive plan for creation. It is about joining the ranks of God's army and being on the front lines. It is about experiencing the transforming work of his Spirit, and experiencing his new life. But it is also about suffering and difficulty. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Christian life is easy. In fact, Jesus' teaching of the narrow road points very clearly to the epic struggle that entails Christianity.

Washer says that if we're not living a life like God wants, a life that walks this narrow path, then we are not saved. I think things are far from this simple, because so much of the New Testament is written to assumed believers who are not always walking this path. Instead, I think that salvation is a process. There is a beginning, where the Spirit begins to open our eyes to the truth of God in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. At some point we choose to put our trust in that truth (not going get into the order of salvation issues). And from that point on, our trust is challenged. Walking the narrow path is about suffering, about having to sacrifice the pleasures we want to enjoy in our humanity for the sake of our love for God. It is about suffering at the hands of unbelievers who see these very odd people living weird and intolerant lifestyles. It is about rejecting the old way of life for the new life in Christ.

3) We don't really have faith. Faith is often defined as believing, and we treat evangelism as primarily changing people's beliefs. We must declare Christ as Lord, believe in his Gospel. This is surely important, but this is not the sum total of faith. Biblical faith also (equally if not more) includes trust. No Christian will deny this, after all trusting God is a huge theme in scripture. However, I think that truly developing trust is a long and hard process.

Part of this is the definition of trust. Trust isn't just "hope", nor is it just "probably". I am a person who has grown to not trust very many people, but I can trust that my family will always be there for me when I'm in need, I can trust the sincerity of my wife's love, and I can trust a few of my friends to fight along side me if the need arose. These are rare and special and rare things today. But can I say I trust God in all things? Trust and doubt are complete opposites. I think a significant part of the Christian life is having our doubts proven false, and God proving himself more and more trustworthy. The foundation of trust is knowledge, and we can clearly see that from scripture God is in fact trustworthy. All he asks is that people have faith in him, and he always does what he promises.

One aspect of God's order of things that sometimes causes me to doubt is that his intensions are not the same as mine. I wish I could say I trust God to give me an awesome job in the next month, (because my current one ends in a few weeks). I cannot say this, because I have seen far to many times when God's will is different than mine. However, I am fairly certain I can say that I trust God will provide, because no matter how many times it has seemed like we might not be able to pay next month's rent, he has provided.

Trust is more than just confidence. I think trust must manifest itself in action. You cannot say you trust God will do something, and then sit there idly. There is a delicate balance here, because we can trust God will do something, and then set out to do it in a way different from his plan. But trust also must result in action, because action is where the proverbial "rubber meets the road".

4) We aren't willing. I think this is one of the central defining aspects of Christianity. Are we willing to sacrifice what our natural desires want for God's way? I think initial conversion begins with this question, and the rest of the process of salvation is daily being confronted by this same question. After all, if we are really growing in the Spirit, then we are also regularly being confronted with new areas of our lives that God wants to work on.

This means that for true growth to happen, we need to be working through these issues as they arise. This is part of the danger of habitual sin in the Christian life: habitual sin means that there is awareness of sin, there is recognition that the associated desires need to be sacrificed, and it means that at some level, the person is unwilling to. The danger is also that habitual sin can lead to a hardening of one's heart, and I think this can be very dangerous for a Christian. The story of Israel in the desert is appealed too several of times in this context: they habitually rejected God's way, and ended up missing out on God's blessing in the promised land.

So why don't we always "buy it"? Why do we so easily forget the kingdom perspective, why do we fall into sin so easily, why do people so often fall into the "religion" of Christianity instead of the new life?

1) Its not what we really want. Christianity is a slow and hidden process, and we want to see, hear, and touch the reality of God instead of have faith in his work.

2) We've bought into a lie. At some level, we fall into the trap of thinking that since we said a prayer at 5, we're okay.

3) We don't really have faith. We don't really trust that God will do what he promises, that he has our best interest in mind. Our "trust" doesn't manifest itself in action.

4) We aren't willing. We do not always want to sacrifice the natural desires that God wants us to sacrifice in order to experience growth.

