PEACE.HAPPINESS

Forgiveness on Clearance

2011-05-08T00:00:00.000-07:00

"I forgive you."

I love hearing my daughters saying those words. Sometimes they have to struggle to break free through tears and gritted teeth. Sometimes they expire on the tip of the tongue. But every time those three words escape into the room, even the foulest air is drenched with the mercy and justice of Jesus.

But what does justice have to do with forgiveness? Isn't forgiveness choosing mercy over justice--choosing releasing over seething and grace over getting even? Yes and no. This is the half truth of forgiveness that is preached so earnestly in pulpits sacred and secular around the world. But it's that missing half of forgiveness--the justice half--that makes the release of forgiveness so much more exhilarating and so much more desirous than hatred that we ought to fight for its recovery.

To begin to forgive a person that has done me wrong, pre-planned or otherwise, only one thing is needed. Blood. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness."

For every hate-filled word lobbed in your direction--there's power in the blood.
For every fit of jealous rage.
For consecutive moments of thoughtless neglect.
For grinding criticism and stubborn refusal to affirm and appreciate.
For violent and manipulative abuse.
For unlove.
There's power in the blood.

I'm not good enough to follow the example of Jesus who said, "Father forgive." But I'm rational enough to delight in the fact that every sin, open or hidden, active or passive, intentional or not, will receive its due--either on the mount of Calvary or in the pit of Hell. Not a single sin will evaporate into the ether of religious sentimentality.

May we all today find that power to believe that forgiving my enemies, my tormentors, is actually a rational act. A just act. An act that brings glory to the One whose blood was shed abroad for my forgiveness.

We Gave It to Google*

2009-08-14T23:07:00.000-07:00

Being sick is one thing. Being sick along with your wife and two daughters is another. Being sick along with your whole family in China is yet another. And that's exactly where we found ourselves last December. There was Ella with her 102 degree fever, Kayla barely unable to hold down even a sip of water, me passed out on the floor from near dehydration, and Katrina trying hard to care for the rest of us in between trips to the bathroom. I was lucky (or blessed) to have some friends take me to the hospital that night for an IV, and another friend who came over to help Katrina with the girls. (That friend's family got the same diabolical bug a few days later.)

I remember it all so clearly. I couldn't even stand to look at food for the next three days, and I could only tolerate the blandest of soup for a week. Kayla, who was seven months old at the time, couldn't eat solid food without vomiting for the next month.

What I wanted more than anything during that time was information. I wanted to know that my little girl would be okay, that she could continue to put on weight after her false start with solids. So we went online for answers. And then we went to the doctor. And then I prayed--just to cover my bases.

Now I believe in prayer. Not because prayer works according to my design, but because it works according to His--which means that I don't always get what I want when or how I want it. I believe in prayer because it forces me to acknowledge that His beautifully-crafted plan bends for no one--not even me. Maybe that's a paradox, but it's one that helps me to sleep at night.

And yet--as it was the bottom of the seventh with a man on third and an unpredictable pitcher on the mound--I called up the bullpen. The Internet made me no promises that our little Kayla would be okay. But that didn't matter because I was in the driver's seat. I was saving Kayla's life with a few taps on the touchpad.

Kayla's healthy now and happier with life than she's ever been. As it turns out, she didn't have some rare condition of the intestines that would have certainly forced us to leave China (one of the many diagnoses I stumbled across after hours of bleary-eyed browsing). And I still thank God for every day He gives us together as a family. Once the rain goes it's easier to see clearly--to see the perfection of every pitch. But somehow, in the present with all its unknowns, God is good, but God plus Google are even better.

Such is life in the Information Age. But what to say of that assurance of things hoped for?

*I was inspired to write after reading this article by a young mom wrestling with faith and doubt. In contrast to her devout parents, when faced with cancer, she writes, "They gave it to God; we gave it to Google."

Nothing Can Separate Us...

2009-07-11T17:14:00.000-07:00

Dear friends,

Praise the LORD, o my soul,
all my inmost being, praise His holy name.
Praise the LORD, o my soul,
and forget not all His benefits—
Who forgives all your sins
and heals all your diseases,
Who redeems your life from the pit
and crowns you with love and compassion,
Who satisfies your desires with good things
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s. (Ps. 103:1-5)

We want to give you all an update on the past couple of months for our family so you can share in this part of our journey. The past couple of days have reminded us of God’s faithfulness to us, His creatures, but especially of the hope we have of life forever in the New Heavens and New Earth. Life as we know it now is sometimes not the way it’s supposed to be—which helps us to press on even more with the work of being light where there is none.

A few of you might remember the night we found out that Katrina was pregnant. We were in the middle of a Skype conversation with a few of you, trying to fix our computer, which had been broken for three weeks, and Katrina shared with me in the background the most surprising news of our first year in China. We were excited and overwhelmed at the same time, as we already had the two year plan down, complete with a family reunion in Thailand right about the time the baby was due. So we changed our plans. After a long process of figuring out where to have the baby, we decided to stay here in China (Beijing) provided that everything with the pregnancy was normal. Even though that means extra expenses related to pre-natal care and delivery, the benefits are continuous language study, relationship building, avoiding the expense of relocating our family to Australia for a few months, and being able to bring the baby “home” straight from the hospital. We want to do everything possible to bond our family to this place.

Some good friends of ours had a beautiful baby girl last month at the same Beijing hospital, and so we went to visit them and check it out. We were really happy with the place, and soon booked in an appointment to do our first ultrasound for yesterday (Friday). This was to coincide with the time my mom was visiting from the States so she too could see the hospital. That everything was happening in Chinese was encouraging as a test of language progress, but it made the whole morning a bit surreal. An hour after arriving at the hospital, the sonographer was looking at us and telling us what we already sensed—our baby had no heartbeat. She is with Jesus (Ella is still convinced that baby Shedd is a girl), and we are here in China thinking of how to tell our friends in a way that brings Him glory.

The first question that at least one close local friend asked us when we told her we were pregnant was, “Are you going to receive (i.e. keep) it?” Almost no one in China can conceive of a second child, much less a third, and almost every pregnancy test sold here comes with a business card for the nearest “family planning” clinic. Chirpy jingles fill the airwaves here telling women that they can come in one afternoon and be back to work the next day. A good friend even got an unsolicited text message on his phone today hawking cheap abortions. So in that sense, it’s hard to imagine our local friends actually grieving over the loss of baby number three. Bie nan guo. Don’t be sad. Ni hai you ji hui. You still have a chance (if you’re really that foolish). Pray with us that we might know how to love and be loved during this time. Pray that we can honor the short life of our baby in a way that sheds light on the beauty of every little one made in His image.

Thank you to all of you who are already praying—we appreciate all of you more than we can say in a mass e-mail. We will send out a proper newsletter soon with more details on our plans for the coming months. Be praying that He will guide us with His wisdom through the summer months and into the fall semester. One exciting thing coming up is an intense week of English corners and outreach at the end of this month here in our area. The original plan was for an English camp in north TJ, but due to H1N1 (swine) flu concerns, the host school cancelled the camp for this year. Instead we will hang out with students and kids on a more informal basis, in partnership with local brothers and sisters. What an amazing opportunity it will be to walk alongside them and those who will be coming to serve from the US. Please pray for protection, boldness, and grace to permeate these weeks.

An immediate prayer need is for Monday morning, 8:00 Beijing time, we will be returning to the hospital for a check up. At that time, if things haven’t progressed naturally, Katrina will need to have surgery. Pray for us to be trusting the Lord during this time. The girls will be looked after by my Mom back in Tianjin while we are away.

We would love to hear from you guys when you have time. Because of our recent computer problems, we have lost more than a few e-mail addresses. Please send us the updated addresses of anyone you know who might like to receive our updates but currently is not, as well as your updated contact info. You can get in touch with us any time on Skype (username: katrina2103).

Pray with us that we will not forget all His benefits during this time. His love really does endure forever, and we are resting in that promise.

Love,
Tyler, Katrina, Ella, and Kayla

So what's it like to travel with a two year old?

2009-02-07T01:09:00.000-08:00

Sometimes people ask us what it's like to travel with a baby. But to date, no one has ever asked me what it's like to travel with a two year old. Being two is that constant collision of curiosity and limitation which causes every kid Icarus to dither away precious moments writhing on the ground in confined anguish.

Which is exactly what my two year old was doing the other day on the flight home from Bangkok while waiting in line for the loo. That was until she discovered the one thing better than a tantrum--buttons. A few seconds of unadulterated joy later--plus one frantic phone call from the captain to the flight attendant nearby--the plane's emergency landing beacon was switched on and then back off. "It was just a kid," said the flight attendant to the pilot's relief.

Not just a kid. It was my kid.

Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler...

2008-09-05T22:54:00.000-07:00

So yesterday I went to E-Mart with Ella. It's my favorite big box store in Tianjin, and here's why:

ME: Can these staples be used in this stapler [of the same brand]?

STATIONERY SALESMAN: No.

ME: Oh, so they're for the mini-stapler over here (pointing)?

SALESMAN: No. Those aren't staplers. Those are staple removers. [The picture on the box was of a mini-stapler].

ME: So do you have the right kind of staples for this stapler?

SALESMAN: No.

ME: Do you have a stapler that will take the staples you do sell?

SALESMAN: No.

ME: Will you have them in the future?

SALESMAN: No.

ME: No worries, thanks anyway!

A completely predictable conversation, but only if you live here. :-)

Solzhenitsyn

2008-08-12T23:36:00.000-07:00

A great article in CT about biblical freedom. Good reading for both sides of the political spectrum, and a fine refutation of libertarian ideology from one of the great champions of classical liberalism.

The Smog Games?

2008-08-05T22:33:00.000-07:00

I can't wait til tomorrow. Some friends of ours are getting together to go watch the Americans beat Japan in soccer just down the road from here. The day after that some local friends are coming over to watch the opening ceremony.

