A Cheap Re-Post

I am a blogging derelict and this post does nothing to fix that status.  However, my husband, after having himself taken a two month hiatus, has posted a particularly good blog post and I have chosen to post a link to it here.  In the post he discusses what responsibilities Christians carry and how at different times in history, they have failed to live up to those responsibilities.  A good read from a good man.

September 11, 2011

I was in the front office of Baker County High School. I had forgotten my calculator in my car and because I had an algebra test that afternoon, I asked permission to visit the office to get a pass to the parking lot. Mrs. Lancaster was the secretary and as I walked to the desk she hung up the phone and said, "The twin towers have been bombed." I spent the rest of the morning convincing my parents to check me out of school so that I could give my undivided attention to what was unfolding in New York. That afternoon I drove to our local gas station and picked up a special edition of the Jacksonville Times-Union where I saw photos of people diving to their deaths and I became sick to my stomach. The evil perpetrated that day was overwhelming. The lack of compassion, the lack of love and the complete misdirection and understanding of faith had devastating ramifications for those who were unfortunately caught in the line of fire and made the presence of evil in the world a very prominent reality for me.

I was 16 then, and in the past 10 years my life has changed dramatically, but as I read stories of those who were heros on that day and as I watch news footage from the events, I am just as thoroughly impressed with the weight of evil. It's hard to see a positive angle to the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, hard to see the silver lining. What I do think however, is that when evil of the magnitude we all witnessed 10 years ago is apparent, by its nature, it reveals its opposite. Because I recognize evil, I must also recognize good. It is because all Americans will carry pain in their chest today, that I know that all Americans, whether they agree to it or not, know that there is right and wrong. When we recognize the evil in the world we should also immediately recognize that because we affirm the reality of evil, we also affirm the reality of good. Because we judge that there are actions which should not be taken, we also affirm that there are standards by which our actions are judged.

Paul discusses this idea in Romans 2.  He argues, "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.  For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." Paul is arguing that because we condemn the actions of others, while also committing these actions ourselves, we are condemning ourselves by our own condemnation.  Now you may be thinking, "I've never done anything that even compares to what happened on September 11" and physically and logistically you haven't.  However, you have gossiped, disobeyed your parents and have probably been boastful.  Paul counts all of these things as evil, along with murder, malice and maliciousness. Paul rebukes the Romans for being, "filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.  They are full of envy, murder strife, deceit, maliciousness.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless."  If we label the contents of this list as "undesirable actions," then each of us should recognize that we are not only guilty of committing these offenses, but that we have condemned others for committing them as well.  We all know then, that there is wrong, and for something to be considered wrong, there must be something to compare it to and something to contrast it with.  There must be an objective right.

This idea of right isn't nebulous, it is firmly attached to the character of God.  If a person recognizes the reality of objective evil, then they must also recognize that there is objective good.  On September 11, both good and evil were clearly on display. The evidence of good is in the thousands of selfless acts that we have read about throughout the past decade, and, contrary to popular belief, this good can't just be attributed to the "goodness of the human spirit." The reason that these acts were selfless, good and inspirational is because they reflected the Creator who is the very embodiment of goodness.  In Matthew, Jesus said, "Why do you ask me about what is good...There is only One who is good."  

Coming to grips with September 11 has been a long process for me.  My initial reaction was one of anger and extreme patriotism.  Following that came a period of heartbreak for the men who so completely misunderstood how to have a relationship with God.  I don't know where I am in the process now.  I am probably like most people who don't give the day a lot of thought generally, but who have found themselves crying uncontrollably while reading the "stories of remembrance" on Yahoo.  However, what I do know is that the events of September 11 demonstrate the presence of evil more clearly than any other event that I have witnessed in my life.  While the reality of that day is tough to bear, for all Americans but especially for those personally affected, it serves as yet another reminder to me that God is good and that I know that he is good and that His goodness is known throughout the universe.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.  Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.  There is no speech nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.  Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." - Psalm 19:1-4

The Conviction of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Over the summer I read a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. It was, without a doubt, one of the most compelling books that I have ever read. This book outlined the struggle that Bonheoffer had with understanding how personal faith affects a person's actions. He lived in Germany during the early 20th century. He witnessed Germany's defeat in World War I, the devastating ramifications of the Versailles Peace Treaty, and the rise of Nazism and of Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer had a brilliant and keen mind and through all of this, he noticed that the idea of Germany as a "christian nation" was a fallacy.