I'm not sure if this entirely answers the question, but I think it is a definite starting place.

God please reveal these wrong attitudes in my heart. Forgive me for not submitting to you. I repent of trying to make you into what I want, instead of letting you make me into what you want. Give me the strength and courage to trust you more, and I know you will continue you to walk with me and help me overcome temptation.

Read more...

My addiction to World of Warcraft.

I have spent far to many hours of my life playing this wonderful temptation. I refuse to post how many actual game days I have spent since I started playing 10 months ago, but I freely admit that number is high.

What is it that attracts me so much to this game?

It is such a detailed and immersive world. Even though I've seen a lot of it several times, I just cannot get enough of it. There is always more to do. I have leveled two characters to 70. It takes a good 6-7 days of play to get to 70 (note this is game days: in other words, 7x24 hours of play). This part is fun enough, and because of the size of the world, I ran a lot of new quests the second time around. Once you hit 70, you may think the game is over, (at least until the expansion comes out next year). However, this is far from true. First, you need to start getting better gear in order to run the heroic dungeons. This takes a decent amount of time. You'll also be finishing up quests to get more money, and start running dailies (which you will probably run for a very long time just to get money). On top of this, you'll have to grind rep for a number of factions, in order to get better gear. After having run them a number of times, you should be close enough to start the raiding content. This is where the game is taken to a whole new level. Now, you get together 10 buddies, (and later on 25) and tackle the most difficult dungeons. There are half a dozen "end-game" raids that progress in difficulty. The latter 2/3 require a good month or so each for a group to get good enough in order to actually complete. You also have to progress through these in a specific order, because each new raid is increasingly difficult, and requires better gear.

So.. needless to say, there is a lot that I find attractive. If I ever hit a place where I never had a new goal to achieve, I would probably drop the game. But that likely will never happen.

I feel rather guilty, because the reality is there are plenty of other things I can do with my time that would be far more productive. I heard a girl once lament that so many future Christian leaders were wasting away their lives at games like World of Warcraft, and this certainly is not far off from the truth.

But, for what it is worth, here is how I justify it. The reality is, we already live in a culture that is addicted to entertainment. I know from experience that the time I play WoW is time that I would have spent watching TV, or bumming around on the net. I really wish that we could have counters on our TV's that said how many hours they have been on, and I think we would be severely humbled by those numbers. I've heard numbers as high as 4-5 hours a day for most young adults.

Although this is far from substantial, I have learned from this game. I think some of my teamwork skills, leadership skills, and communication skills have increased. Again, I freely admit the weakness of this excuse.

So is there a solution? I have thought many times about giving up the game. After all, that would be a number of hours each week that would then be free for more productive tasks like study, music, and devotions. For me, this is unrealistic. I know that if I had that time free, I would just find other avenus of entertainment to fill it. Perhaps this is a weak excuse also, but I do like that WoW keeps track of my time played. I can (and do) pay close attention to this. I haven't worked out a healthy balance, but my goal is that as long as I am:

- Regularly spending times in devotions

- Giving Marcy her fair share of my time

- Spending time studying / preparing for ministry responsibilities

- Am working at a decent job (or working towards)

... as long as these are in place at healthy levels, then maybe WoW isn't such a bad thing. Its just an admission that instead of TV and other pointless entertainment, that WoW fills those spots and keeps track of the time played so hopefully I can maintain balance.

I wish I was the type of person that could schedule all of my 24 hours each day towards specifically productive tasks, but I know this is not possible. Hopefully as I mature I can grow closer to this, but I know from experience that if I do not have a few hours of entertainment each day, I quickly get depressed.

Things like WoW are very dangerous, because it is very easy to spend 10 hours a day. But if you can keep it in a health balance with your other responsibilities, and still feel satisfied with your level of productivity, I do think it is possible to be a WoW addict and still live a healthy life.

Of course.... this could just be denial :)

Read more...