My excitement, however, comes in spite of the valiant attempts of several Western media outlets to shower these Olympics with the worst kind of cynical reporting I have perhaps seen in my lifetime. Photographs of Beijing "smog" are broadcast daily across American televisions without one credit to those who have worked for 7 years to create dramatic improvements. Never are such photos accompanied by an actual scientific measure of pollution. Today's hit piece in the Guardian used the Chinese in-house index (which is reading safe but high at the moment)--the same index it has trashed as untrustworthy. It is clear that these media outlets care more about the health of pampered athletes living in China for a short time than they care about ordinary Chinese who breathe the very same air every day. Furthermore, reports of terror attacks in China are riddled with words like "alleged" and "claim." It is no surprise that the Chinese public accuses Western media outlets of falsifying evidence and doctoring photographs for sensational purposes. It certainly leaves me wondering and disappointed.

Despite all efforts to become a compassionate, internationalist society, the West still has a lot of snobbery to atone for.

The Flame

2008-08-02T06:59:00.000-07:00

Today I was on a mission--to get a picture of the torch. I'll spare you the details of my quest save telling you that I left home at the unrighteous hour of 8:30am. And lo, the torch was long gone. But I did come away with a cool Beijing 2008 flag. Ella likes it, except that she can't say her "L's" and so she calls it a, well, you know.

Last night we were walking home, and seriously, there were about 10 busloads of college freshmen leaving campus to be in position along the relay route. Anything here that involves a TV camera is never ever spur-of-the-moment. Scripts and cues are rehearsed for hours, even days. I caught the end of today's celebration on TV and saw some old ladies doing some choreographed flag waving for what seemed like an hour. Their arms must have been tired. A few of them had stopped smiling.

For most, however, the mood is tentative excitement. At exactly 8:08:08pm on 08-08-08, the games will begin. Except of course for the preliminary soccer match between the USA and Japan that I'm attending the day before. Jia you mei guo! (加油美国!)

It's a fun time to ask people what they're really thinking about big issues, since there seems to be a lot of introspection going on these days. One world, one dream, say the signs. If only we could be taught to dream of the world the way it was supposed to be, and the way it will be again one day. Most of us have forgotten that we're the problem and not the solution. I guess you could call that the audacity of faith.

Passing the Baton

2008-06-04T16:01:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday, while I was at work, Katrina and her mum took the girls to see their great auntie, Chris Manning. She turned 98 this year, and she was so excited to hold Kayla. Auntie Chris spent much of her life working for Jesus in the Congo/Zaire/Congo-again/Zaire-redux/Congo-we-mean-it-this-time. She faithfully prays for our family as we prepare to make a similar move overseas in less than three weeks.

Here is a photo from their visit:

On Saturday morning we received the news that Auntie Chris had gone to be with Jesus on Friday night. The funeral service is tomorrow, and all the Shedd girls will be in attendance.

"Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise." - Proverbs 31:31

Whose Freedom?

2008-05-22T05:15:00.000-07:00

Everybody wants to be free.

Everybody wants to be free to do what he wants when he wants. But all military cliches aside, who is planning to foot the bill for my freedom?

I have spent the last half hour reading articles and Wikipedia on the so-called "network neutrality" debate that has raged off-and-on in all the respected halls of nerd-dom in America. If I understand correctly, this is a battle between Big Telecom (with quite a few Free Market cheerleaders) and Big Internet (with an assortment of Stand-Up-for-the-Little-Guy free-speech types). In case I'm not understanding this correctly, feel free to chime in below, (especially if your name is Katie and the Internet writes your paychecks and does your laundry.)

Big Internet is worried that Big Telecom is scheming to tamper with or even restrict web content that it doesn't like. Big Internet does not want to be forced to pay more money to Big Telecom for premium speed and quality of service. Big Internet, for the most part, then, wants the Internet to be "neutral," not biased in favor of those who can pay big bucks for premium access to consumers. Many consumer advocates and liberal bloggers agree. Big Telecom must not in any way restrict, interfere with, or inhibit web content.

Big Telecom, on the other hand, claims to have little interest in restricting web content for moral or political reasons, rather for economic ones. Some web content slows down the Internet for everyone and should therefore be restricted or charged accordingly. Big Telecom claims this is for the benefit of everyone in the long run, as it needs new sources of revenue in order to develop next-level technology which will theoretically result in a faster Internet. On a side note, Big Government is also interested in using the resources of Big Telecom to keep an eye on potential risks to homeland security. No wonder all the espressoholic bloggers are foaming at the mouth. (brb. my mug needs a refill)

To over-simplify a complicated and hopelessly boring subject even further, this seems to be a case of Free Speech vs. the Free Market. One side claims the freedom to shout "Fire!" across a crowded network, and the other side claims the freedom to make you pay for it.

Caught in the crossfire of this madness is the diminishing Christian Coalition of America--less visible since the glory days of Ralph Reed (before he went to work for Big Casino). They have repeatedly taken the side of Big Internet in this debate, and in so doing, have been caught holding hands with MoveOn.org. Consequently, according to an aide to the Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Free Market), they are "off the reservation." In other news, there's a rumor going around a few lesser known liberal websites that many Free Market advocates are "elitist."

So here's my cards on the table. I don't really care much who wins this debate. As much as I like the Internet (and I really do like it), I'm not sure I care if anything faster or more convenient comes along. After all, I still have my library card. I'm also not sure I care if AT&T wants to charge me extra to flirt with its "competitors" (who are its competitors precisely?)

I do care, however, that there are a lot of kids around the world who die every day of diarrhea. I'm not sure I remember the exact number. I'll just check Wikipedia.

Freedom is a funny thing. Sometimes it's not as free as it seems on TV. As C.S. Lewis once poignantly observed, human freedom will be permanently honored in only one place.--Hell.

Bean Bag Brawl

2008-05-18T00:13:00.000-07:00

You've met Ella...

You've met Kayla...

But you've NEVER seen ANYTHING like THIS:

Still friends, but can you guess who got the victory?

To be continued...

Pray for China

2008-05-14T05:30:00.000-07:00

The earthquake that struck Sichuan province at 2:30pm on Monday, May 12, will be remembered in China for decades. The casualty toll is in the tens of thousands and rising, and a high proportion of the dead are high school students. Unlike the Tangshan earthquake, which killed 240,000 (officially, unofficial estimates are as high as 650,000) in Hebei and Tianjin provinces in northern China in 1976--this disaster has unfolded on live television before the eyes of the world. For China, this is 9-11 without a scapegoat. This is another tsunami, but one that seemed to selectively target those with many promising years ahead.

Pancaked. That's how reporters have described classroom and apartment buildings in the quake zone. I used to teach 7th graders in an old building in Tianjin just like the ones that fell. I never gave much thought to the structural integrity of the place, even though the city memorial to the '76 quake that claimed 24,000 in Tianjin (pictured above, notice the soldier holding a small baby, presumably, orphaned by the quake) was mere metres down the road. I've spent the last couple of days remembering my students, and thanking God that they're safe. The epicenter was 1000 miles away from their classrooms. And still, even they, even I, feel like we've lost close friends, just by looking at those pictures.

Pray for China, and for the people of Sichuan, Chongqing, and Gansu provinces.

Pray that the local church, and the church across China will rise to the occasion--that they will care for the dying and comfort the living. That they will pour themselves out for those who have lost everything. Pray that the Wounded Healer will rise from the rubble.

More pics

2008-05-09T04:07:00.001-07:00

Is this really a 3-day old baby in a towel? She loved her bath but loved the warm towel even more.

"What? Are you talking to me?"

Awwww.

New Family Photo

2008-05-08T05:22:00.001-07:00

Welcome Kayla Marie Shedd

2008-05-07T05:06:00.000-07:00

Kayla Marie, 9 lbs .3 oz., 51 cm, born May 6, 2008, 3:58 pm

Day 2:

In this last photo, Ella is starting to look a lot like her Mum! More photos of her to come...

Real Men for Jesus?

2008-04-19T00:46:00.000-07:00

A while back, I posted on the topic of being a man in today's evangelical church. It was a long and winding post that didn't arrive at a conclusion as much as it did a sentiment. My feeling at the time is that the neo-machismo crowd (from John Eldredge the mild to Mark Driscoll the fire-breather) is right (in some ways) on diagnosis, but dead wrong on cure.

A far more eloquent and reasoned piece of writing, with a clear point of view, can be found in this feature article by Brandon O'Brien in the current issue of Christianity Today. The crux of his concern can be found in this paragraph:

"My point is this: If Adam and Eve illustrate the essential differences between men and women, Christ highlights their essential unity. All believers are called to imitate Christ by exhibiting the same qualities; Paul makes no distinction between masculine and feminine fruits of the Spirit. In fact, the evidence of the Spirit's work looks very different from the qualities the masculinity movement suggests typify a 'real' man. Instead of 'brash, offensive' (Stine), 'self-reliant, competitive' (Murrow), 'punch-you-in-the-nose dudes' (Driscoll), Paul says that those who are filled with the Holy Spirit will be loving, patient, peaceful, kind, and gentle."

Men and women might have different ways of expressing these Christ-like traits. However, to argue that certain negative traits such as passivity, insecurity, or gooey niceness are bad for the Church because they are feminine is to say without saying that the female personna (and by extension, female discipleship) is second-rate and even dangerous. O'Brien makes the case that such negative traits are not bad for men because they are feminine, but because they are so unlike Jesus.

The sloppy cultural critiques of some feminists does not warrant and equally sloppy and ungodly response on the part of evangelical believers and leaders. In the day that the Suffering Servant returns to judge the living and the dead, there will be no prototypical male or female by whose standard we will be measured. Jesus--the incarnation of humanness in all its forms and features--will look only to Himself. And when He does, He will see one who both rules and serves, who both judges and extends grace, who speaks truth but does so with tender mercy, and who is the only standard for every man, woman, boy, and girl who has ever lived.

