The Rise and Fall of Christianity

About three weeks ago I had a meeting with one of the officially recognized campus Chaplain's at the University of Maryland College Park where we caught-up with each, discussed some official business, and shared a little about the current state of Christianity.  In the United States, churches are generally getting smaller - especially the more traditional main-line Christian churches.  There was a major Pew Research report on religion release last year documenting the decline of religion and specifically Christianity.  (Interestingly, in the data, there is no growth nor decline in Churches of Christ - but this includes both the historically a-capella congregations and the independent Christian church (instrumental Churches of Christ).  I add this because if you don't know me, you may not know that this is my current Christian heritage - but this really has nothing to do with my topic!)

This trend generally means that the United States is becoming more and more secular.  There are currently small but well organized groups or organizations that promote pure secularism.  One such group held an event at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC on June 4th called the Reasons Rally. This event is a celebration of the attendees "...secular, atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinking, and nonreligious identities" and to show their "power at the voting box to bring good sense back to government". Thus, it was, in essence, a political statement.

However, most people in the United States still believe in some type of supernatural or metaphysical reality - much to the chagrin of men like Dr. Michael Shermer, the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, who wrote a very interesting book a number of years ago entitled, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time".  And for the record, in my assessment, this book is an excellent tool for learning how to debunk the wild and crazy claims of dangerous religions, non-orthodox religious movements, and faith-based practices and beliefs that should probably be avoided... but back to the point.

I have mixed feelings about this trend.  On the one hand, I am concerned that lot's of people no longer want to consider the ultimate truth when it comes to faith and religion.  Starting with a purely secular and naturalistic framework for reality eliminates the the possibility of the existence of an undetectable realm - the realm of angels, demons and of course, God.  If such a spiritual realm really does exists (which of course, I am convinced it does) then we can not use our scientific tools to detect or measure it except for when something from that ream interact's in our 3-dimensional universe of time and space.  This MUST be true, a given, by definition if the spiritual realm is real.

The implications are tremendous.  History speaks out against a world without a transcendent antecedent for societies ethical and moral standards.  Even if this spiritual foundation for defining good and evil is based on myth, it will provide guidance on defining good and evil within that culture.  Of course, my purely naturalistic friends embrace this fact as evidence that there is no God and mankind's religions are simply evolved myth and superstitions that are left overs from our prehistoric ancestors that aided in natural selection.  The problem with this conclusion is it ignores or even worse, prevents the honest analysis of historical claims of any of the modern religious systems embraced by very large numbers of people on earth.  Even so, as Americans we may continue to jettison the moral and ethical foundation that philosophically permitted the belief in God, we will build a society that removes reasonable restrictions on behavior.  The impact could be devastating to society if taken to it's logical extreme.

Yet, if the broader society does embrace pure naturalism and secularism and those that believe in God are marginalized intellectually and academically, then it will require authentic faith to hold on to the faith.  If it's not considered wholesome or good to be a devout Christian that take certain ideas as absolutely right and wrong, factoring in the brokenness of life and creation, then you really have to have courage to be a Christian or to hold on to any other faith.  Yet, it seems that Christianity in the United States is the faith system most challenged; this makes perfectly good sense because some form of Christianity has been the predominate faith system of Americans since the formation of the republic.  The principles of freedom and of checks-and-balances embedded in Deceleration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights all protest against the abuse of the minority.  (Regarding this point, I would hope that the hypocrisy of the many of the founders occasionally kept them up at night in sleepless torture - especially since I am an African American!). Thus, it is possible, as this trend continues, that it won't be "The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition" of 1440 torturing heretics and forcing Jews and Muslims to convert or leave Spain! Instead, it will be atheistic and secular leaders calling Christians to abandon their faith or be ostracized.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist so I don't foresee such a dystopian society that would torture and completely marginalize believers. As I said, history cries out against the success of such a society. Instead, I have great hope.  In fact, one of the primary tenants of Christianity, is that we are made in the image of God, and thus values such as compassion, mercy, grace, love, empathy and many other principles that feed into the secular side of social justice will always be present.  How else, as the scriptures plainly state, would men be "without excuse" for rejecting the truth? Creation and existence itself, the existential realities of a functional, healthy, growing, peaceful culture and society is powerful evidence for a theistic stance.  Such values are not some deterministic result of natural selection, embedded in our DNA to aid in helping society to thrive.

So, as the trends continue, I am confident that cool heads in both religious and secular circles will continue to guide cultures and societies.  We must continue to debate, discuss and permit differences of life-styles, values, beliefs and practices.  As it is written, "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval." (1 Cor 11:19).  Differences help us decide how to believe and how to live our lives.  The purity of the faith must ultimately be filtered by God from within the believer based on indelible truths that come from God.  Thus, there is no need to worry about these trends if, indeed, God is ultimately in control.

