Who said Presbyterians Don't Believe in Ubiquity?

Ubiquity (definition):

Maybe I'm the only one who finds this funny (the use of the word "ubiquity" in different contexts) and concerning (for theological, pragmatic, cultural, and aesthetic reasons too involved to go into just now).

Happy Thanksgiving!

One of my friends on Facebook said something that reminded me about how much I love Thanksgiving.  I love the "holiday season" in general--that period of time from Reformation Day (or All Saints Eve, if you wish) through New Year's Day--with all the colors, the change in the weather, the decorations, the music, and all the traditional festivities of the season.  Like most people, it's my favorite time of year.

But when I reflect on the two major holidays of this season (Thanksgiving and Christmas), if I had to rank one above the other, I think Thanksgiving would come out on top.  Why is this, you might wonder?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Thanksgiving isn't completely driven by mass consumerism?  There's less pressure from the retail industry to buy "stuff" for Thanksgiving (they got started on Christmas, already, months ago).  There's no scurrying around, trying to find the perfect gift for everyone in your family.  And while some money is spent on the Thanksgiving Dinner, it pales in comparison to the amount spent on gifts for Christmas.

What's even better, though, is what Thanksgiving focuses upon.  It is intentionally a day set apart to give thanks to God for His abundant and gracious provision for all of our needs.  This is made evident to us and we experience it firsthand in a symbolic way through our partaking in a great Thanksgiving feast.

But eating such a big meal alone would be pointless.  We partake of Thanksgiving meal in the company of family and friends.  Often, people invite into their homes others who have no place to go.  Just as with a good bottle of wine, the greatest part of Thankgiving is sharing it with others.

A large and yet intimate gathering of friends and family, assembled around a table, sharing time and food and experiences, and enjoying the goodness of God--that's true koinonia or "communion."  And isn't that a big part of what life is about?

"Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever" - the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Answer #1.

Happy Thanksgiving!  Soli Deo Gloria! 

Van

The Difference Between Men and Women

My wife and I were watching the DVD of the recent BBC version of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility last night.  We were highly amused by the portrayal of the differences between men and women illustrated in a specific conversation between the Dashwood women and Sir John Middleton:

"Willoughby!" cried Sir John; "what, is he in the country? That is good news however? I will ride over to-morrow, and ask him to dinner on Thursday."

"You know him, then," said Mrs. Dashwood.

"Know him? to be sure I do. Why, he is down here every year."

"And what sort of a young man is he?"

"As good a kind of fellow as ever lived, I assure you. A very decent shot, and there is not a bolder rider in England."

"And is that all you can say for him?" cried Marianne, indignantly. "But what are his manners on more intimate acquaintance? What his pursuits, his talents, and genius?"

Sir John was rather puzzled.

"Upon my soul," said he, "I do not know much about him as to all that. But he is a pleasant, good-humoured fellow, and has got the nicest little black bitch of a pointer I ever saw. Was she out with him to-day?"

O' Death, Where is thy Sting?

My grandmother died last week. It wasn't entirely unexpected, but it was sad nonetheless. But she lived to a ripe age of 89 and was a follower of Christ. She was ready to go. It was bitter-sweet.

When my grandfather died ten years ago, he had a funeral in the church but there was no graveside/burial service. Whoever wanted said a few words and that was about it. So this time, especially since there was to be only one service (at the graveside) I offered my father the option of me presiding over a simple burial service. In the end, they found a pastor from the Calvary Chapel my grandmother used to attend and he presided over the service.

I'm sad to say I was pretty disappointed with the service. In true Calvary Chapel form, it was very informal. But, what's worse, while the pastor talked a lot, very little was actually said. There was virtually no Scripture reading, no presentation of the Gospel, no comfort given to the grieving in the objective work of Christ on their behalf, and no talk about the Resurrection. If I would have given the homily, I would probably have said something like the following. It's by no means perfect, but I think it touches upon some of the more important points of objective comfort for Christians:

I'd like to make a few brief remarks about Death. It is common in our society to refer to the one who has died as having "passed away." There is, obviously, a sense in which this true. The Apostle Paul tells us in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians that, for those who are in Christ, when our spirit is absent from the body, it is in the presence of the Lord. So, in a way, one's spirit could be said to have "passed away" into God's presence. However, this type of language concerning death is not found in Scripture. The phrase actually comes from Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the "Christian Science" religion.

