New York is unhappy

I recently ran across this study which tries to determine what parts of the U.S. are the 'happiest'. I found it incredibly intresting. New York comes in last, interestingly enough (for some reason, my gut told me that would be the case). Every time I ride the subway in New York City I'm overwhelmed with how downcast and depressed people seem in general. Whether they know it or not people in NYC seem to wear on their faces their inner longings for purpose and acceptance and their dissatisfaction with what the city is offering them to fill that 'void' (money, fame, relationships, work).

Also of interest is that some of the poorest areas of the country were the happiest. This certainly provides some interseting food for thought and discussion material on what really satisfies and where true happiness is found in life.

Avatar and Pantheism

Here's a link to an interesting article on the new Avatar movie. I thought the movie was really entertaining, personally, though it does advance a common Hollywood agenda - Pantheism (think Star Wars, Dances with Wolves, etc.). The article makes some interesting observations about some major inconsistencies in the Pantheistic mode of thinking about nature vs. the traditional Christian view of nature (which I find far more compelling and true to life). For instance, why does Hollywood insist we should return to the 'utopia' of worshipping and communing with nature, when all we see in nature is the strong eating the weak? Don't human societies run in that fashion usually degrade into violence and opression and don't we all know innately that we should live in opposition to that model?

The article isn't written from a purely Christian perspective. However, it did help me think about the movie in a way such that I would be able to contribute gospel-centered observations when I inevitably participate in discussions about the movie since everyone seems to be talking about it right now, at least at work.

HT: Justin Taylor

Suffering and the cross.

So I got burned out with the blog and have neglected it for far too long. Time to start posting again, only with quicker thoughts and fewer huge essays. Hopefully that will keep me from losing the will to write! I think blogs are more conducive to smaller posts anyhow.

As I've thought about some suffering and hardship that my family is going through right now, the following quote from Tim Keller has been a huge encouragement to me (quote is from a sermon on James 3 on wisdom). The cross changes everything!

"If you have a religion of [only] truth, and you suffer, you get mad at yourself saying 'I must have done something wrong.' If you have a religion of [only] love, and you suffer, then you get mad at God saying 'God why would you let anybody suffer?' But if you've seen the cross the wisdom of God is 'I'm a sinner, but God loves me so much that He's entered into my suffering so that he died not that I might not suffer but that in my suffering I might become like Him.'"

Arguments Against Abortion #2 – “Right to Choose”

Pro-Choice Argument: Our society is based on free-choice isn’t it? Shouldn’t a woman be able to choose?

The logical, winning Pro-Life rebuttal:

No, actually, our society is based on the right of all human beings to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, not a universal right of every individual to choose whatever they want, whenever they want it. The latter would be a form of government known as anarchy. The spin, half-truths, and vagueness surrounding pro-choice arguments run so deep. In fact, the self-given title that abortion proponents carry (‘Pro-Choice’) is rife with deception. Take Barack Obama’s statement following the Supreme Court decision in 2007 to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion, for example. He said,

“this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose.”

It’s mind boggling that a presidential candidate could regularly make such a vague statement and not be called out on it. What is he arguing for? A woman’s right to choose anything? There are many instances where a woman’s right to choose is restricted by the government for the common good. John Piper does a remarkable job illustrating this in his article Let the Python Eat Its Tail. See the excerpt below:

“All laws that protect children limit the rights of moms (and dads) to choose. You can’t choose to starve them. You can’t choose to lock them in closets for three weeks. You can’t choose to abandon them. You can’t choose to strangle them five minutes after they are born.”

The key with this debate is to get your pro-choice opponent to try to explain with some specificity exactly what they are advocating that the woman be able to choose. Usually, it’s difficult to get a straight answer, but, when you do, likely it will be that they say they are defending “the choice of a woman whether or not to have an abortion.” In other words, this means they are arguing that a woman should be able to choose whether or the fetus should have a chance to be born. If such is the case, then you have cut through the deception and led the debate exactly to where it should be – the debate over whether or not the fetus is a human life (and I would argue it most certainly is). Does a woman have the right to end life in her desire not to be pregnant? I’ll try to cut through some of the spin surrounding the topic of "equal rights" and the topic of life in the womb for the next “Arguments against Abortion.”

