Self-Congratulations

This morning I listened to the live press conference from Boston regarding the tragic bombing of yesterday.  I usually don’t listen to such things, but I needed to give myself a manicure (so to speak, or just ‘cut the nails’ to be more accurate).  What I heard was revealing.

First up was a string politicians.  Each of them, in his own way, congratulated himself for being “on top of” this tragedy.  None of them spoke for a long time, but there were enough to make this parade of self-congratulations fairly long.

Eventually, when the politicians had released sufficient hot air, the various law enforcement officials involved finally had a turn.  They assured the listeners that they were busy doing everything that could be done to catch the bad guys.  A couple of them were honest enough to say that people should expect to see more uniformed people around Boston, but that the main purpose for at least some of this was simply to make people feel better.  Some were also honest enough to at least suggest that they were present before the bombing, but they were not able to stop it, nor could they be expected to make this impossible in the future.

Then came questions and answers.  As you might expect, no specific questions about the course of the investigation could be answered.  So there was nothing really to be learned from the questions posed by the press.

So from the great press conference, I learned that politicians tend to love themselves and think they are indispensible to our well-being.  I learned that law enforcement officials can’t be expected to stop these things in the future – though they might sometimes.  Finally, I learned nothing about the investigation.

This is why I don’t pay much attention to press conferences after these kinds of tragic events.

Our Friend, the Collective?

(CNSNews.com) -- In a 30-second promo for MSNBC’s Lean Forwardcampaign, Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry advocates that society end the “private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” and instead institute a “collective notion” that kids “are our children,” they belong to the community.

In the MSNBC advertisement, Perry says, “We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children: your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.”

“So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities,” said Harris-Perry, a professor of political science at Tulane University and host of the Melissa Harris-Perry show on Saturday and Sunday mornings on MSNBC.

“Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments,” Harris-Perry added.

Kent comments:

Statists have a completely different view of life and the world than do those of us who do not subscribe to the (irrational) religion of statism.  Statists have their own set of commandments for their religion.  While these were never carved into stone anywhere, they exist nonetheless.  Notice some of these in the words of the statist priestess quoted above:

Anything “private” is bad.  Families are not important, but ‘communities’ are.  Children “belong” to the community, that is, the state.  Governments spending money is “investing.”  One converts to statism by “breaking through” rival religions.  And most importantly, the world is a bad place outside the reign of statism, and it will be a better world once statism is the ruling religious view.  (I summarized these in the order in which they appear.  See if you can find others I missed.)

The cult of statism is curious, but it is much more than that.  It is dangerous.  Our society has tried to flirt with it by allowing “a little bit of it” and then trying to contain it.  That was foolish, and it is failing.  Statism never retreats.  It is on a campaign to “save” the world by conquering it.  And it is in a unique position to do so because it, by its very nature, glorifies the state, the ultimate agency of force on earth.

Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry worships at the alter of the state.  So do many others.  Remember that compromise with them is impossible.

Self-Defense for Teenagers

There is a nice article by Rand Paul today stating his position on so-called “gun control.”  (Which is really a “people control” which amounts to “rights infringement.”)  In the course of his argument, Paul presents this:

For every national tragedy that happens, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Americans preventing similar killings from happening, thanks to the use of personal firearms. Last June, for example, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an armed intruder who broke into his home while he was baby-sitting his three younger siblings. The children were home alone on a Saturday afternoon when an unrecognized woman rang their doorbell. After the 14-year-old boy refused to open the door, he heard a loud bang, which indicated that someone was trying to break into the house. The boy hurried his younger siblings upstairs and collected a handgun from his parents’ room. When the boy rounded the top of the stairs, there was a man standing in the doorway with a gun pointed at him. The boy shot at the intruder and saved the lives of his three younger siblings.

I hate to say this, but my impression of many who want to “control guns” is that they would react to this with:  “Fourteen-year-olds should not be allowed to touch a gun under any circumstances.”  I could be wrong, and I hope I am wrong, but I doubt that I am.

As Rand Paul points out in the article, and as many, many others have pointed out recently, the evidence says, “More guns mean less crime.”  But the “gun control” people simply do not seem to care about that.  Paul does not cite a source for the story above (and I didn’t expect that in an op-ed piece like this), but assuming it is true, my best guess is that in many locales, the parents of the boy would be charged with something-or-other for allowing the teenagers to touch a gun.