Two Posts For A Nickel (What a Deal!)

2008-03-22T03:50:00.000-07:00

More food for thought for the long weekend...

Asian geo-politics have featured heavily in the news leading up to the Beijing Olympics. China is walking a fine line in Tibet trying to manage the "evil forces of the Dalai Lama death cult." (Ah, the melodrama.) This band of young enthusiasts seems bent on defying their own leader as well as the Chinese government by calling for de-facto independence and a boycott of the Olympics.

Predictably, a number of activist groups outside Tibet have been making similar demands. Actually, they have been doing so for years. The media is just beginning now to take notice.

Now imagine for a minute that you're a swimmer from Lebanon--a really good one. Your Mom and Dad have made big sacrifices so that you've had the best trainers from an early age. And now, your moment is finally here. You've survived moments of self-doubt, injury, political upheaval, and insurmountable debt. But on August 8, 2008, at 8:08pm, you're going to be in that parade. You've arrived, and your country is cheering you on.

Unless...you become collateral damage.

Why is it that in our striving to uphold righteous causes and accomplish dreams we humans are so quick to quash the dreams of another?

In other words, why is my ambition better than yours?

It might seem obvious to some that winning political freedom for an oppressed people is more important than winning a gold medal. But I will go on the record by saying I'm not so sure. I would be more sure if I knew that punching a ballot card made me more fully human than the next guy. I would be more sure if I believed that human rights were conferred upon us all by the benevolent hands of government. I would be more sure if this life was all there is.

Somewhere in the midst of trying to love people on the other side of the television screen, we forgot what it feels like to love people. A wise man once wrote, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

Can't I just hold up a placard? Can't I just write a cheque? Can't I just buy all the right things from all the right sellers? Isn't that enough? To assuage guilt, yes. To love, no.

Real love does not shrug its shoulders when a Chinese peasant is turned out to beg because her employer has lost a lucrative contract exporting goods to the West.

Real love is on the ground giving real answers and real hope to people who have none. Real love costs more than a few cents a day.

Real love changes everything.

(The original title of this post was "Boycotts Are Dumb." I stand by that assertion.)

And it was a Good Friday

2008-03-22T03:14:00.000-07:00

"Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven..."

Through the suffering, humiliation, torture, and death of Jesus, we have been reconciled to God. This is my hope that even though I don't see Him yet, I know I'm ready to. I know that at any moment, I will see Him and not be destroyed. Not even the Patriarchs had that kind of confidence.

That's because they lived on the other side of Good Friday.

Yesterday after church I sat down to read the paper. I opened up to page 2 and saw that a prominent minister in our denomination called for the Good Friday public holiday here in Australia to be replaced with a National Reconciliation Day in honour of the Australian Aboriginal communities. Reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australia is a crucial goal politically, ethically, and spiritually for the health of the nation. It's importance was brought to the forefront by the Prime Minister in February on the now famous "Sorry Day."

But is reconciliation possible without Good Friday?

Can the noble goal of this minister, Mr. Rudd, and countless others be realized without the cross? It might seem odd that one act of brutal vigilantism a couple of millenia ago has something to do with similar injustice today. But if I understand the passage above, only the horrific beauty of the cross has the power to reconcile the murderers--all of us--to our Creator. And then in turn, those who are now free to see God are also free to embrace their neighbours for no other reason than that they resemble Him.

Yes, Good Friday is reconciliation day. But not because we said so.

A Few More Shots

2007-12-19T14:46:00.000-08:00

Two Shedd's and Harrod's Department Store, London (lit in the background).

Papparazzi catch Ella on her morning stroll through Hyde Park, London.

Aberdeen, Scotland, near the breakwaters. Ella is happy not to be in the car, or wearing a hat.

I will try to put some video on You Tube as well soon.

In London

2007-12-14T10:35:00.000-08:00

Here are a few highlight photos for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy!

Mum and Ella on the city walls of London, Tower Bridge in the background.

Dad, Ella, and horse near Buckingham Palace (in background).

Mum, Ella and "Di" at the British Museum.

Katrina ordering a pizza.

Feeding the birds, checking the map at St. Paul's Cathedral.

Ella, world traveler and cuisine specialist.

More to come next week!

Love,

the sheddz

Ella is One!

2007-10-28T16:41:00.000-07:00

Today, Ella Grace turned one. She celebrated by spending a full two hours in the church nursery this morning (an extra special treat now that she is walking and can get to the toys with great quickness). Next she came over the grandparents' house to enjoy a special meal of meatloaf, mashed potatoes, okra, and green bean casserole. ("comfort food") She loved them all. I've never seen her inhale a meal so quickly. She was ready for round 2 of the same later in the evening. In the meantime, she opened presents, hoovered her (green) Dora the Explorer birthday cake, and took a walk around the neighborhood with Mum, Auntie Katie and Auntie Sarah (she is watching her figure, of course).

Watching Ella get older is a fun job to have for lots of reasons. For starters, we can all see that she will be a great big sister come next May. She is so affectionate with her soft toys (even her clothes) and all of us! We wait with anticipation for her toddle in our general direction and throw her arms around our knees (accompanied by her trademark squeal). I'm sure that Mom or Katrina will have pics up soon on their sites.

Hard to believe that in six weeks we will be leaving for London, and in 8 weeks we'll almost be back in Australia. But despite the busyness, we are enjoying our time in Louisville. We will miss our family, friends, church, and even my job at Starbucks. I can't say I'll miss study deadlines, at least for a little while. Hopefully, I'll get back to blogging more regularly in a few weeks so you can keep up with our comings and goings.

Peace,
t shedd

Jesus and Health Care

2007-08-16T08:00:00.000-07:00

Have I ever told you what it's like to have a baby in Australia? (*in the case that you are reading this in Australia, skip forward a couple of paragraphs.)

For starters, it's free. The government covers all the cost of pregnancy as long as you choose a public hospital for all your pre-natal appointments and delivery. We opted for what they call "shared care" which is where the expectant mother goes to her own doctor for all but two appointments and pays anywhere from $10 to $20 per visit. But the delivery was free and uncomplicated.

But wait, there's more.

The government in Australia has decided that due to a declining birth rate (especially among Caucasians) to do two things: 1) pay each couple $4000 per child born in Australia without regard to financial need, and 2) boost immigration by skilled workers from overseas (who also tend to have more children per capita).

But wait, there's more.

Not only did we have a practically free pregnancy and delivery and have $4000 deposited in the bank upon record of Ella's birth, we also continued to receive from the government nearly $350 every two weeks until we left Australia--a gesture from the government to promote financial stability among "new families."

We Americans tend to wonder how they manage to afford all this generosity. Australia is a country of only 20 million people whose standard of living compares with the most affluent countries in the world. One major difference, however, is that the wealthiest Australians are required to subsidize the poorest at levels that even some political liberals in the U.S. would consider scandalous. So we have Rupert Murdoch, James Packer, and others to thank for the financial blessing that flows freely from the state to us mere mortals.

What's truly amazing is that in spite of all this, the birth rate in Australia, like in much of Europe, is still declining. This phenomenon has been the subject of many books and articles meant to make us aware and even afraid. Europe will be a Muslim continent in our lifetime, or so they say. Even nominal Christians will be a minority of the population in Australia and Canada. And dutifully, many in the Church have taken the bait and given into fear.

And that tells us something else significant. There is an apalling lack of understanding of the mission of God in Christendom. That's the best case scenario. Worst case is that so-called Christians understand the mission, but they simply don't care. They just don't want to have noisy neighbors, pay high taxes, or (understandably) live under sharia law.

Let's return to free health care for a minute. Most conservative Protestants in Amreica find the idea unthinkable. "Hillary-care," "socialized medicine," "Marxism at its worst"--these are some of the epithets directed at the ideas of those who feel that the government must act in the face of astronomical health care costs and a growing population of uninsured citizens. J.P. Moreland, a well-respected evangelical ethics professor at Biola University in Southern California, has just blogged that Jesus would not have supported free health care--

"Jesus was angered at moral teaching that emphasized outward conformity to rules without moral action flowing from a heart of compassion and virtue, even if such conformity produced good results. Now the state cannot show compassion in the arena of economic justice, because a necessary condition for compassion is that it is freely given and not coerced. The state forces people to conform to rules. It takes their money and gives it to others."

I have no problem with any of the premises stated here, they are all elementary and verifiably accurate. But what about the inferred conclusion? Jesus was angry at the religious leaders of his day for teaching that outward conformity was good enough while ignoring inward transformation. At no time, however, did he ever praise or criticize Rome for their system of laws--just or unjust. Moreland has drawn a conclusion--that Jesus would not support state-sponsored health care (and presumably, He is against it)--based on His contextualized criticism of the Pharisees. But if, according to Moreland, the State should not be held to the standard of active compassion given to the Church, then why should we expect it to freely limit its own coercive powers based on Jesus' criticism of a group of ancient Jewish priests?

The State throughout history has often reserved the right to discriminate between or against certain groups of people based on a perceived common good. The question has always surrounded how to define the common good. Some have understood coerced compassion to meet the criteria of common good. Others have understood an unregulated market in the same light. Usually, it depends on the culture and historical circumstances of the given society.

Universal health care is an idea that emerged out of a shattered post-war, post-Christian Europe before spreading throughout Christendom. In fact, societies with relatively little Christian history or influence have not successfully implemented such nationwide charity. China, for example, tried universal health care as it seemed to fit with their pro-poor and big-government agenda. Nearly 60 years later, the poor in China today remain some of the most desperate and disconnected in all the world. There is no insurance for well over 90 percent of the country's 1.3 billion people. Those that can manage to afford hospitalization and prescription drugs are often faced with unhygenic facilities and shocking levels of corruption. While the State is beginning to pay attention to the crisis (due in large part to growing public outcries among the poor), China is a long way from having a "compassionate" society. And perhaps, free health care may once again be perceived as a common good. But with its titanic population and growing materialism among the rich, that's less than unlikely.