The Reason Rally 2016

I missed a very interesting event in Washington DC last weekend called, “The Reason Rally 2016”.  It was downtown and I really wanted to go, but life, teenagers, and other responsibilities prevented me from attending.  Unfortunately, Richard Dawkins could not attend either, due to his heath.  But he did send a video.  You can see it on YouTube – look up G8NGf3L7foM on YouTube.  The transcript can be found at the Patheos web site.

According to Dawkins, we all have, wired into our DNA, "The God Temptation”.    Dawkins is clear saying, "the temptation [to believe in a divine creator] is overwhelming".  He says that if you say "God did it" regarding any aspect of creation or life, that would be "sheer intellectual cowardice."  He says you have to exercise great discipline to not fall into this temptation.  He explains that, "you have to smack yourself and say, 'No' However largely [your] senses and [your] instincts are screaming 'miracle,' it really isn’t."  He sees the invoking of a designer as a temptation that should be avoided.  He says we are avoiding – because of this “the temptation to evade, by invoking a designer - the responsibility to explain”.  Furthermore, he states that “the God temptation is an evasion of responsibility because it invokes the very kind of thing it’s supposed to be explaining.”.

This position is an obvious logical fallacy in that it declares or accepts the absolute non-existence of God as a proven fact. But non-existence logically cannot be proven.  The idea that the burden of proof is on the theist from a logical perspective is not only more honest, but logically sound and I wish he would have at least started with such a premise.

As a theist myself – the Christian verity – I accept the logical requirement that the burden of proof for existence is on the theist.  I also accept the evidence I have for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.  The evidence is just as sound as what lawyers argue in court.  To be fair, many court cases allow the innocent to pay for crimes they didn't commit and the guilty to go free; thus, I could be wrong.  However, I happened to be convinced by the evidence that support theism and Christianity specifically.

Thus, it is NOT a "God Temptation" that drives me to believe but the evidence. My faith is solidly based in the historical claims of Judaism and Christianity as well as some of the very things Dawkins admits.  He says, “The fact that you exist should brim you over with astonishment”.  It does!  He says that we are “machines of ineffable complexity”.  This too is evidence.  He speaks of the fine-tuning of many physical, chemical and universal constants, and hints at the theistic evolutionary idea that these constants allowed, “eyes and peacocks, humans and brains” to come into existence.  I am NOT a theistic evolutionist, but his statement actually exposes his belief in the miracle of evolution by natural selection.  You see, Dawkins is convinced that these fundamental constants of nature DID, in the fullness of time, create “the eyes and peacocks, humans and brains”.

I am also a theistic skeptic – that is, the normative play of space, time, and the physical universe as ordered by a divine creator does not require nor regularly display legitimate miracles – the breaking of the entropic laws of nature. When the supernatural intersects with our realm, it is rare and totally initiated by entities in the other realm.  Yet, Dawkins miracle does go against the entropic stream, giving extreme creative power to gravity.  You see, according to pure naturalism, the universe sprang into existence in a few pico-seconds (The Big Bang), and gravity, over billions of years, created massive stars that created the elements via nuclear fusion, that delivered and ejected these heaver elements into space through repeated super nova’s, allowing gravity to continue to work and form planets and moons, yellow main-sequence stars (like ours) to be are born, including earth and you and I.  I question the amount of time needed to achieve such complexity as we currently observe.

Dawkins uses a large part of his speech to mock theology, theologians and God.  Yet, his mocking is nonsensical because by definition, It would be impossible for us to comprehend or detect a being that is outside of space and time using any scientific instruments we could create no matter how sophisticated.  Such a being is, by definition, outside of our physical universe; it/he/she exist beyond the event horizon of black holes; is able to create general relatively, special relativity, the Higgs Boson and dark matter. Dawkins mocking admits that “[God] cannot be, if He’s even minimally to meet His job description, is ‘all-simple.’”, and I agree!  God indeed is exceeding complex in order to create “the nuclear force 1039 times stronger than gravity…” or “…calculate with similar exactitude the requisite values of half a dozen critical numbers — the fundamental constants of physics”.