This is one of the current bandwagons driving around our culture.  Bandwagons usually carry a load that contains a heavy dose of insanity.

What Next?

There is an interesting little point-and-counterpoint over at Christianity Today.  It is titled “If the Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, What Next?”  The three authors make various points, the first one being worried that churches will “exclude and ostracize”, the second who says, “We must offer—even mandate—robust premarital counseling for church members” and the last who “would be honored to spend time in dialogue with gay couples.”

There is nothing horribly wrong with what is said by any of the authors of this article.  It is a little annoying to hear the constant whining from “pastor” types today that we must be ever-so-careful not to ruffle anyone’s feathers when we talk about sin.  But that is not the point here.

My guess is that some editor at CT dreamed up this trendy title and theme, and then asked these three to write something (quickly) about it to ‘catch the wave’ of interest on this topic with the current Supreme Court hearings on the matter.  The problem is that very little of what is said has any direct connection to legalizing same-sex marriage.

If the Supreme Court ‘legalizes’ same-sex marriage, the ‘what next’ for Christians and the church ought to be . . . nothing different than before.  That wouldn’t make much of a trendy article, but that’s the nature of reality often.

Consider the (very related) matter of sodomy:  before it was legalized it was contrary to the revealed will of God and thus immoral, and Christians and churches should have said so whenever the matter came up.  After it was legalized, nothing changed in regard to the church and Christians.  Before it was legal, it was not the only sin, though it was one with some serious consequences.  After it was legal, it was still not the only sin, but will remain one with serious consequences.

The case is exactly the same with same-sex “marriage” – which is not marriage at all.  But even now many people have deluded themselves into think it is.  Even now the church and Christians need to be explaining to people the truth that same-sex whatever-that-is is not marriage, and pretending that it is does not make it so.  What civil law says bears no direct connection to the reality of such matters.

Should the Supreme Court ‘legalize’ same-sex “marriage” none of that will change, just as marriage will not change.  If that should happen, what then?  Well then, Christians should continue to do what they always should have been doing about marriage:  confessing the truth about it.  Our culture, including and especially the Supreme Court, cannot affect the mission of Christians and the church.

The ‘Environmental Crisis’ and the Christian Faith

A recent article in Christianity Today contains a theme that is becoming a bit over-worked in establishment evangelical circles.  The article is about the broader implications of the Christian doctrine of creation.  It is not bad, but the author seemingly cannot resist the urge to load Christianity onto the bandwagon of “environmentalism” when at one point he says:

All of this adds a further dimension to our thinking about the present environmental crisis. If being made in God's image involves stewarding the natural world, we need to steward in a Christlike way, as servants rather than as dictators. As Christians, we can share with all humanity a concern for preserving the environment for future generations. And we can share with other faith communities a sense of preserving the Earth as a divine gift. But we should want to go further, and proclaim environmental responsibility as a consequence of living under the lordship of Christ.

It is striking that Genesis 1 ends not in the creation of Adam and Eve, but in the Sabbath day on which, as Scottish theologian David Fergusson says, "the whole creation glorifies its maker." That is, resting in, rejoicing in, and living out the Sabbath praise of God is regarded in Scripture as the very summit of earthly existence—the purpose for which it was breathed into being. Viewed this way, we humans are called not just to "use" material reality for our own ends, but to hallow it, to reverence it as God's gift, to work for its flourishing, and, in this manner, to be viceroys of the world over which he graciously superintends.

First of all, what, exactly is “the present environmental crisis”?  People have been using this terminology for decades now, and yet, when I take a walk “the environment” is still there.  The ever-present “crisis” language is clearly not just wrong, but deceptive.  Here is a Christ-like quality for Christianity Today to consider:  truthfulness.

Also along the lines of deception is language about “servants rather than as dictators” of the creation and that we should “not just ‘use’ material reality for our own ends.”  God told human kind to “subdue” the earth, which necessarily involves using it and thereby changing it.  All the theological mumbo-gumbo talk incorporating environmentalists lingo you can muster does not change that.

God made the earth for our use, and He made it in an amazing way such that, even when we make mistakes with the earth, it is very difficult for us to destroy it.  (Isn’t God tricky that way?)

This never-ending attempt by evangelicals to kowtow to environmentalism is yet another manifestation of the triumph of culture over Christianity.  It is not helpful, it is not “prophetic” and it amounts to a betrayal of the Christian faith.