Now without asking the presumptious and often irreverent question as to what Jesus would or wouldn't say to the Chinese government, let me just ask you a simple question. Where would you rather give birth? China or Australia? I'm sure if Dr. Moreland were forced to decide, his answer would be the same as yours.

Yesterday, Dr. Mohler, the president of Southern Seminary where I attend, added his voice to the growing concern over declining birth rates in Christendom. His conclusion (which I agree with), is that the birth rate decline reflects a world-view demise. In other words, the less Christian a society becomes, the more likely it is that the affluent will pursue their own self-interest as opposed to procreating. (I have blogged previously about the moral issues surrounding having large families).

All of this begs the question as to what the Church and Christians as individuals are supposed to do about the problem. In Europe, Canada, and Australia, the government (not the Church) has taken the initiative to subsidize child bearing and child rearing. Parents have certainly beneifited, but birth rates continue to decline. A news story yesterday reported a Russian village declaring a "procreation" holiday for all married couples in order to bolster Russia's population (currently in free-fall). Americans--while easily scared by the prospect of being outnumbered by recent (read: non-WASPy) immigrants--have done next to nothing to address the social realities which have produced the trend. Free health care for kids and realistic maternity and paternity leave for parents are often laughed off by American conservatives as creating a welfare state. Clearly, the European experience suggests that a government-only approach is not sufficient to increase birth rates. But then again, what exactly has the Church done except preach to the choir?

It is high time for a wholesale reformulation of the mission of God in America. Scholars like Moreland and Mohler have been good at diagnosing problems (coercion does not create compassion or justice, birth rates are declining due to selfishness, etc.), but have offered few solutions. And we wonder why indifference is the common response in the pew and in the polling booth.

True Christian compassion can and must thrive with or without a mandate from the State. When communities are full of new immigrants who know nothing of Jesus and His love, our first response should be to go to them. When we read of birth rates falling, we can pray that our own families will be living testimony of the love that God has for His children. And we must do everything in our power to ensure that our communities are places where children are welcomed and cared for. And yes, that may include political advocacy and financial sacrifice (even government coercion). We live in a fallen world, and sometimes the beautiful ends must justify the painful means. Christians owe it to the communities where they live and take up space to adopt such a posture of love toward their neighbors. More than bemoaning secularization and societal ills, we must address them head on with simple acts of kindness and God-given discernment.

Ideology must and will give way to love.

Are You Bored with the Beatitudes?

2007-08-09T16:55:00.001-07:00

I was recently challenged reading an article by Mark Galli in Christianity Today. He questions people like me who like to talk about cultural or world transfomation instead of doing the simple acts of service and suffering that Jesus called us to. He writes:

"I remain puzzled as to why we're so bored with the very things Jesus asks us to do, like picking that foreigner up out of the ditch, giving away our goods to the poor, going to court with a young man who's being railroaded by the system, taking an orphan into our home, going the extra mile with the oppressive and manipulative, forgiving the offender, baptizing, and witnessing. I find these things really, really hard to do. I fail all the time. If I can't even do these things well, why would I believe that I could transform my culture, let alone change the world?"

Somehow I think that missions (or being "missional" --a recent evangelical buzzword) has fallen prey to this kind of promising more than it can deliver (humanly speaking). To be missional is to change the world, right? I was challenged to re-examine the opening words of Jesus' first sermon:

"Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Notice that the results of all these things (meekness, peacemaking, humility, showing mercy, suffering persecution, etc.) are God-intiated. Those who try to make peace don't change the world as we know it. They get trodden on. Then God gives them a new name. Those who hunger for righteousness don't often make the headlines. Instead, they are more often ridiculed, even by fellow believers. Then they are satisfied--not by the world, but by the bread and the wine. Jesus' first followers knew these things well. They learned them by suffering more than success. They graduated from the school of sorrow, not celebration.

Signing up for the mission of God in the world is not an option for anyone. The draft card has arrived in the mail and Canada is not an option. God has sent us out to do the work of the kingdom--the dirty, painful, thankless, exhilerating work of the kingdom. And one day (only God knows when), it will be complete. The world and all its creatures will be changed in a flash. And when the credits roll, even the meadowgrass will be standing in awe of the one Name that appears in the midst of all the glory.

Osama Loves Brian McLaren?

2007-07-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

I don't think I've ever written a post specifically related to the "emerging" church movement/conversation. There is so much out there on the Internet about it by people more knowledgeable than me. But this article by Frank Pastore (i.e. pot-stirrer extraordinaire) has not surprisingly hit a button with me.

Read it and you will see the deepest flaws of hyper-politicized conservative Christianity in America in bright colors. Read it and you will understand why some Muslims refuse to acknowledge a distinction between the way of Jesus and the American way. Read it and remember that for some, even in America, the Crusader mentality is alive and well. Read it and pray for those Christians who will surely be persecuted in the Muslim world as a result.

The ruffled feathers of emerging church afficionados are the least of my concerns. And they will surely respond with lengthy blog entries. But realize that for Pastore, the "emerging church" is just a convenient face for all things "liberal," which must mean all those who do not worship at the blood-stained altar of the American dream.

To All the Would-Be Saviors

2007-07-14T05:15:00.000-07:00

Joel Wickre, of the Blood-Water Mission has an incredible article about mission in Christianity Today. He reminds us that "going to them" can sometimes have unintended effects like creating dependency among the "served" and a savior complex among the "servants." He reminds us, as does the Scripture, that we are all equals in Christ. The wealth divide is really an illusion that shadows what it means to be human. But when the "haves" meet the "have-nots," that sort of worldview seems to be lost in translation.

Forgive us, God, for only going because we are "needed" and not because we are called.

Why Didn't I Think Of That?

2007-07-10T17:10:00.000-07:00

So maybe whining does get you places after all.

This just in. Sprint-Nextel has decided to drop 1200 cell phone customers for excessive complaining to their customer care line. These dropped customers allegedly called the hotline 40-50 times a month to complain. They now have one month to find a new provider, and they will not have to pay a contract termination fee.

What??!!!!????

Can I share with you that I called Sprint once asking them to waive a contract termination fee when I moved to China. What do I have to show for it? An empty promise and a big ugly stain on my credit report. And a lot of bad memories of cheer-less collection agents calling my parents' house at all hours.

If only I would have known how to make them back down.

Is that the sound of a squeaky wheel I hear? Or make that 300 million squeaky wheels. It couldn't happen to a more deserving industry. The airlines are next.

On Sound Bytes

2007-06-28T04:57:00.000-07:00

This morning I ran across a post by Scot McKnight on his blog about a famous sound byte in some Christian circles, especially in reference to homosexuality.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

You've heard it. I've said it. But do I or any of us actually live it consistently? I know that I don't expend nearly the effort that Jesus did to seek out those who have fallen short to love (other than myself, of course). I know that I spend too much time letting others know where I stand on things for the purpose of placing myself safely in one box or another. In one simple sound byte on say, homosexuality or the war or abortion or who I'm going to vote for or my view of the Bible, etc., I have defined for you my "friends" and "enemies." I have told you who is "us" and who is "them." I, and those like me, are right, and they are wrong. The reason that the platitude above is so popular, methinks, is because it allows Christians, in six words, to stake out their position on a controversial issue (one that has become a litmus test of litmus tests) and still maintain an appearance of compassionate inclusion.

I often roll my eyes at most bumper stickers, especially ones that try to be funny. Why, I wonder, must I be told that in case of the rapture, the car in front of me will swerve out of control or that I should celebrate diversity? Has anybody ever been persudaded to change their convictions (preferences are a different story) by a sound byte?

I have used a lot of room on this blog to stake out my position on immigration. I suppose if I had to create a bumper sticker that would reflect my position, it would say something like, "Amnesty Rules!" with the Spanish translation underneath. Or maybe not.

The challenge I came away with from Scot's post is to spend more time seeking out and loving sinners (people very much like myself) and a lot less time "hating sin" with what I write and say. If someone ends up questioning where I stand on a particular issue, maybe that's the ambiguity that can lead to constructive conversation.

I love what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2, that he did not preach using clever words (sound bytes), but rather a demonstration of the Spirit and its power. That power is the same love that put Jesus on the cross. Not the love of the sound byte, but the love of a life lived to the full and poured out for others. That is my privilege--to love sinners created in God's image.

The Spirit of God is stronger than any sound byte.

Linda Chavez and Her Critics

2007-06-12T16:40:00.000-07:00

Former Labor Secretary nominee and staunch conservative Linda Chavez has been taking a lot of flack the past couple of weeks. Why? She has dared to challenge the reigning "conservative" position on immigration. She even went so far as to accuse some of her friends as pandering to racist and nativist sentiments in our society. After being soundly criticized for those remarks, she went on to apologize and respond at length on National Review Online.

What interests me more than Chavez' well thought-out (although sometimes poorly articulated) position is the vitriol of her critics. She has been told to go back to Mexico (she is a 5th generation American) among other niceties. Mark Krikorian, director of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, tells her on NRO today to "grow up" for being upset. Apparently, he wishes to add patronizing chauvanism to his charming resume. John Derbyshire in the same piece makes no apology for consistently referring to Hispanics as "Aztecs," defending the practice by suggesting that those with multicultural sentiments would heartily approve, and if not, well, tough you-know-whats. Finally, Heather MacDonald reaffirms her position, contra Chavez, that second generation Hispanics (presumably only those born to illegal immigrants) are becoming a social nuisance and that alone should disqualify their parents from ever attaining legal status. Thomas Sowell and others have made similar arguments, never mind the fact that such pathologies as single-parent families, gang violence, and illegitimacy are hardly unique to poor Hispanics. Illegal immigrants have the added misfortune of being cut off from many avenues of advancement, so yes, the fact that Hispanics fare better than some other minority groups is quite significant. The "sins of the children" is a weak and desperate argument to limit or ban Hispanic immigration (or any people group considered undesirable) and in so doing flies in the face of conservative attempts to create a colorblind society. Race-based policies are race-based policies (quotas, et al), regardless of why they might be implemented. That, of course, is the heart of Linda Chavez' argument.