To accept that such a being is beyond our ability to measure or comprehend is not “evading the responsibility to explain”.  It is actually admitting our limitations – that we are restricted to our own realm, our own sphere of influence and limited to the universe in which we live with all of its beauty, wonder, amazement and complexity.  We should be able - with solid scientific and intellectual discipline and rigor, to conquer the universe, including creating synthetic life, achieving interstellar space travel, developing exceedingly excellent health care and creating powerful robotic and computing tools and technologies that make life better.  Appropriately invoking the divine is not “evading the responsibility to explain”.  Instead, it is appropriate humility, something Dawkins seems to not have.

I know my atheist and non-believing friends see the “non-authentic Christian” argument as a cop-out.  However, if the “God Temptation” has any validity in sociological, anthropological, or psychological studies – and I think it does – then pseudo-science, conspiracy theorist, and false-religious fervor all fall into the same genetic predisposition.   Michael Shermer’s book, “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” humorously, sadly, but accurately describes this trait, played out in the daily lives of so many.  Dawkins mocks this trait in humanity explaining how people default to being “Christian” or “Muslim” simply based on demography. He calls it “a temptation to laziness when we define our allegiances” simply based on where we were born, and speaks of “religiosity” as “a form of obstinate backwardness”.  In general, I agree - we really need to use our intellect, not just our emotions when determining truth.

In fact and in conclusion, I’m glad such events as the Reason Rally occur, so that thinking people can review for themselves the evidence as well as the existential implications of an idea.  The reason someone should ultimately believe or not believe is because the evidence of the claims of the faith system is assessed to be true or false.  Feelings are a good indicator to begin research but ultimately the truthfulness of something should be the primary basis for whatever position we hold when it comes to atheism, theism, a faith system and a world view.  This is why I am a Christian - the evidence points to the truthfulness of the entire system of faith from Adam to Jesus and the early church as described in the writing's of Apostles and earliest Christians.  Christianity both (1) has a historical and foundation that can be validated as well as any other historical claims; and (2) existentially accurately reflects our behavior and the emotional, psychological and social elements that hold society together and fit reasonably in a coherent livable framework that, if taken to it's logical extreme, actually fits reality as we experience it.

Discerning Grey - Transgender Bathrooms

Many people are comfortable with absolute and specific answers to life's questions and situations.  We
want to KNOW the answer such as, "exactly what date and time is something due", or "how much will it cost", and "what are the rules for this scholarship or to enter this program". And then there is the big question: what is exactly is the right thing to do?  It's this type of question that causes the biggest problems.

What is exactly the right thing to do?  In other words, what is the morally correct position to hold and/or act on?  In our society (I am an American even though I spelled "grey" like they do in Great Britain), we wrestle with this type of question with many different topics.  End of life and other medical issues, religious values and beliefs, and definitely gender and sexuality related issues as with the current focus on bathrooms!

I have not spoken with any of my gay, gay-affirming or transgender friends on the topic.  In writing this, I am encouraging myself to do so next week.  However, the talking heads and the general press is not silent on the issue.  I have read through HB2, "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act." from North Carolina, sponsored by state representatives Stam, Bishop, Howard, and Steinburg.  My only disagreement is their definition of "biological sex".  They tie this too closely to what is written on the persons birth certificate.  However, a person may have had sex reassignment surgery or was born with a birth defect such that the genitalia was ambiguous or malformed and the doctor got it wrong. This is rare (genital abnormalities occur in about 1 in 4,500 births and ambiguous genitalia caused by congenital adrenal hyperplasia is only 1 in 18,000) but should have been taken into account by HB2.  They seem to take other things into account.  Also, the focus seems to be K - 12 education, although it impacts all public facilities.

The real issue for those that opposed the law is simple - can a male student use the female restroom at a K - 12 school whenever they feel like it?  Those that support gender based bathrooms would probably agree with those that oppose and say NO. The difference is how you define words like "male", "female" and gender identity, regardless of the person having a penis or vagina.  Thus, the binary nature of human sexual biology and our related drives, passions, hopes and dreams are blurred (aside from the birth defects I referenced above) and a person can be fluid. That is, one day identify as female and dress in traditional woman's clothing and the next day identify as male dress in traditional men's clothing.  I'm sure this oversimplifies a very complex and individual issue, but as one transgender male (i.e they still have a vagina but have had hormone treatments and thus look like a man and dress in traditional male clothing) has said, "I wear men's clothing, though I do have a closet full of five-inch high heels that I absolutely love and will never get rid of.".  This person seems to want/need the freedom to be fluid and identify with both male and female.  I guess they see themselves as what some native tribes call "two-spirited".