We also hear quite commonly in our society that "death is just a natural part of life" along with frequent references to the so-called "circle of life." These concepts are not Christian either. At best, they each serve to minimize the reality of death, to try to lighten its effects. And, for those who have not the hope we do, this is all they can do--try to minimize death.

In contrast, Christianity has a very real and "earthy" understanding of death. Death is not "a natural part of life." It is the most unnatural thing in the universe! When God created Man in his image, he was intended to live forever. The human race was designed to live and work and play and fellowship with each other and their Creator. But Death was not a natural part of the original scheme. It's just not right; it's not the way life is supposed to be.

As we know, once sin entered the world--when Adam and Eve rebelled against God--everything changed. The holy and righteous God who cannot tolerate self-centered rebellion against Him did what his righteous character required: he demanded justice, and pronounced the Curse upon upon Adam and Eve and all their descendants. And so, not only did all the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve inherit an unquenchable desire to continue that rebellion against God--but we also all inherited the just effects of the Curse that God placed upon our original parents.

Toil and labor, pain and suffering, sickness and, finally, death--all are results of the Curse. They are not our friends, they are our enemies. And, therefore, it is right--to an extent--to hate and despise them. This is freeing because, as Christians, we do not have to go around stoically biting our lips, pretending that all is wonderful and cheery in the world, whenever we face physical suffering or emotional pain.

From time to time, when I think about Leila dying, I cry. And I cry not only because I am going to miss her. To be sure, I have immense sorrow for my and the world's loss of her. But I have deep sorrow and anger at the bitterness, the finality (in a sense), and the plain unnaturalness of death. Scripture describes, and even personifies, Death as our "enemy." And so it is good and right to mourn for our loss--and also to be angry at death.

BUT--and this is a big but--while Christians do mourn, we do not grieve as those who have no hope! Though death will likely strike us all down, God's Word tells us that Jesus Christ has taken away the sting of death. In his death on the Cross, Jesus Christ triumphed over sin--he bore the eternal punishment of those who trust in him. But, at his resurrection, He triumphed over death and the grave. So the Apostle Paul asks the question: "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?!"

In his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ has become the firstfruits--the down-payment, the guarantee--of our own resurrection. That Jesus Christ can triumph over sin, death, and hell, is an assurance to us of his power to rescue us from the same enemies.

God gives us assurance in His Word that Leila's spirit has temporarily departed from her failing body and is in the immediate presence of her loving Savior. But that is not the end. C.S. Lewis once said: "God loves matter. He created it!" When we die, we will not all float around on clouds playing harps for eternity. Instead, we look forward to the reunion of her and our spirits with new and resurrected bodies. We share Job's hope when said: "in my flesh I shall see God." And that is the hope to which we all have to look forward: A new heaven and new earth, with resurrected and restored bodies that will never suffer, never get sick, and never again die. In the the final verse of the Bible our Lord comforts us, saying: "He which testifieth these things saith, 'Surely I come quickly.' Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!" Amen.

The Missing Pulpit

Author and professor David Wells, speaking on the White Horse Inn, on October 5, 2008, had the following to say about the significance of the absence of the pulpit the evangelical Church today:

In this last book I wrote, The Courage to be Protestant, I talked about the transition from the Pulpit to the Plexiglas stand to the Barstool. And nobody, none of us, would say that the Word of God is chained in its delivery to a pulpit...Of course the Word of God can be preached outside a pulpit. But I think the importance of this transition has less to do with the thing that has been abandoned (i.e., the pulpit) and much more to do with the internal change which has happened. Because the preacher is now orienting himself to the congregation in a relational fashion, whereas the pulpit symbolized the preacher’s orientation toward God in a theological posture. That’s what the pulpit was saying in traditional churches. It was elevated because the Word of God is elevated, as it were, over the congregation. And the preacher stood before God to deliver that Word. So there is an internal posture that was intended to be symbolized by that pulpit. That internal posture before God, and the whole theological frame of understanding that, has disappeared in many churches today. And, therefore, what you have as a consequence is the rearrangement of the church to adopt a nightclub atmosphere, or entirely religiously neutral atmosphere, so you have no religious symbols, and so forth.

A Modern Proverbs 31 Woman

On the Frank Pastore Show yesterday, Rebecca Hagelin, VP of Communications for the Heritage Foundation, said the following:

"Sarah Palin is the modern Proverbs 31 woman."