What is so clearly missing from the anti-immigration crowd (and lets be clear that Tancredo, CIS, FAIR, National Review Online, Lou Dobbs, conservative talk-radio hosts, Pat Buchanan, et al are all anti-immigration, not just anti-"amnesty") is any concern for the human dignity of those involved. What do these folks really care about the unsolved murders in poor areas of Los Angeles anyway other than to exploit them in a desperate attempt to seal the borders and turn our nation into an underpopulated and over-resourced country club for the affluent? (A rhetorical question, not an accusation.)

Are evangelical Christians really willing to be identified with all this? What biblical principles am I missing that I don't see the justice in shunning all those who are statistically likely to cause trouble or who might refuse to give up their native language? Why aren't there more Christians speaking out on this nonsense, instead choosing to stick to a wimpy and inconsistent "enforcement first" position? Why is it that more Christians in this country have not answered the call to mission and by their suffering sacrifice become the solution to the social ills they fear and detest (multiculturalism, crime, depressed wages, etc)?

I have lost much respect for many conservative pundits over this issue alone. Patriotic platitudes alone are not motivation enough for a person to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with his God. We must choose justice for all even if it means discomfort for some.

New Family Photo

2007-06-02T05:36:00.000-07:00

This week we decided it was time to take a family photo. Not the kind you pay lots of money for at a studio, but rather, standing on the deck behind my parents' house here in Louisville. For some reason the image is pixelated... (e-mail me if you want a better copy!)

I'm on my way to finishing up my reading for my next class which starts a week from Monday. In the meantime, we're going to a world food and music festival here in town today, and going to hang out with my mom's family in Perryville, MO next weekend. Fun times!

In other news, "televangelist" Bill Keller in Florida has called Republican presidential contender and devout Mormon, Mitt Romney, an agent of Satan. Seems that not just immigrants are getting a bad rap these days.

Question: If the pagan kings Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible could be called God's instruments, why do some assume that a non-evangelical (Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, non-believer, etc.) cannot be God's man or woman for the job?

On the other hand, it is a bit strange to me to see so many evangelicals lining up behind Romney because of his (current) stance on abortion. (And perhaps because they seem him as more electable than some others.) Philosophically and historically, Mormonism has more in common with Islam than orthodox Christianity. I guess you can write it off to the democratic process requiring strange bedfellows at times. I'm more concerned, however, that some people are so motivated by a handful of causes that will sell their souls to the highest and best looking bidder. That goes for the pro-justice crowd as much as the pro-life one. But if I remember right, that strategy (trusting in less-than-honorable political structures to save the day) didn't work so well for the German Lutherans or the ancient Israelites.

Update: After my last post on immigration, someone I know and love raised the question as to whether I advocate slave labor.

Answer: No, I don't advocate slave labor. But neither do I believe the best course of action for the US to follow is to seal the borders and feather the nest of a whole generation of rich kids who are quickly losing the motivation to work hard. (If you want to see what that looks like, take a look at the student riots in France last year.) The reality is that whenever you bring cookies to school, you have to bring enough for everybody, or else there's gonna be a throwdown. Those who have come are not looking to overthrow the system, just benefit from it the same way that many European immigrants did in years past. We can choose to close the door and make our kids richer and less motivated, or we can legalize the people who are here already and open the door to fair competition in the labor force and plain old human decency. You can call it amnesty. I call it good sense.

Security at What Cost?

2007-05-22T06:05:00.000-07:00

I want to make a counter-intuitive argument that might seem radical at first glance. Tell me what you think.

The new immigration bill has sparked a variety of comments from the conservative front. I was waiting for Pat Buchanan to chime in, and he has on WorldNet Daily (where else?). His argument is the same as always--that the flood of non-white immigrants now and in the future (exacerbated of course by "amnesty") do not share white anglo-saxon cultural values and a commitment to education and achievement. Therefore, we are doomed to be a nation of warring nationalities whose future is as bleak as the former Yugoslavia.

I want to offer a different perspective than Mr. Buchanan. His analysis has consistently failed to address one important question. Why are immigrants coming to America in record numbers? They surely are not coming to be the fodder of highly paid political pundits. Instead, they are coming because there is opportunity. If the job opportunities dried up in this land of plenty, so too would the flow of immigration. If the various entitlement programs in Western countries became insolvent, border fences would not be necessary. People anywhere do what they must for their families to survive and in some cases, thrive.

White Americans, on the other hand, are losing ground demographically because they are rich. Rich people just don't have a lot of babies. The few babies they do have are also losing ground economically to other folks because they are not as motivated to succeed as their parents were. After all, if tremendous wealth and decentralized authority has led to a 50% divorce rate and a skyrocketing crime rate, what exactly is to gain by rich kids working hard? (Think for a minute about the wisdom of the rich King Solomon in Ecclesiastes.) Of course there are many exceptions to this. But it is hard to imagine, say, Bill Gates' kids working as hard as their father. Don't think about this too long, but how many sons of great kings in history have outstripped their father's legacy? The answer is not many. Monarchies and empires have collapsed for this very reason. America is not immune from this trend regardless of how many immigrants we let in.

In fact, immigration may be just what we need to reverse this trend. America has always been united by ideas more than by ethnicity. That is why immigrants have always breathed new life into our sluggish economy at various periods--they come to work hard. Current and future waves of immigrants are no different. Lets face it, if we seal up the borders and allow ourselves to become all the richer, our kids will retire at 35 and the few remaining jobs will be exported to China and India, where people work hard for less reward. Call it unjust, but it is a fact of life. On the other hand, if rich kids were given the same opportunities as immigrants are given (read: not many), then maybe they would be motivated to succeed again. They would learn the value of working hard.

I have no guarantee that this would prevent terrorism or gang violence or any such evil. I do know, however, that the kind of ugly xenophobia peddled by the Pat Buchannans of the world leads nowhere but to insular irrelevance.

On Ending Affirmative Action

2007-05-17T19:22:00.000-07:00

Have you heard about the new comprehensive immigration reform bill that was just introduced in the U.S. Senate? There really isn't much newsworthy about it--more border security, a temporary worker program, and a path to legal residency after paying a $5000 fine.

For those who are quick to call this "amnesty," know that people are able to plead guilty to charges against them every day in order to receive a reduced sentence. Most Americans, for example, have opted for traffic school over paying the entire speeding fine. We don't call this amnesty, but rather, judicial discretion. I have still to be convinced that some "law and order" conservatives aren't crying wolf in order to cover up an unsubtle fear of foreigners. It was Mr. Border Security himself, Sen. Tom Tancredo, who compared Miami to a "third world country" and suggested that blowing up Mecca would be a "good deterrent" against terrorism.

The most interesting feature of the bill, in my opinion, is the introduction of a new merit-based immigration policy. Instead of allowing potential immigrants only to be sponsored by potential employers or family members, they will also be judged according to the number of merit "points" they accumulate. Fluency in English earns big points, along with skills in areas of high demand. Tech and research companies and universities would benefit immediately from the changes.

So who are the losers in this bill? Contrary to some popular rhetoric, legal immigrants will not be harmed. Why? Legal immigrants never had to worry about hiring a coyote or making a dangerous crossing because the law already provided everything they needed to get across. They had family or some other connection in the U.S. Most of those who cross the border illegally do so in order to establish the beachhead necessary for legal immigration. There is no way under the current system for most illegals to come legally. So now, under the new bill, holes in the border will be sealed, and the incentive to breach those holes will be reduced.

Those who have the most to lose from this legislation are unskilled workers and underperforming students in the U.S. Remember when 9/11 happened and all visas to the U.S. were put on hold? Many graduate programs in elite schools were on the verge of shutting down. Why? The majority of their students were foreign nationals and could not return to the country. Still today, U.S. students struggle to compete with their foreign counterparts in school and in the work force. More students around the world are mastering the English language with an aim to study in the West. All of a sudden, the competition just got harder.

Current immigration policy represents a subtle form of discrimination whose drawbacks are somewhat similar to affirmative action. Schools and employers are cheated out of the best possible candidates due to a bureaucratic technicality. Our global marketplace does not allow for the antiquated notion that quotas must be reserved for the children of U.S. taxpayers. Universities and companies want to succeed more than they want to discriminate.

Do you see the irony here? Grand ideals of hard work and progress propelled the U.S. to enrich itself beyond its wildest imaginations. Now the children of these self-made men and women have listened to the siren song of affluence just long enough to be bored with the rat race altogether. They've passed the baton to those who have the discipline to run. After all, why run when there are so many good shows on television to watch? Why work hard when the system has got your back? But the same system that coddles the affluent acts as a giant magnet attracting those who simply want to survive. And they know how to run well. For the rich, the handwriting is on the wall, but it will have to wait until the next commercial break.

But wait, isn't it unfair for immigrants to take our jobs? Yes, stealing is unfair. But there is no stealing happening here. White kids can't "steal" opportunities from minorities when they are accepted on merit alone. Neither can foreign students or immigrants "steal" opportunities from citizens if they are welcomed on the basis of merit and not nationality or having the right connections.

This logic is distinctly American, of course. Most other societies value who you know and where you've come from a lot more than what you can do. Those who seek to keep foreigners away have nothing to blame but the very system that made them so rich in the first place.

Democracy Stinks

2007-05-11T17:45:00.000-07:00

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Well, I'm not so sure.