Piper is so gifted at articulating the folly of a totally "choice-oriented" society and cutting through the rhetoric. I'll leave you with the following quote from him, which rings so true in my mind:

The difference lies in the choice of the mother. If the mother chooses that her fetus live, it is murder to kill it. If she chooses for her fetus not to live, it is not murder to kill it. In other words in our laws we have now made room for some killing to be justified not on the basis of the crimes of the one killed, but solely on the basis of another person's will or choice. If I choose for the embryo to be dead, it is legal to kill it. If I choose for the embryo to live, it is illegal to kill it. The effective criterion of what is legal or illegal, in this ultimate issue of life and death, is simply this: the will of the strong. There is a name for this. We call it anarchy. It is the essence of rebellion against objective truth and against God.

Arguments Against Abortion #1 - Introduction

Sorry for the long dry spell there on new posts. Its been a busy week! I've also been forming some ideas in my head over the last week or so, pertaining to a new topic I plan to write about several times over the next few weeks. Its a topic that tugs at my heart and is on my mind frequently and, I believe, represents one of the greatest injustices and widespread deceptions of our time. This topic is abortion. I'll be up-front with you right now about my stance on this topic - I long to see abortion reviled by our society in the same way that slavery is now uniformly condemned. Where is the William Wilberforce of our day on this topic? Where is the public advocate for the lives of the defenseless unborn? My goal for this topic on this blog is to logically and reasonably address what I see as the deception and 'spin' inherent in many "pro-choice" arguments that I have encountered, and offer helpful resources to combat such deception in the arena of debate. Also, my goal is to go at it with a humble, Christ-centered attitude, one that acknowledges our complete dependence on the forgiveness of our Savior for all sin, not just abortion. Joe Rigney puts it perfectly in the following blog post on the website Desiring God,

But we do not merely preach against sin. We also preach Christ crucified—crucified for women who have had abortions; for family members who have pushed for abortions; for doctors who have performed abortions; and for Christians who have failed to love both mother and baby as we ought to.

First, let me point you to some of the more useful life-oriented resources that I have found. Please note most of these ideas are not my own - I've come across many of the ideas that I'll be writing about when I post on this topic through the following sources, among others. I'll try to post new sources as I come across them!

1. Abort73.com - an incredible source for well-thought-out and logical pro-life arguments.
2. John Piper's sermons on abortion (here's an example). Piper does a sermon on abortion every year on Sanctity of Life Sunday in January. Each of them are fantastic, Christ-saturated, and biblical looks at responses to "pro-choice" rhetoric and why abortion should be addressed and taken seriously by Christians today. The one I linked to above contains 15 arguments against abortion that I found incredibly helpful. He also addresses ways Christians can get involved and live out the cause with loving action toward those who have gone through with, or are considering an abortion.
3. The actual Supreme Court Ruling on partial birth abortion published in 2007. It's remarkable to see the plain way in which the gruesome abortion process is written about in such stark detail here. Its helpful for educational purposes as well as to see very plainly the arguments for and against the ruling.

When I write on this subject, I'll try to keep the format as follows: I'll start with a common "pro-choice" argument, and attempt to write a rebuttal and explain why and where I see deception or a 'clouding of the facts'. Stay tuned. I should be able to post my first one in the next couple days.

Also, if, by chance, you are pro-choice and reading this post right now, I encourage you - step into the arena of ideas, think through some of these topics, and leave some comments. Its my hope that you will find the logic compelling, and, ultimately see the evil inherent in desroying the handiwork of God while He is in the process of knitting His creation together (Psalm 139:13).

And so, I'll conclude by asking God, along with the Psalmist to:

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the rights of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. (Psalm 82:3-4).

The Doctrine of Hell and Evidence of God's Remarkable Love

I ran across a statistic the other day that I found shocking. A 2003 research group referenced by this article found that nearly 65% of Americans believe that they will go to heaven when they die, however, a whopping one-half of one percent think they might go to hell. Along the same line of thinking, I found the following quote from one of our presidential candidates, Barack Obama, extremely interesting, especially since he has been so outspoken about his Christian faith throughout his campaign. In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004, Obama, speaking about Christianity, said,

"The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some
level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief,
certainly in some quarters, that if people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as
their personal savior, they're going to hell."