Why Harry Potter is Evil

Having grown up in a small town in Georgia, I've heard almost every argument for why things such as Harry Potter are evil. It supports witchcraft, portraying it positively. It encourages kids to want to explore magic. Because of it, youth are flocking to wika cults. Some would go so far as to accuse Harry Potter as pure propaganda for Satan. I remember hearing stories about how witches would pray over certain toys (I believe they were related to the movie Beatlejuice), praying to the goddess (although the stories said it was Satan) to use the toys to influence children's lives. For the churches I grew up in, things like Harry Potter were the front line offensive of the enemy. Therefore, they required the majority of our energies to prohibit, picket, protest, etc. This was pure evil, and our children must be protected from it.

This of course has some major flaws. First and foremost, some of the greatest Christian writers saw no problem with using magic in their stories (viz. Lewis, Tolkein, etc.). One might try to argue that for them magic was always evil, but this certainly is not the case of all. So is this fear of Harry Potter entirely irrational and a result of overzealous fundamentalism?

Probably so, but as a fan of Harry Potter, I want to try and present an argument for why literature / media such as this can be bad. I think Reynolds has made a good case for why good Christian media is important. The stories (especially fiction) paint metaphors and images, and convey themes that are fundamentally Christian. One cannot help but be impressed with Lewis' genius in the Chronicles of Narnia. In an innocent story, he paints a vivid image of the battle of good versus evil, and the characteristics of evil being selfishness, greed, and so on. The characteristics of pure good are seen in Aslan himself. Aslan is a divine figure, but is never overtly described as such. Aslan is powerful, fearful, gentle, loving, and so on. Further, Aslan demonstrates a sacrificial atonement. Aslan's relationship with Narnians and with the children points to aspects of the divine-human relationship, and subtly touches on some complex theological questions such as sovereignty and responsibility in a simple, profound, and understandable way. After all, Lewis wrote for children.

The point is that Lewis did not feel (as many Christian writers) that he had to put the clear Gospel message in every chapter of his Christian fiction. He used fiction to first tell a great story. And this story dealt with metaphors that are fundamentally Christian. Redemption, Messiah, true and pure love, and so on. As Reynolds said, as a child after reading the Narnia books, he had that common emotional feeling of "if only such a world really existed". Such metaphors can strongly impact how we view the world, after all this is one of the great powers of good art. Its not in the literal interpretation, but the themes and metaphors.

This is also where works such as Harry Potter can be dangerous. It is not the presence of magic, but what magic is a metaphor for. Magic is something that the children utilize freely to control the world around them, viz. the force in Star Wars. After reading a Harry Potter book, one has the same feeling of "if only such a world existed", but although this world is a world of good and evil, it is a world where we primarily can control our own destinies by the forces of magic.

Again, it is not magic's fault. It is the metaphor. I believe this control theme strikes at something primal in humanities sinful nature. Eve's temptation was to be like God, to have the power and knowledge of God. I think it is fair to say that all human sin can be summed up in some form or another of pride: a twisted inward focus that places value on self above all else. This is fundamentally contradictory toward the biblical notion of faith.

I believe that metaphors such as the magic of Harry Potter, or the force of Star wars excite us and appeal to us because we want that kind of control. We want to be able to impact and control the forces around us that seem to dominate and master our destinies. We want that super human power. What kid has not wished he could move objects with his mind? Or manipulate people?

What is the solution? Should we shield our children from such evil? Should we hide any influences that might encourage this anti-faith attitude? The reality is nothing we can do will shield our children from it, because they are born with that attitude. And outside of living in a literal bubble, they will encounter this attitude in its plethora of forms in human society. Further, stories such as Harry Potter are good literature, and we certainly don't want to force our children to endure mediocre stories that are "safe", thus encouraging stunted growth in their God given love for art?

I think this metaphor of control is only dangerous when we are not properly developing the foundation of biblical truth, specifically the biblical notion of faith. We cannot help children by shielding them from evil, but by developing the proper world view and understanding of truth that will allow them to grow in the right way, and respond appropriately to wrong metaphors. If children are driven to cults after reading Harry Potter, something was already fundamentally wrong in their developmental processes, and Harry Potter cannot bear the blame for a larger pre-existent problem.