Democracy stinks. Sometimes.

Take for example, this speech by Democratic front-runner Senator Barack Obama about democracy given at the Sojourners Pentecost conference last year. He talked a lot about justice issues, but then he goes on to explain how he handles the abortion issue as a religious man and as a lawmaker in a democratic system:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Let's be honest here, Senator. You "may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons," or, you may (and do) support abortion for political reasons. I'll blame political opportunism for your recent fiery rebuke of the ban on partial-birth abortion as a slippery slope toward the imminent subjugation of women. I would hate to think that you support such a horrific procedure "for religious reasons."

Liberal evangelicals like Jim Wallis and company may think they are being prophetic by giving left-leaning politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton a platform to speak to evangelical audiences. In reality, they are just as politically idolatrous and cynical as the ugly caricature they paint of religious conservatives. Obama, Clinton, and John Edwards are all on tap to make a repeat appearance at this year's Pentecost event.

Back to the original quote, Senator Obama lectures us that democracy demands "universal" as opposed to religion-specific values. Score one for those of us who are sane enough to admit that all religions are not the same. But of course, that is not Obama's point, or else his attempt to legislate universal values that are "amenable to reason" would be dead on arrival. No politician would ever have recevied an invitation to deliver the a speech to a room full of Christians if he or she was advocating some bland mix of Islamic, Christian and secular values on, say, religious toleration or women's rights. In fact, the very issues Obama champions (e.g. social and economic justice, civil liberties, ending the Iraq War) are based not on universal values amenable to (a-religious?) reason but rather on deep-seated religious convictions.

Abortion is no less heinous to many evangelicals than slavery or cold-blooded murder. Slavery and segregation, as Obama would readily admit, were not ended by politicians bowing to the values of the majority. Dr. King, after all, was assassinated for his convictions. The fact that we are created equal may still be self-evident to those who inherited the vestiges of a Judeo-Christian worldview. Nevertheless, the worldview of non-believers (whose values we must also consider as equally important in our "democracy") does not find this truth to be self-evident, but rather counter-intuitive. Naturalism, after all, is based on the principle of survival of the fittest. That, too, is self-evident if empirical science is your only source of revelation. So how exactly did the "human rights" agenda win the day? Christian (not secular or universal) values became the law of the land.

Politicians like Obama do not have the option to legislate supra-cultural values that everybody can agree to. Laws by nature are divisive things. Laws by nature involve the imposition of the will of those in power (be it a democratic majority, an aristocracy, or an autocrat) upon the unwilling. Lawmakers must choose some values over others. And contrary to Mr. Obama's nonsense-idealism, the criteria by which those choices are made have little to do with being "amenable to reason." Unless, of course, reason dictates that the one making the choice gets to stay in power. That after all, is the nature of politics.

Prophetic religion, on the other hand, cares about what is true and right and good. Without revelation (a highly exclusive thing, I realize), there is no standard for good and evil. Without revelation, reason gets us nowhere but to some airy-fairy social contract theory of governance. As American society has by and large rejected the normative value of revelation, their politicians have followed suit. The canard that politicians are controlled by special interest groups is a truism--it cannot be avoided for lack of a higher standard of judgment. Politicians are no different than the average American--they do what they must to survive. True prophets value truth more than their own reputation and even their own lives.

Who, then, should evangelicals vote for? Must they by necessity become a more powerful and vocal interest group in order to get the legislation they want? Must they elect the right people so as to enforce the will of God on the unwilling? How much compromise must we tolerate in order to consider anyone the right person for the job?

Sometimes I wish I didn't have the right to vote. Then maybe what is true and pleasing to God would be more important than the person we choose to empower. It's hard to speak the truth to a guy (or gal) who "we the people" gave a mandate to rule, especially when he or she seems to be better than the other guy. But as reason should tell us, the good is often the biggest enemy of the best.

One day democracy as we know it will disappear. On that day, the King of Kings will write the law on our hearts and minds. We won't have any say in the matter. I long for that day.

How many children?

2007-05-07T06:17:00.000-07:00

If you're like me, you get annoyed by authors and commentators who casually throw out the word "biblical" like a twenty-ton trump card. Try Googling the word. You'll find polemics and recipes, books and institutions--all aimed at narrowing and defining what is and isn't "biblical."

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in family issues. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Council for Biblical Equality have been sparring over Paul's infamous words for nearly a decade. Somewhere in the midst of all this debate, the issue of children has been raised. The questions are: Must Christian couples who are able have children? And if so, how many is enough or too many?

These questions may seem strange to some. That's because they are strange--but they are not going away. Unless we are resigned to personal freedom as our only guide (and I think this is how many of us live, truth be told), we must pause long enough to reflect on the witness of Scripture and the Church.

Scripture.
The Bible says in Genesis 1 that we are to have kids and fill the earth with them. The Psalms remind us that children are gifts from God. Jesus arrived on earth not as a grown man (as had Adam), but as a child. He suffered the little children to come to Him, and said that the kingdom of God belongs to them. True religion, says James, is looking after orphans--abandoned children. Many key biblical figures (Adam, Jacob, and David come to mind) had lots of children. Others were barren and had small families after God blessed them (Abraham and Sarah, Hannah). Children are those who will continue the family line. Parents are given the privilege of passing not only possesions to them but also the faith. Nowhere, however, does Scripture mandate any couple to have a certain number of kids.

Church.
The witness of the Church in this area has been somewhat schizophrenic. For centuries, the most devoted Christians in the world abstained from sexual intercourse altogether. Nonetheless, the growth of the Church has been sustained over the years largely by the bearing of children (hence the historic strong opposition to birth control by the Roman Catholic Church). All but the free church traditions (Anabaptists, Baptists, etc.) uphold the practice of initiating children through baptism into the community of faith at infancy. The indoctrination of children through catechism or Sunday School has always been central in Christian practice. Religious families today continue to have higher than average birthrates. This is particularly true in secularizing places like Europe. This, by the way, is not just a result of the eschewing of contraception, but rather, stems from the conviction that raising children is a privilege. It is God's will. And for some (but certainly not all), the more the better.

So it seems that neither Scripture nor Church tradition provide definitive answers to our questions: If we can have children, must we? and If so, how many? Many have attempted to answer these questions, but to do so, they must introduce other elements into their reasoning. These other elements include pragmatism and virtue ethics.

Pragmatism.
Pragmatism is the reigning philosophy and ethical framework of our day. It is life according to what works best or produces a desired outcome. However, the issue of children has been handled pragmatically by married couples from the beginning of history. When Cain, the first child ever born, killed his younger brother, Abel, their parents, Adam and Eve, immediately set about having another child to replace the one who was lost. The desired outcome may have been to assuage their grief, but more likely it arose from the practical need for an heir (since Cain was cut off). Young women from the time of Eve onwards have withstood tremendous labor pains (epidruals are a fairly recent innovation) for reasons of sheer survival. The lack of an heir means that everything the family has (primarily land in agraraian societies) will be lost in one generation. A lack of children would have meant destitution in old age. To have children, therefore, is to survive. The insuffrable King Henry VIII did not have his wives put away or put to death because he believed sons were a sign of God's blessing. No, instead he knew that sons were a symbol of his legacy that would continue once his own life expired. Having no heir threatened the very legitimacy of his rule.

Although the stakes are much lower in urban, capitalistic, and democratic socieities, there are still many couples who choose to have children because of some desired outcome. Children for some couples still represent an economic advantage (i.e. someone to take over the family business, tax breaks from the government, etc.) or social security in old age. They may fill a need for companionship for some. In affluent societies, children (natural or adopted) can even be treated as a trendy accesory to show off in polite company, similar to the latest handbag or sports car. Churches, unfortunately, can be ugly examples of this kind of behavior, often making infertile couples (who make up 1/6 of the married population) feel inferior or excluded.

On the other side of the equation are couples who intentionally choose to have few or no children. Their numbers are on the increase, as declining birthrates in affluent societies bear witness. Children for some represent an economic burden. Having children severely limits the options of what a couple can do in their spare time. Some prefer having pets instead that can be easily boarded for weeks on end to make way for long holidays or other pursuits. More recently, there are arguments that children are a threat to the environment. I just finished reading an article about a professor who recommends having 2 or fewer children in order to fight not world hunger or overcrowding, but global warming due to the large CO2 output of humans.* Christians too can espouse some form of this logic. Some mission agencies, for example, have long discouraged large families that place undue burden on those supporting them financially. Environmentally and socially conscious Christians are sensitive to the concerns that children born in the West consume at exponentially higher rates than their counterparts in the developing world. Whether the desired outcome is economic advantage, social justice, or a healthy planet, couples are still left without a clear principle on the issue.

Virtue Ethics.
Loosely defined, virtue ethics is concerned not so much with a desired outcome but rather the character of those who are making the ethical choices. Prospective parents might ask themselves questions like, "What sort of family do we want to be?" or "How can we embody the values of our community in our decision?" The last question may be especially difficult to raise much less answer answer in hyper-individualistic societies. However, it is particuarly relevant in religious communities of faith. Virtue ethics must necessarily address the concerns of those who are infertile, those who are underresourced, and the concerns of creation care. However it must also address the witness of the community in history, both in Scripture and in the Church.

Virtue ethics is more complex than asking what others might think of a very personal decision. It is the willingness to submit to the values of the community and the kind of character it seeks to instill. Perhaps that is why semi-closed religious communities (such as in Mormomism, Amish communities, or in more communal forms of Protestantism) have higher than average birthrates. There are sociological reasons why missionary communties overseas free from institutional constraints are full of large families. Large families (particularly in societies where children are undervalued, treated as commodities, or limited by law) are often a living testimony to the value and worth of human life created in the image of God. The discipline and indoctrination of children often happens outside the walls of the home, even in the West. How or whether we discipline our children says much about what we value and the kind of people we are. In a society where autonomy and anonymity are high values, virtue ethics may make us quite uncomfortable.