The 'spin' in today's politically correct society, clearly, is to abandon the clear words of Jesus Christ on the concept of hell and eternal punishment and fashion our own thoughts about a universal religion of pure love and tolerance into a false gospel. Its my belief that this trend, the removal of this crucial doctrine, robs Christianity of its beauty and power, The Bible's integrity, and ultimately its evidence for Jesus' love. Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer church in New York City, argues the essential nature of the doctrine of hell in his article, "The Importance of Hell". He points out that no Biblical author spoke about Hell more than Jesus (Matthew 5:22, 10:28, 18:8-9, 25:41, to name just a few). Also, he argues that the commonly used "fire and torture" depiction of hell is a difficult image for today's society to grasp, and that it points to a symbolic, far more dire, situation of eternal seperation from the Source of Life, God. Here's an excerpt from the article:

So what is a 'totaled' human soul? It does not cease to exist, but rather becomes completely incapable of all the things a human soul is for--reasoning, feeling, choosing, giving or receiving love or joy. Why? Because the human soul was built for worshipping and enjoying the true God, and all truly human life flows from that...What is hell, then? It is God actively giving us up to what we have freely chosen-to go our own way, be our own "the master of our fate, the captain of our soul," to get away from him and his control. It is God banishing us to regions we have desperately tried to get into all our lives. J.I.Packer writes: "Scripture sees hell as self-chosen . . . [H]ell appears as God's gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves." (J.I.Packer, Concise Theology p.262-263.) If the thing you most want is to worship God in the beauty of his holiness, then that is what you will get (Ps 96:9-13.) If the thing you most want is to be your own master, then the holiness of God will become an agony, and the presence of God a terror you will flee forever (Rev 6:16; cf. Is 6:1-6.).

For me, this article placed an interesting twist on the topic and caused me to think about it differently. What is unjust about God giving people the "god" they most desire in life, for an eternity (whether that be an eternity with God (big 'G'), or the 'god of self')? Why is that so hard for us to believe in? To me, an eternity of loneliness and separation with myself as god, when my soul is hand-crafted for a relationship with the God of the universe, is a fearsome thing indeed. The fact is, left to ourselves, we would all choose ourselves and 'declare independence' from God (Rom. 6:23), and be left to an eternity of spiritual decomposition and misery apart from God.

The incredible love of God is seen in his grace in sending us His Son, who rescues us from that fate and (remarkably) takes on that misery and separation for Himself in our place. Imagine the agony that Jesus Christ took on himself by being held accountable for our sin as he was seperated from his source of Life, his ultimate love. Keller brings up a valid analogy - imagine being rejected by a spouse or best friend, and them saying to you, "I never knew you." This, on a much greater scale, was what Jesus experienced with his Father on the cross as he took on our sin. And Jesus, God in the flesh, did this for us, willingly. Now that is what I call "a loving God"!

I leave you with a last excerpt from Keller's article. I hope this post has been a resource for you as we humbly strive for truth in all things!

So the question becomes: what did it cost your kind of god to love us and embrace us? What did he endure in order to receive us? Where did this god agonize, cry out, and where were his nails and thorns? The only answer is: "I don't think that was necessary." But then ironically, in our effort to make God more loving, we have made him less loving. His love, in the end, needed to take no action. It was sentimentality, not love at all. The worship of a god like this will be at most impersonal, cognitive, and ethical. There will be no joyful self-abandonment, no humble boldness, no constant sense of wonder. We could not sing to him "love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all." Only through the cross could our separation from God be removed, and we will spend all eternity loving and praising God for what he has done (Rev 5:9-14.)

First Post - Blog Purpose

This blog exists because of my increasing concern with a growing contemporary phenomenon: something I call 'spin'. 'Spin', as I would define it, is a blurring of the facts, a shaping of the field of data and suppression of certain truths in order make an argument appeal to one's own desires or pre-conceived notions. The purpose of this blog is not to elevate myself as the ultimate detector of such 'spin'. Rather, my purpose is to humbly admit the following truth from scripture in Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." As John Piper reminds us in his sermon The Wrath of God Against Holding Down the Truth, "every one of us is a spin doctor by nature." In other words, our inclination as human beings is to suppress and evade the truth, especially when it points out our failings and our "declaration of independence from God" (sin). Apart from God's sovereign grace doing a work within me, this is the way I am. So, clinging to the Ultimate Truth and with full knowledge of my tendency toward 'spin', I strive for the mark of truth in all thoughts and topics of life, whether they be political, spiritual, or ordinary.

So, what should I expect from this blog, you might ask? Its this: occasional and (hopefully) insightful commentary and references to interesting topics from politics, to theology, to ordinary life. I hope it becomes a resource for you in these areas as you strive for truth.