Thoughts?

Pelosi Condemned by Catholic leaders

US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has recently been chastised for speaking on theological positions about which she, apparently, knows very little.

"Pelosi Gets Unwanted Lesson in Catholic Theology"

I'm no Roman Catholic, but abortion is one issue where the Protestant Church stands side-by-side with Rome. And the US cardinals, archbishops, and bishops have emphatically taken Pelosi to task for her ignorant attempt to defend abortion a la St. Augustine.

UPDATE: Excerpt from the Bishop of Fargo's letter of condemnation:

The Christian teaching on abortion throughout history is unchanged. Human life from the moment of conception is to always be respected, treated with dignity, and protected. Catholics who support so called abortion rights support a false right, promote a culture of death, and are guided by the “father of lies” rather than by the light and truth of Jesus Christ. Out of respect for the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Church, any Catholic who supports abortion rights has placed himself or herself outside of visible unity with the Church and thus should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. Catholics have a responsibility to study the teaching of the Church on human life and when life begins. This teaching is affirmed by revelation and is a basic truth of natural reason. I ask all of you in your presentations, teaching, or preaching to state the truth of this teaching in an unequivocal manner.

(h/t: www.townhall.com)

Remember the Sabbath Day

We just finished a kitchen remodel. In the course of events we also purchased new ovens. Beautiful, stainless steel, convection, double ovens from Kitchen Aid. As I sat down to browse through the instruction manual (hey, I'm an engineer! what do you expect?) I learned that our ovens keep the Sabbath. And boy do they ever!

When the Sabbath Mode is set, only the number and start keys will function, no tones will sound, and the displays will not show messages or temperature changes. The heat sources icons will appear lit on the oven display throughout the Sabbath Mode. When the oven door is opened or closed, the oven light will not turn on or off and the heating elements will not turn on or off immediately.

If a power failure occurs when the Sabbath Mode is set, the oven(s) will remain in Sabbath Mode but will no longer be actively cooking. The “ON” indicator will no longer be lit. Touch OFF to return to normal operating mode (non-Sabbath Mode, not cooking)

It continues like this, spanning two pages. There are countless steps for enabling, disabling, setting, changing settings, and on and on.

Is this really what God intended when He gave us the gift of the Sabbath? How on earth does this complicated mess of intricate steps, lights not turning on, and indicators remaining lit fulfill the Fourth Commandment?

Jesus repeatedly condemned the Jewish leaders of His day for adding to His Law. They piled additional burdens upon the people while refraining from keeping the essence of the Law. I find it amusing (actually, quite sad) to see that even ovens are a means for perpetuating this ungodly legalism today. May God have mercy and bring the light of the Gospel to the Jews.

Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger

I just wrote a letter to the governor, infuriated with his most recent activity in supporting the homosexual agenda in California's public school system. At the urging of Brant, I include it here:

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

I write to you with great dismay, frustration, and anger at your recent actions of signing into law SB777, AB394, AB102, and AB14. It is entirely disappointing to me that you apparently lack the moral compass to guide you in the way of objective Truth and Goodness and, instead, you have taken the path of political expediency, cowing to the pressures of immoral activists who wish to impose their deviant agenda upon our culture, beginning with the public school system.

Thanks to your actions, the minds of impressionable, tender young children will be forever molded into conformity with the agenda of those who worship at the altar of themselves, whose only creed is "tolerance and acceptance of all"--all that is, except those who still believe in moral absolutes. Increasingly more deviant, immoral practices are being accepted in our society (and now, thanks to you, taught in the schools) as "good," "right," and "healthy," while the millenia-old, biblical convictions that these activities are absolutely, morally wrong and evil are trampled underfoot as "outmoded," "archaic," and simple-minded. Contrary to what you might think, our children and our society will suffer as a result.

As a result of your actions, you have alienated yourself from your core constituency--secular social conservatives and Evangelical Christians of all stripes--you have betrayed our trust, have stolen our children's innocence, and have offended us greatly. Your action to support bills which take away freedom of private institutions (e.g., clubs, charities, and hospitals) to uphold their core convictions on moral issues also a disgrace to the freedoms which our nation's Constitution guarantees. In short, you have introduced moral danger and depravity to our children, robbed private enterprise of its freedoms, and brought shame upon our great state.