Yes, Germany was the birth place of Martin Luther and Protestantism, but Germany had long since ceased to be a nation driven by the Word of God. Germany was a nation that was complacent in its religion and because of this, because of this false confidence in their own spirituality, the people of Germany were not prepared to withstand or even fully comprehend the evils perpetuated by the Nazi party. For many Germans Christianity was a fact, not a practice. It was a birth rite, not a gift of grace. Because of this, and because of a fierce loyalty to the idea of the German nation, there were few in Germany who were willing to oppose Hitler, and this troubled Bonhoeffer greatly.

For Bonhoeffer, the problem was a misunderstanding of grace. He believed that most of his countrymen had a view he called, "cheap grace," the idea that salvation didn't require anything of the believer. Bonhoeffer however, vehemently disagreed. Instead, he argued that grace was costly. He said:

"Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son...and what has cost God so much cannot be cheap for us."

Bonhoeffer insisted that a life lived in fear or inaction was no Christian life at all, it was a misunderstanding of what grace is. Christians must conform their lives to that of Christ because a dear price was paid so that we could have the ability to do so. Therefore, Christians must advocate for the oppressed because that is how Christ lived his life. Christians must oppose evil because we are to be a light in the world. Bonhoeffer said, "We are not simply to bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself." This is action. This isn't complacency. The grace shown to the Christian should compel us to action, for the benefit of both the oppressed and the oppressor.

I personally, find the message of Bonhoeffer to be incredibly convicting. It's easy to ignore the injustice and the evil in the world, and it is even easier to think only of the benefit that Christ's grace brings to me.

Liam Neeson and Things We Can't Not Know

This is an article that a professor at Southeastern posted last week.  He recently watched  Liam Neeson movie and the premise of the film reminded him of natural law and of a book written by one of my favorite authors, J. Budziszewksi.  Here is the link.  Enjoy!

Rights and the Bible

Over the past year, our middle school students have been studying a curriculum on church history.  We have covered all of the major topics (Nicea, Augustine, Luther, Aquinas) and now, as our time together draws to a close, we are looking at the various ideologies of the 19th century and their influence on the church.  Now, we completed this section yesterday, unfortunately closing with a rather dismal discussion of Nazism, which included a lively discussion concerning a comparison I made between the Fuhrer Principle and the Pope...clearly not my best moment.  However, the section began, brightly enough, with a look at the idea of "American Individualism" and that lesson prompted me to write this post.

In a rather desperate attempt to jump start the conversation on the American idea of the individual, we treated the kids, and ourselves, to clips of Braveheart and Independence Day.  It did everything we hoped it would do and more.  The kids were cheering and some, for the first time, began to see Randy Quaid for the gem that he is.  However, while Braveheart makes me weep like a baby and Independence Day draws out a deep longing for bar-b-que and Will Smith movies, they also reveal a very emotional attachment to freedom, and that was exactly that point we were trying to make.

Personal freedom and individual liberty had a grand start during the American Revolution and while freedom, equality and liberty are to be desired, they cannot be considered paramount, especially to the Christian.  In an attempt to ensure that all people posses these liberties, we have developed the idea of rights.  These rights have taken on many different forms during the 250 years that the United States has existed, but I want to consider the legitimacy of these rights.  Not whether they are correct political developments, but whether the attitude behind them is the correct attitude to have if we are seeking to imitate the model of Christ.