Toward a Solution...
Pragmatism is an easy solution in that the question of children is answered by what works best in a given situation. However, couples who choose large families for, say, econcomic reasons yet fail to properly care for or discipline their children are not doing society (or their children) any favors. Likewise, couples who choose not to have children in order to promote a trendy cause or travel the world certainly do not usually win many admirers. Despite the obvious defincies of pragmatism alone, however, no one can ignore the practical issues involved in having and raising children.

For Christians, it is the lack of a specific biblical command on the subject that makes us scratch our heads. "Be fruitful and multiply" cannot possibly be universalized in a day in which so many couples who want to have children cannot, and a day in which poverty and human suffering are true epidemics. The Bible itself forsees a time in which pregnancy and having children will be a curse as opposed to a blessing (read, for example, the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24, specifically verse 19). This seems to be referring to the time immediately preceding Jesus' return, but the shadows of such a time can be seen in our own day. The same world that keeps Wal-Mart and McDonalds turning record profits allows more than 30,000 children to die each day from hunger-related causes. Headlines of child homelessness, forced child prostitution and school shootings allow us to ask questions some might consider unthinkable such as, "Could it be better that some children are never born at all?" And yet, children still represent the hope of innocence and renewal in a fallen world. Are we suprised that the Bible uses language like "born again" and "children of God" to describe the community of faith?

The questions I have raised, "If we can have children, must we?" and "If so, how many?" must be answered by every married couple. They are not new questions, and they will not be going away anytime soon. There are no easy answers, nor should there be. The decision to have a child is one of the most significant (having eternal consequences) that any human being can undertake. Adopting ontological positions such as "children are biblical" or "children are bad for the planet" are insufficient grounds to make such a decision. For example, if having a child is always the right thing to do, then why not have as many as possible? Why stop at 3 when you can have 10? If having a child is always wrong, how can that ethic be propogated or enforced when those who hold to it have threatened their own ultimate survival? If having a large family is always right, what about those who cannot support their children financially? If having a large family is always wrong, then why do we seek to end human suffering in communities with high birthrates? Are religious communities, therefore, always a threat?

These are real questions, not just an academic exercise. Katrina and I are planning to move to a part of the world where the number or children a couple can have is restricted by law. Nonetheless, many of our colleagues have chosen to have several (three or more) children. For us to follow suit would mean financial and relational hardship. We call three countries of the world "home." Plane tickets get more expensive as children get older. We must ask the question whether the need for our respective families to see their grandchildren is more or less important than the need for our partners to be satisfied with how we spend our money. We must ask how important it is to model the parenting of multiple children in a society where single children are both terribly spoiled and put under tremendous pressure to succeed by their parents and grandparents. We must consider how fair it is to raise children who have no say in the matter as to where we call "home." We must consider how valuable it is for children to grow up with one or more siblings. We must consider how long we can realistically live overseas as our children get closer to university age. We must consider the long-term impacts of birth control. We must consider our role and witness within our organization and within the universal Church.

None of these questions is unique to us. In fact, most of them are as old as life itself. Some societies have tried to make an end run around the questions by issuing a decree from the top down. Others, like our own, leave it up to the individual (yet fallen) conscience of the couple. Neither approach, in my mind, is sufficient. We must look to the Bible, but more than that, to the God who is revealed therein. We must look to the world He has created. We must look to the community of faith, the embodiment of Jesus on earth. We must look to our families, and even, down the road, to our children. We must talk to the One who has adopted us into His family.

In case you were wondering (if you've read this far), we are not expecting another child that we know of. However, we are asking the questions. Katrina and I love Ella Grace more than we could have imagined before that day in February when we found out she was coming. We pray that she will grow to be a follower of Jesus who will go where the questions lead. We believe that she will grow (as some have spoken over her) to be an ambassador of reconciliation in the world. And we think that she would do mighty fine with a sibling or two.

As followers of Jesus ourselves, the very least we can do for our children is ask the hard questions.

*One is left wondering whether the affluent intelligentsia of the world will soon be outbred and overwhelmed by those who still consider children a means of survival. Birthrates are still highest in sub-Saharan Africa, which is also the whereabouts of the world's worst HIV/AIDS epidemic. Would the same professor suggest that we stop our fight against the disease so that expensive beach homes in Cape Cod don't end up underwater? Just curious where this thinking leads. Furthermore, I have never heard of any tenured professors volunteering for suicide or isolation from modern conveniences in order to combat global warming. How, then could they apply for grant money? Global warming is a serious issue that must not be trivialized or made anathema for people of faith due to such foolishness.

Please Tell Me...

2007-04-27T20:39:00.000-07:00

That this guy is a Mormon.

I never realized that Satan was Latino. You learn something new everyday. I would say "Only in Utah," but then again, nothing surprises me.

In other news, I turned in a 16 page paper on North Korea today and now I am free!! (Almost.) Just an excuse to celebrate. Like I needed one.

Introducing the Coonses!

2007-04-21T17:01:00.000-07:00

Most of you probably know my good friend Dave Coons who is now my good MARRIED friend Dave Coons! I just got back to the hotel from his wedding to Katie Evans, another longtime Tianjin alum (TJIF Hook It UP!).

On the way up I drove Katrina and Ella along Lake Shore Drive in Chicago on a beautiful spring afternoon. We drove on up Sheridan Road past Northwestern to my Aunt Zen's house in Wilmette. Not only did she treat us to lunch (Chinese!), but she took us to this great store for kids and bought Ella some much-needed clothes.

Then we criscrossed the suburban jungle to make it to the Bible buckle of Wheaton. I got to spend three days with some of the best people on earth, and introduce a few of them to Katrina and Ella. To say it's a privilege would be an understatement. Here are some photos (click on them for a larger view):

恭喜恭喜你们！我非常高兴认识你们。在耶稣里我们是一家人。我爱我的家人！

In other words, Dave and Katie, we love you. I am confident that God is with you, as His light has shone through you brighter even than the smiles on your faces. See you soon.

P.S. Here's one more photo of the aftermath of an awesome hailstorm last week at our new place:

On Shattered Illusions

2007-04-06T17:18:00.001-07:00

Hot things and cold things don't always mix well.

That's one of those laws of physics (pardon my paraphrase) that doesn't really affect you a whole lot until it affects you a whole lot.

Yesterday, in our new kitchen in our new apartment, we (by accident) left a blue casserole dish sitting on a hot stove top for a couple of minutes. When I saw smoke begin to rise, I sprung into action. I gingerly moved the hot dish off of the hot stove and onto the cold counter.

Tick.

Tick.

Tick.

BOOOOOOOOOOM!

No gunpowder. No plastic explosives. Just simple physics.

The aftermath a thousand pieces later? I was standing about two feet away, but by the grace of God, I only got a few tiny scratches. Ella (who was about three feet behind me on the floor) and Katrina were scratch free. That is actually quite incredible, because there were pieces of hot glass that melted into my sweatshirt. And into the linoleum floor. And the dining room carpet. There was even a small piece that was impaled in the drywall.

So much noise.

No match for the power of God.

The Son of God was piereced for our transgressions, and crushed for our inquities.

It was God who brought the noise. So much noise. So much that He was able to drown out all the noise of all the sin and all the evil and all the murder and all the suffering.

The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him and by His wounds we are healed.

I was unscathed. Katrina was unscathed. Ella was unscathed. But He wasn't.

Peace.

Peace at Any Price?

2007-03-30T06:54:00.000-07:00

There's another place on the planet that I'd love to go back to some day with Katrina. I spent a semester studying in Israel and surrounds in the spring of 2000, just before Mr. Sharon ascended the Temple Mount and all Gehenna broke loose. I remember walking from our campus outside the Old City to Bethlehem, and from the northern suburbs of Jerusalem down the rocky canyon to the oasis of Jericho. It's a beautiful place full of beautiful people.

Beautiful but hopelessly lost.

I remember being back at school the following fall and reading the headlines of bombs exploding in markets in Jerusalem and Haifa. One in particular went off in a Sbarro restaurant in the New City not far from the hostel where I lived. Another man was fatally wounded when the building he was in (an interfaith learnng center that I had visited) was caught in the crossfire between the Arab town of Beit Jalla and the Israeli settlement of Gilo. It felt like my own memories had somehow been violated, even though I was thousands of miles away living in safety.

I guess that's why I react strongly against any one-sided view of "peace in the Middle East." My prayer is that some form of a two-state solution will eventually be palatable to all sides, acknowledging that certain injustices will go unpunished. But those who want to press the case for reparation to be made for every life lost--those are the ones standing in the way of permanent peace.

The former president Jimmy Carter is one such example. His latest book on the crisis is so full of inaccuracy, distortion, and cheap shots that it is hard to believe that he had anything to do with the Camp David Accords at all. He paints a more sympathetic picture of Palestinian suicide bombers than al Jazeera. Even the famous liberal legal scholar Alan Dershowitz was so hopping mad when he read it that he has challenged Carter to a debate. How exactly does this sort of thing further the cause of peace?

I am equally frustrated, however, when I read about well-meaning Christians who believe that the only road to peace is an unfettered, hegemonic Israel. Those are such that have recently banded together to write a Letter of Repentance to the Jewish people for all the crimes committed against them in Jesus' name. While I agree that such repentance is necessary and surely to be welcomed by those who have suffered, the letter does nothing to suggest that Christians have anything to offer Jews (or Israel for that matter) but brotherhood and good feelings. This is disingenuous, especially for evangelical Christians who believe that Jesus is the God of Abraham in the flesh and that his commands are equally binding to those found in the Torah.

Peace in the Middle East is surely an elusive hope, but one we should work for nonetheless. But it will certainly not be achieved by those who care more about being loved and accepted by one side or another more than they care about the greater good of peace itself. The path to peace is not ultimately good feelings or even tolerance. Instead, peace is the product of humiliation, sacrifice, and the willingness to overlook many offenses--past, present, and future. Peace is a by-product of love.