Governor, with all due respect, I must state that I, my family, my church, and my friends are ashamed of your actions, and I deeply regret having had any part in giving you the mandate to represent and serve me in the highest office of the state. If it were possible, I assure you that I wouldn't make that mistake again.

Sincerely,

Van
Orange County

Here is a link to the story, and here is a link to some video clips of indoctrination of young children going on in other parts of the country and which will now very likely occur in California in a matter time. (And you know what they say: "As California goes, so goes the nation.")

If you want to write the Governor your own e-mail to express your dissatisfaction, you can do so here.

Prohibition

A town in Georgia is going to have a referendum to allow the townsfolk to decide on whether to ban all sales of alcohol.

The problem with alcohol (like most other societal problems) is not the alcohol. The problem is people. Those who misuse and abuse any divinely-given blessing from God should be held responsible for their actions. If you ban alcohol, tobacco, firearms, knives, automobiles, and chainsaws, people are still going to find ways to demonstrate their depravity. Christians, of all people, should know this.

What I want to know is where pious, conservative Christians can go to help the ban fail.

American Culture

I read this pithy statement somewhere the other day about American culture. The author was quoting an apparently well-known adage, but this was the first time I heard it. I thought it was quite descriptive:

Americans worship their work,
Work at their play,
And play at their worship.

Indeed!

Presidential Administrations Matter

Here's some confirmation from the dark side of society. It's an excerpt from an interview today with Jenna Jameson, who is considered, according to the article, "the world's most famous porn star."

PR.com: "Do you find that the climate of the adult industry changes when there is a Republican administration versus Democratic?"

Jenna Jameson: "Absolutely. The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office. I would love to have Al Gore in office. When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point. It's sad, when there are so many different things that are going on in the world: war, and people are dying of genocide...I look forward to another Democrat being in office. It just makes the climate so much better for us, and I know that once all our troops come home, things are going to be better and I think that getting Bush out of office is the most important thing right now."

Oh and, by the way, Ms. Jameson supports Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.

(source: justhillary.com)

The Return of Evil?

I haven't written in quite a while. But, in light of yesterday's tragic events at Virginia Tech, I felt compelled to post something about it.

As I hear and watch the news reports, I am greatly grieved and saddened. My heart goes out to the families and friends of those who died in this brutal attack. I cannot comprehend the sense of frustration and hopelessness many of them surely feel. But I can pray for them.

Pondering yesterday's events, my thoughts go back to something that happened to me here at work last week. I was in a company-wide, mandatory "Mutual Respect Training" class (a.k.a. "Harassment Training"). At the very beginning the instructor asked the class this question: "Why do we have laws?"

I immediately shot up my hand. The teacher called on me, and I answered: "To restrain Evil." The class, including the teacher, broke out in laughter. I even heard one woman snicker, "Evil!" sarcastically under her breath. I nervously muttered something about "well that is the right answer, people," but the battle was lost, and the course moved on. (Incidentally, the "correct" answer to the question was: "to prevent unfairness.")

When I discussed the incident with my friend Brant the next day, he wisely observed that in America today, we generally live such a life of ease that we rarely come into contact with Evil. So we have largely come to believe that Evil doesn't exist. And to a large extent, I think Brant's right.

But, hopefully, yesterday's massacre at Virginia Tech is a wake-up call. After witnessing such "senseless" brutality, many people will again correctly label the killer's actions as "Evil." Down deep in our souls we all have a profound sense that these events were objectively "not good" (to say the least). We recognize that this sort of behavior is more than simply "unfair." We are forced to recognize the once commonly-held belief that there is objective moral Good and Evil.

And people, as they always do when tragedy strikes, will begin to ask the question: "Why?" Apart from the existence of God, there can be no answer (or even any meaning) to this question. Those committed to atheistic humanism will be compelled to blame handguns, the university administration, the killer's parents, and even the killer's genetic make-up. While any of this might provide a tiny bit of cathartic relief, it ultimately doesn't help to answer the question.

If the questioners dare to suppose (for the sake of argument) that there might be a God, their thinking, then, often goes like this: "If God is all good and all powerful, a tragedy like this could never happen." Therefore, either God is good but impotent to stop the evil, or He is all powerful but chooses not to stop the evil because He is capricious. Either way, you end up with a being that is less than God--some sort of lesser-deity, something like a mythical Greek god.