All the News That’s Fit to Print (or Speak, or Digitalize)

The other day I listened and considered the Fox (at least on the radio) News slogan:  “We report, you decide.”  Since the “yellow journalism” days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, news outlets have professed, and inconsistently worked toward, the ideal of being factual and unbiased.

It is, of course, impossible to be completely unbiased.  But making those biases open and recognized, and trying to get the facts straight, is an admirable set of goals.  The problem is that even these noble ideals in some ways hide what goes on in today’s “news reporting.”  What I am about to mention is especially the case with radio news, TV news, and any format that tries to condense the news into the smallest space possible.  It is also the case that this happens with all networks, wire services, and news outlets.

We can understand this problem by thinking about the slogan, “We report, you decide.”  Even if everything reported is completely accurate and unbiased, there is something important hidden here.  You can see this if you think about the unstated corollary of the slogan.  Consider what would the slogan would have to say IF the intention was to be completely open:

“We report, you decide, BUT we decide what to report.”

Fox News is supposed to be somehow different from other major networks.  But at least when comparing the daily radio reports, Fox News tends to report on almost exactly the same things reported on by all the other news services.

It’s not that there is nothing else that could be reported.  There are a few little outlets you find here and there that do decided to report different things from the mainline news services.  When you listen to these and are accustomed to the usual mainline reports, it is striking the wildly different perspective one gets when listening to “the news.”

One final note:  mainline news, including Fox News, tends to report political news in terms of what some politician says about the matter at hand, and very little else.  This is just another example of “we decided what to report.”

This whole system seems to be ingrained beyond reform.  But it’s not fair, and it’s not balanced.  It’s not even close.

Should the Government Tell You Who You Can Marry?

I am not one to want the government to tell us (especially if that really means “force us”) to do very much.  Just exactly how much is morally appropriate, and where that boundary lies, and most importantly how it is correctly defined, is something I am still pondering.

The question of the government dictating things is bound to come up in the current debate raging across society regarding what some call “homosexual marriage.”  Our whole social context seems designed to urge the question, “Who are you to tell me who I can marry?”

Like so many other questions asked in our social context, this one is the wrong question, and is almost designed to lead us away from the more important issue.  A better and more to-the-point question is: “Why Can’t I Define Marriage Any Way I Wish?”

This question is much more insightful because it points to an assumption behind this whole debate: the assumption that marriage is correctly defined only by those who participate in it.  This assumption deserves to be examined.

Our culture is driven by the idea that almost everything can be reconstructed however we want to make us happy.  Is this the case with marriage?

We can’t limit this question to the matter of “homosexual marriage.”  In recent history, marriage in our culture was defined as something between one man and one woman for life, apart from a few extreme circumstances.  (Mormons in the 19th century attempted a redefinition which did not catch on.)  This definition came from the descriptions of marriage found in the New Testament.  Such constraints were cast off fairly recently.  But having cast them off, we are left with some logic many do not wish to follow to its conclusion.

If marriage can be redefined in any way we wish, then, of course, it could be between one man and one woman, one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.  That has become acceptable to many in our culture because homosexual advocates have portrayed homosexuals as victims of societal prejudice.  The definition of marriage was portrayed as a majority persecuting a homosexual minority.  But that is not the real issue, just a diversion.

For exactly the same reasons that marriage could be redefined as just mentioned, it could just as easily be redefined as between one man and one child, one woman and one child, one man and a group of women, one woman and a group of men, or even one man or woman and one animal.

Many advocates of redefining marriage balk some or all of these, but there is no good reason for that, once we concede that marriage can be redefined at will.  I predict that, given the popularity of pets today, that the advocates of human-animal marriages will soon demand their redefinition of marriage.

So the answer to the question, “Should the government tell you who you can marry?” is a definite “no.”  Marriage is ‘definitionally’ possible only between one man and one woman.  So the government should not tell you who you can marry.  Ladies, pick your man.  Gentlemen, pick your lady.  But, by definition, a man can’t marry a man any more than a man can “marry” his large-screen TV.  Men can engage in all sorts of relationships with other men, and women with other women. In few if any of these does the government currently even attempt to interfere.  But, by definition, this is not marriage, because we don’t define marriage.  It comes to us as what it is, and is not created by us.

Marriage is what it is, whether we like it or not.  Calling something “marriage” no more makes it so than calling a triangle a circle makes them the same thing.  So taking notice of the fact that it is simple impossible for a man to marry a man is not oppression or a sign of hate any more than noticing that trees are not persons.