Love is not speaking truth to one side and not the other. Love is not a half-truth. Love is not withholding from someone their greatest good, namely, the complete knowledge of God as he is revealed in Jesus.

This is something that no "peace broker" or thinly-veiled political organization can accomplish. Love is accomplished when people who love God and neighbor more than self are willing to lay their lives on the line for those who don't know the first thing about it.

NCAA Blues 2

2007-03-24T19:21:00.000-07:00

Tubby Smith could have been the most loved or the most hated man in Kentucky, depending on your perspective. But all the armchair coaches of the Kentucky Wildcats can breathe easier now. He's gone to Yankee land.

I wonder how many of these guys, though, will sit in their comfortable pews tomorrow morning with great hope for next season. I wonder how many of them will remember that it was Tubby Smith who agreed to participate in the commissioning of over 100 IMB missionaries in 2003 at Rupp Arena. I wonder if the previous coach would have done that.

At least that guy delivered those coveted national championships.

Religion, anyone?

NCAA Blues

2007-03-18T10:57:00.000-07:00

Katrina and I both recently leapt on the bandwagon and signed up for both Myspace and Facebook. You can see our Myspace pages here and here. (You have to be a Myspace user and add us as friends to see our entire pages.)

Facebook enticed me last week to fill out an NCAA bracket. Since I hadn't been invited to join Dr. Mohler's pool at Southern (just kiddin!), I decided to bite. As of 2:00 pm EDT, I have accumulated a meager 30 points. Can you believe that I picked Xavier to beat Ohio State? And I was one missed call away from being a genius! According to Facebook, I am now in 1,222,376 th place. But it ain't over till it's over!

Down with 'Bucks!

2007-03-11T13:40:00.000-07:00

I love China, just in case you were wondering. It is my second (or third) home. Some of my best friends in the world live there, and they love it, too.

And one of the reasons I love China I can't put into words. So I'll just summarize the article I linked to from above.

The Imperial Palace (otherwise known as the Forbidden City) in Beijing is one of the country's top cultural and tourist attractions. It is opposite Tianamen's Square from the mausoleum of Chairman Mao Zedong, who ruled the country from 1949 until his death in 1976. He was throughout his life vocally anti-American and anti-capitalist.

Yet today, not a kilometer from his final resting place, you will find a capitalism that is so in-your-face it almost makes you long for the pastoral life of yore. Of course there are the blaring neons of KFC and McDonalds. But there are also the ubiquitous young university students promising to show you ancient antiques and artwork, all the while luring unsuspecting tourists to charming tea rooms where they are sometimes shaken down for cash.

But has a Western corporation finally crossed the line of decency and cultural pride in China? It seems that Starbucks (the trendy and uber-sensitive hucksters of Seattle coffee) may have done just that. For not long ago they opened up a location in the Forbidden City. That's right. In the Forbidden City. As in--inside one of the ancient imperial residences-turned-museums. (Try to stop and think how you might react if say, Ellis Island or Colonial Williamsburg, became the site of a new Ikea superstore.)

And here the political and cultural elites in China are caught between a rock (patriotic pride in Chinese antiquities) and a hard place (old fashioned corporate greed). At least one politician and one media personality in China have started a campaign to give Starbucks the boot from the palace.

But my one question arising out of all this (having toured the Imperial Palace myself), what will they do about the English signs? No, not the funny mis-translated ones. I mean these:

That's right. Perfect English for tourists brought to you by none other than American Express. And there are at least 50 of these throughout the Forbidden City.

And that is one reason why I love China.

On Surrender, So to Speak

2007-03-03T14:22:00.000-08:00

Growing up I used to love Bugs' Bunny cartoons. And I think it was Yosemite Sam or Daffy Duck that would often end up saying toward the end of a chase sequence, "Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

So lets talk politics for a minute or two. (Are you suprised?) :=)

There are a few among us who could do us all a favor by occasionally raising the white flag of surrender. I'm talking about those who use their media pulpit to supposedly speak for evangelicals so as to intimidate the other guy into submission. Think Justice Sunday. The tactic in a nutshell: get as many "big names" as possible together in one venue to breathe veiled threats at those who are standing in the way of the appointment of conservative judges. Now I agreed then, and still do, that judicial activism in the USA is not a desirable state of affairs--particularly because the American system of government was not designed to invest so few with so much power to interpret laws as they see fit (sometimes with little regard for original intent or legal precedent). But the end in this case (the appointment of strict constructionist judges) did not and does not justify the means--neither the "nuclear option" (the abolition of the filibuster in the Senate) nor the hijacking of a religious facility to broadcast a chest-pounding political agenda across the fruited plain.

In my opinion, a simple letter to the editor would have sufficed, or better yet, a renewed call among Christian educators to prepare students for the legal profession. If judges have in fact as much influence over the law as some say they do, why aren't more Christians working harder to become judges in family courts and lower courts that set precedents for the higher courts to follow? Maybe it's that a live television event takes a lot less effort and makes us feel as important as we think we should be. (And please spare me the victim mentality that evangelical Christians can't get a break in the legal profession. Give me evidence, not whining.)

(Sorry about the preceding digression for those not familiar with the U.S. political system. I have to put my degree to use every once in awhile!)

The nuclear option turns the Christian worldview into a battering ram that supposedly by the strength of our arguments and goodness of our intentions, we can push back the kingdom of darkness or at least expose its absurdities for all to ridicule. But aren't we quick to forget that God has in fact revealed Himself to those who are perishing--those who too are created in the image of God? Wasn't that Paul's point in Romans 1 (so that no man is without excuse)?

So if you can't beat em, join em. Our fellow image-bearers.

I heard recently about a professor at Harvard (a naturalist) who wrote a plea to evangelical Christians asking them to consider adding their voice to those speaking out on behalf of caring for the environment. Granted, that's not what evangelicals are known for in the political arena. But this guy believes that we have something to offer that more secular folks just can't match. And what might that be? A strong belief in a God who made it and owns it all. The Father is here, in other words, and he's told us to clean up our room. And doesn't being a good neighbor require this common courtesy after all? I mean, who wants to live next door to a guy who uses his rusty old American dreams as lawn ornaments? Isn't it possible as good neighbors, not to mention fellow image-bearers, for us to work together on something for a change?

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

And that's exactly what folks like Rick Warren and Richard Cizik, the head of the Washington office of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), have done. They've joined forces with some of the best scientists and activists from around the world to combat global warming. And even if you believe that the jury is still out on whether or not the really is anything we can do to stop it (or if we're causing it at all)--isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better to communicate to the world (a little naivete aside maybe) that we love our Father and our neighbors enough to at least try to pick up our room?

The "nuclear option" is a funny thing. It's always easier the second time around. And it doesn't matter if the target ends up being one of your own group. So this week Don Wildmon ,James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell and a few lesser knowns have demanded Richard Cizik's head on a platter unless the NAE reigns him in and repudiates his public opinions on global warming. The thrust of the letter they wrote to the chairman of NAE's board is the claim that the interdenominational organization lacks the expertise (and the mandate from its members) to take a position on as controversial a subject. They argue that the issue should be addressed "scientifically [i.e. by scientists] and not theologically." (NB: The same argument can be applied to embryonic stem-cell research, but, to my knowledge, the FRC has not employed any scientists to further its position on the issue. That hasn't stopped them from making the scientific argument that adult stem cells hold more promise for research scientists.)

All of this is really a something of a smokescreen obfuscating the real issues which are that 1) Cizik has found the respect of the "liberal media" that some on the conservative right secretly crave (hence the constant harangue about its tactics) and 2) the attention given to environmental (read: liberal) issues detracts from the more black and white social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and "the teaching of sexual abstience and morality to our children." In other words, "Thank you Mr. Cizik, but this is our turf. Please step aside. We'll mow it when we're good and ready."

Is it any wonder that the "liberal media" has so little respect for these dwindling organizations?

It is true that there are some in the evangelical community who want so much to be respected in the world that they have lost or muted their prophetic voice on issues that don't make Bono smile and take notice. I do not believe that Richard Cizik or the NAE is in their number. In fact, he is one of the solidly evangelical political activists who isn't currently collecting royalties by self-servingly complaining about his co-religionists in print. He has actually worked to build bridges on all sides. And that is something that should be applauded, not protested.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. At least when the result of such a narrow surrender just might be to shine a little bit of light in the dark (and increasingly balmy) corners of the world.

Welcome to My Site!

2007-02-17T07:47:00.000-08:00

Welcome to my generic new site! As of yet, I know nothing about HTML, so it is going to look kind of lame until I can sweet talk my sister Katie into fixing it up for me!

Ella update: She weighed in this morning at 14.2 pounds! She is growing tall, but not too chubby. She loves standing up at the moment, and she rolled for mummy and daddy this week. What a clever girl!

I'm giving two talks on humility this week--one tomorrow to high school students at Springdale, and for preaching class on Thursday. It's a good topic for me at the moment, and at any moment.

One of the most humbling experiences I ever had was my first week at summer camp. I was 18--having never been to summer camp as a child, I thought I would experience it in a whole new way by being a counselor. They had us don our harnesses (see here) and see how quickly we could scale a 40 foot wall made out of plywood. Of course I chose the kiddie side--the one with holds the size of Rhode Island every six inches. I took me all of 40 minutes--and a lot of encouragement from the ground--to make it up. To know that you absolutely cannot do something that should be easy--but then to learn that you can with the help of others--it teaches you a lot about your place in the world, and how without others, we are really not whole persons. To be humble is to love your neighbor as you would love yourself, and it is the essence of true wisdom.

After a few flurries fall today, it looks like spring will be in the air next week! But I'm enjoying the dusting of white while it lasts. Peace.