On the surface, these questions sound reasonable and logical. But their presuppositions create a false dilemma. As the philosophers say, there is a tertium quid (a third option). And this is the answer we deduce from the pages of the Bible: God is both all powerful and all good; and yet, for reasons unbeknownst to us, He allows evil to continue for now; but He will vindicate Himself and will one day judge all men for their evil deeds; and that justice will be 100% right and good, according to His own perfectly righteous character.

The honest skeptic (if there were such a thing) has to at least grant that this is possible. The false dilemma he creates does not offer the only possible answers. And of the four possibilities offered (God does not exist, God is good but impotent, God omnipotent but not good, God is both omnipotent and good), the only one that truly offers any hope to those in grief is the fourth--the answer found in the Bible.

The Bible provides us with more insight into this tragedy as well. We all tend to assume that we somehow deserve a life of pleasure and ease. We think that when tragedy befalls us, somehow God is shortchanging us, that we have received an injustice. The fact of the matter is that all mankind are sinful and in rebellion against their creator God. As such, we have plunged the world into a downward spiral of misery, sickness, and death. And, if we continue in rebellion against God, He will justly give us what we want: eternal separation from Him and His goodness.

The very fact that any of us live one day more on this earth, that we have food to eat, clothes to wear, and houses to cover our heads, is due only to the sustaining graciousness of God. Theologians call this God's "common grace" because it is "common" to all men--even those who persist in rebellion against Him. As Jesus said, "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mt. 5:45).

Christians are just as guilty of this mistake as non-christians. We need to remember that if we were to get more of what we deserve, the world would be even more full of murderous thugs, famine, pestilence, and calamity. It is only the restraining hand of a good and omnipotent God who ultimately keeps this from happening. We deserve sickness and death; but God is merciful.

Ultimately, the greatest expression of God's mercy and grace are offered for the sake of the people He came to save. That God became a man, suffered and died innocently under the cruel hands of sinful men is a great mystery. But He died and rose again to set sinners free from bondage to their sins and rebellion against Him, and to give them a new life. Those who put their trust in Him will one day be free of the pain and misery they have brought upon themselves because He has taken it upon Himself in their place. And one day, Justice will prevail, and all will be right with the world.

Deviancy but not Sleazy

I was quite disturbed to read the following article, "Documentary on Beast1ty. premieres at the Sundance Film Festival." The story, written unsurprisingly by someone at the LA Times is clearly sympathetic to this subject, "the last taboo," according to the director. The article describes it as "poetic," "strangely beautiful," with "elegiac visual re-creations." It's "not graphic in the least" because, as the director puts it "I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."

Of course, that's always how deviancy is promoted, isn't it? Take some practice widely considered disgusting, repulsive, and sinful, and put a spin on it: make it a cinematographical masterpiece, make it emotionally captivating, stirring, and beautiful; and "aestheticize the slease right out of it." That makes it okay, right? Pretty window dressing makes what's going on inside the window more palatable.

If a man truly loves his horse--truly loves his horse--then we shouldn't regard his behavior with it as deviant or wrong. After all, who's to say it's wrong? Love is the higher end, right?

Or so they would have you believe. I'm willing to be that the continual weakening of our culture to any sense of moral absolutes will result in pedoph1a. being promoted with greater regularity and, eventually, accepted in many places. After all, who is to deny the "true love" of two consenting individuals? 18 is, after all, an arbitrary age. Why not 16, or 12, or 8? And, as this movie apparently suggests: why must both of the individuals involved be human beings? (And, I ask, for the sake of consistency, why must both of the individuals even necessarily be alive?)

Gomorrah, here we come. O Lord, have mercy upon us!

The Noble Vehicular Savage

According to this story, several cities in Europe are getting rid of all traffic signs in a Rousseauian attempt to improve traffic safety and efficiency. According to the proponents of this "new" philosophy:

"The glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the driver like a child and it also foments resentment," and "the many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate."

History and anthropology have borne out that there is no such thing as a "noble savage." It's not the constricting laws of society that cause drivers to be bad. Drivers are bad because the hearts within the drivers are evil--not good. People (myself included) are, by nature, selfish, proud, and deceitful. Our own selfishness is what strips our ability to be considerate to others.

Anyone want to place a bet on how long it will be before this latest European fad goes the way of the Edsel?

Disclaimer: I'm not a student of philosophy, and so perhaps there was another philosopher whose worldview better explains this "new" model of government. But I do see it as a manifestation of Rousseau's flawed assertion that man is essentially good.