In I Corinthians, Paul spends a great deal of time scolding the Corinthians for their rather selfish behavior.  "Selfish? I thought we were talking about rights, not about being selfish!" Ah, but they are closely connected aren't they?

"But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.  Food will not commend us to God.  We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.  But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.  For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?  And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.  Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.  Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." I Corinthians 8:7-13

Yes, we have rights.  Yes, we oftentimes have knowledge that allows us a freedom that we didn't know before, but boasting in that knowledge and cherishing those rights is not how we are to use them.  Instead, we are to hold them loosely, we are to be constantly aware of our brothers and sisters.  We should be more concerned with their conscience and their struggles than with our ability to live out our freedoms.  This is where things become difficult for me.  It fights against my instinct which says, "Why have rights if I can't enjoy them? " or "What is the purpose of gaining freedom if I just subject myself to someone else?"  Thankfully, Paul continues:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.  To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.  I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." I Corinthians 9:19-23

The Christian life isn't about gaining rights and living the easy life.  While devotion to Scripture and to the model Christ set before us brings certain advantages, our focus should be on the Gospel.  Earlier in I Corinthians, Paul encouraged his readers to "imitate me, as I imitate Christ" and that imitation is far removed from protecting one's freedom.

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, hum humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Ph.D Questions

I found this article, by Prof. John Stackhouse of Regent College, to be really helpful and interesting.  In the post he discusses how one should think about pursuing a Ph.D.

http://stackblog.wordpress.com/thinking-about-a-phd/

 I hope you had a wonderful 4th of July.  I floated around in a tube on a lake.  It was very nice.

The Conscience- An Overivew

When I was in the 8th grade, my sister owned a 1987 Monte Carlo.  It was roughly the length of a school bus.  One night, leaving the McDonald's drive through, Kara turned the wrong way and started driving North in a Southbound lane.  Our only resort was to try a three point turn, but in a Monte Carlo, a three point turn is no easy feat and we hit a road sign.  When we returned home, I got out of the car and scurried inside while my Dad questioned Kara as to the reason the car had a new dent.  Kara, bold as ever, refused to cave and insisted she knew nothing about it, but Dad knew how to get the information he needed.  He let me stew for about 30 minutes and then knocked on my door.  "Kanon, do you know anything about the dent in Kara's car?" I caved.  I was a rat.

When considering the conscience, I feel especially equipped as my conscience has been over active since the moment I could talk.

But what is the conscience?  It is something that everyone has, or at least is aware of.  To put it quite simply, the conscience is an aspect of the mind that helps to distinguish what is right from that which is wrong.  Now, from this point on, discussions of the conscience will differ dramatically depending on your philosophical and religious perspectives.  I will proceed from the traditional perspective of Christianity (although I will discuss other ideas on the conscience in a later post.)

Thomas Aquinas, a medieval theologian, argued that the conscience has two aspects.  On one hand, the conscience is fueled by man's ability to reason.  "I can determine that an action is good because I look at points x, y, and z as evidence."  On the other hand, this reason is guided by a remnant of innate knowledge concerning absolute truth, Aquinas called this knowledge, "synderesis."  So the conscience then, is a joint venture between man's ability to reason and his innate knowledge of absolute truth.  But there is a problem...

According to Aquinas, the conscience has limited functionality.  Our ability to know and properly perceive absolute truth was desperately handicapped after Adam and Eve's experience in Genesis 3, hence his use of the word "remnant."  Man's desire to be like God, drove a wedge between us and God.  This division, while mended through Christ, still affects us while we remain on earth.  We still suffer from the physical effects of "the fall" and our loss of knowledge regarding absolute truth was a bitter result.  Romans 1:21-23 gives us a picture of the situation, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."    

So our conscience is broken.  That which is supposed to point us toward the right, deceives us and in fact, is deceived by us.  In a perfect world, it would be a perfect indicator of what is right.  However in an imperfect world, assuming that the conscience is always correct is more akin to assuming that your compass is correct when you have a magnet in your pocket.