Instead, it seems to me that parents must first examine their own lives. Do they live the life of faith that Paul describes? Is their life a life of submission to the will of God, and to the Holy Spirit? Is their faith the biblical faith? Only when they start to "get it" can they model and develop "it" in their kids. And of course, this is only in the context of the Holy Spirit also working in their lives.

Harry Potter, Star Wars, and all of the other stories that contain mythical powers to control one's destiny should not be a reason for fear for parents. Instead, if they are good art (and this of course can be debated) then they should be celebrated, and used as an opportunity to address some of these fundamental questions and issues that they raise, both intentionally and unintentionally. Good art is hard to come by these days.

It must be noted, when I say "good art", I mean art that is not just appealing, but good, pure, and beautiful. Harry Potter has a lot of redeeming themes in it, and it is a very good, touching story. It might have its flaws, (such as the author's postscript that Dumbledore is in fact gay), but it is still a good story and can be rightly appreciated by Christian families.

Read more...

Government

I don’t think I’ve ever blogged about politics. I tend to shy away from even talking about it, because no matter who you talk to, discussions are either preaching to the choir (which while providing some sense of belonging and encouragement, seem futile), or disagreement, (which it seems like everyone always has some extra tidbit of information or fact that the other cannot prove or disprove which apparently seals the deal on the argument). So, needless to say, talking about politics bugs me.

But I thought I might reflect some on some of the attitudes in politics that bother me.

1) Entitlement
It is not difficult to find somebody who feels entitled to something. In America we love to appeal to our rights to various things. We act and talk as if anything we individually want should be within the bounds of our rights. However, many of these are hard to sustain outside the basic rights of freedom (within the bounds of the law) and security. Freedom of course must include speech, religion, thought and action. But the reality is the government exists not to provide for us, but to restrain evil. Please note that I stress “restrain”. Government is an imperfect institution that attempts to restrain the influence of evil so that people can live, and so that humanity does not self destruct. But it is impossible for government to eradicate evil, because the solution to evil in humanity is far beyond any mere human institution. Biblically, we know that only through the power of Christ’s death and resurrection can evil be eradicated.
Governments exist to provide some sense of order and control of evil in humanity. Although unpopular, this is essentially legislating a basic moral system. This system includes murder, theft, and harm. Beyond this though, government has not right to function.
So the government does not “owe” us anything. Our taxes are supposed to secure us from outside attack, provide for policing, some control to sustain a basic level of order, and other areas of safety (such as aid in natural disaster, fire, etc.). Further, the government is not responsible for providing basic necessities or luxuries. The idea of people living off of welfare simply because of their laziness is disgusting, and clearly contradicts the biblical principle of 2 Thess. 3:10: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat”.
Finally, this attitude towards entitlement on many levels is a lazy attitude. It is relegating all responsibility (or most of it) to someone else, and for many the easiest target is the government.

2) Government and good will
In a similar vein, many seem to presuppose that the government is responsible for good will towards those in need, whether foreign or abroad. This simple is not a reasonable expectation of an institution that is designed to restrain evil. Good will is virtuous, but it must be enacted freely by individuals or institutions. Government is not designed to provide good will to others. There are definite ways that government can assist good will movements, but government is too inefficient and poorly designed to solely be responsible for good will.

3) War
Another troubling attitude is towards war. For governments to properly restrain evil, sometimes war is necessary. There is far too much evil in the world for any government to effectively police the world, (and no government is pure enough to objectively function as such). But when there are powers in place that pose a real threat, government is responsible to respond in an appropriate way. Many are cynical towards the reality of war in humanity. It is all to common in science fiction to have some outsider reflect on the savagery of humanity, that we kill one another and are so naturally violent. This is a true reflection of humanity, and attempting to distance ourselves as if the seeds of such destruction are not in us is only naive and self deception. Humanities’ violence IS a tragedy, but we cannot ignore the source of this problem. It is not some “barbaric notion” that we will evolve away from, but it is at our very core. Biblically, this is unmistakably our sin nature. Roddenberry’s vision of the future was that humanity would evolve away from this, but any examination of history will make clear that we aren’t doing any better. As civilization has progressed, many of us are free from much of the chaos and destruction of life, but this does not mean we have removed the core reasons why such chaos exists in the world. We have only built a wall high enough that we can sometimes forget about it. For many, this may sound like a criticism of the western world, and that we should be more sensitive and “enlightened” about the plight of the 3rd world. At some level, this is certainly true. But at another, I think we should also recognize that all humans are sinful, and although we may have some luxuries the 3rd world doesn’t have, we also have a whole different set of issues and problems that to them are ludicrous. And yet, in all of this, even the “ideal” socialized countries of western Europe, sin still reign sin all humanity.
All of this to say that war is necessary. We should grieve the losses in Iraq, but I am still strongly convinced that it was a right thing. Of course there are other places where things were worse, but there were a number of necessary ingredients involved to make Iraq viable. (Such ingredients that currently are not setup for places such as Iran and North Korea). Further, establishing a peaceful, democratic state in Iraq can ultimately only be good for stabilizing such a turbulent region. We can point to the suffering of Iraqis, and how the new government is only stirring up more trouble in the Middle East, but can we really be foolish enough to accuse the whole venture as wrong? When there are forces and governments bent on evil and not restraining it, we can only expect that when we act to bring such restraint, they will only resist. Such restraint is simply not achieved by pacifism, and it is truly tragic that countries that suffered at the hands of Nazism still are proponents of such a philosophy.
It would be difficult in our globalized world to have another Hitler, (though surely not impossible). But leaders such as Saddam that posture themselves and support terrorist organizations are only trying to bring chaos and destruction to the world. If Sadam brought order (though oppressive), yet still sought to bring chaos and evil to the world, is it not ultimately right (and the right function of government) to remove such leadership? This undoubtedly would (and has) cause suffering, but if its for a greater good, I think it is necessary. Bush may have his failings on many levels, but I do think he has done a right thing in Iraq, and the fruits of his persistent will are beginning to show. My fear is that when Obama becomes president (which it seems all but likely will happen) that he will be so concerned with appeasing the mass that he will undo some of the good that Bush has begun. This attitude towards war is very nearsighted, idealistic, and naive.

4) Cynicism
Most people have some level or another of cynicism towards to government. It is only “out to get you”, it is only there to control you, and in an almost child-like fashion, it is only there to spoil our fun. This attitude presupposes that the government is always corrupt, always out to oppress, and the people who lead in government are only out to secure more power for themselves. These things are certainly true of some, (if not many), but the institution of government is not a singular identity that can rightly be blamed for such things. Such blame is only appropriate when dealing with a dictator. Under more democratic systems, checks and balances are in place to hopefully sustain some level of balance (although admittedly these rarely work perfectly). Further, when governments do function wrongly, in a democratic system it is only the fault of the people. If we elect officials who appealed to us visually and who seduced us with flattery and unsubstantiated promises, and yet prove to lack character, substance, and right vision, then it is our fault for being superficial.

5) Equality
There seems to be a common notion that equality on every level is good. This is often relegated to the function of government to impose this level of equality. Of course inequality in areas such as race are clearly wrong, but other areas of equality such as economic seem hardly fit. Communism (and to a lesser degree socialism) has made clear that human nature is the antithesis of economic equality. It is sad when there is a great disparity between the poor and rich, but in the ideal situation wealth should reflect work. This is a necessary motivating principle for humanity to function. Very few people gain wealth simply by ancestry. It is not the role of government to make sure all resources and opportunities are evenly distributed. If equality at a basic level is truly a virtue, then this must be taught and must operate from the mass, and not legislated.


In summary, here is what I think government is responsible for:

1) Restraint of evil
- Basic ethical code and enforcement of it (including appropriate consequences)
- Protection of citizens from outside evil
- Consequences for unrestrained evil
- Sustain balance of security and freedom (even though these two are in antithesis)

2) Order
- Basic level of management of financial system
- Transit system
- Some basic checks and balances to encourage fair commerce
(though it is difficult for government to be solely responsible for fair commerce)
3) Foreign
- Maintaining good relations with other countries to encourage trade
- Restraint of evil against nation
(note, this must be balanced with a sense of justice towards foreign nations. It would be wrong to commit an injustice towards another nation in the name of security.)
Read more...