The fact is, this is a grey issue -  it is NOT as black and white as we would hope or presume.  How do lawmakers discern such complex issues?  Are they experienced enough, wise enough, and engaged enough to approach such problems with appropriate care for real people without compromising their own convictions?  I would be classified by many as socially conservative, which spring from my faith as a Christian.  I strongly believe based on theological principles (which in themselves are not overtly complex but do require some knowledge) that we generally do not have the freedom to act/dress/function based on certain internal sexual inclinations, desires, emotions or feelings.  Yet, life (and theology) is not always black and white - there is a lot of grey and one must be careful before building hard and fast boundaries.  From a Christian perspective, we want to avoid becoming legalistic and as the old adage goes, "In essential unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things love".

The legitimate fear that most non-LBGT/non-transgender people have is again, the idea of a man with a penis using a woman's bathroom, especially in a K-12 environment, and doing something evil. It could be a mild as voyeurism (when I was a kid, a guy climbed up in the stall next to me and watched me take a bowl-movement. I didn't notice until I was done! It was very uncomfortable) or as harsh as forced sexual activity.  Of course, such things can take place now (as I mentioned in my previous parenthetical phrase).  However, things get complicated when we promote gender as something as fluid and celebrate the freedom of people being whatever gender their very intense and very real feelings, emotions, and passions tell them they are.

Where is the moderate position?  Where is the healthy position that takes into account both the complexities, difficulties and struggles of the transgender person and the real concerns and discomforts of others?  I don't know.  The most complex situation is in public shower rooms as in a gym or swimming pool, and thus a high-school locker room. Such situations are indeed difficult to discern even now. If a transgender man walks into a woman's room simply because they still have a vagina but they REALLY DO LOOK, DRESS, ACT, AND SOUND like a man, what will the women in that restroom think and feel?

As I said, I don't know the answers. If I had a business where people worked and they obviously would have to use the bathroom, I would probably have one or three bathrooms. Would this address the issue? I don't know? Would this cost me more?  If I had three bathrooms it would, but because I'm not smart enough to discern this "grey" issue with perfect wisdom, then this is probably the best I can do.

Life is Short - Do Good While You're Here

I just learned that my sister died last night.  In January, my nice died - this was my sisters oldest daughter.  A little later, my Uncle died.  Last week, a friend of my daughter - a teenager - died of cancer.  Back in October, a young lady that lived with my family for about a year also died of cancer - she was only 24 years old! Even last night and today at Maryland Day at the University of Maryland, I learned about the death of a young man named Andrew Reisse who was hit by a car 3 years ago in California, I believe. (A very kind woman named Anne, a friend of Reisse's family was sharing this with me as we talked about life and other things.)

Death is a constant!  As my mother told me today on the phone when talking about all of this, the one thing we know after a person is born is that they will one day die - including, off course, ourselves.

I don't like death.  I don't like the idea that my loved ones will die.  I don't like the idea that I will die.  I don't like funerals.  I don't like hearing about terminal diseases, hospice care for the dying, terrible accidents that end in death, and other related tragedies.  I hate the death toll given in the news every day regarding terrorist attacks, military battles in Iraq, Sierra or Afghanistan.  I hate it.  My friend Sean shared with me about a guy I knew in college we called Mo who lost his mother.  And, I get notifications as work on an almost bi-monthly basis hearing about someone who just died; you know, a former employee or the the parent/child/sibling/spouse of a current employee.  I hate it.

Yet, it is inevitable.  When my niece died, my nephew, her brother, put on facebook "F-CK CANCER".  A friend once told me that sometimes profanity is the only appropriate word - I disagreed, but I understand his point.  But I get it. I GET IT - death is painful, terrible, unwelcome, undesirable!  But  it is inevitable.

So then, knowing that you will die, what should you be doing now?  You think we would understand this and strive to live life to the fullest.  We would care about others, do good, love and help our fellow human beings.  But no - we don't.  Instead, we fight, divorce, selfishly use people in all kinds of ways.  We seek our own comfort and pleasure at the expense of others - that is, we really don't think about or care about others as we seek pleasure, peace, and comfort.  Sure, we don't necessarily want anyone to get hurt, but for many human being, it's primarily a selfish passion that drives us to act and live and do the things we do in life..

What if God is real?  What if eternal life is real and we are aware of an afterlife after we die?  What if there really is an eternal, transcendent ethical system based on some concept of TRUTH that lives on after we die and we remain conscious of it after we die?  The realm of faith, religion, and ideas around metaphysical  and truth are uncomfortable at best and scary beyond reason at it's worst,

If there is a God, we better find out which god is God and then try to live in a way to honor what this God has created: life in abundance and ultimately (from our perspective) mankind!  So I say, do good while you're here.  Help others.  Give generously.  Don't be selfish.  Yet, to be sure we define "good" and all the actions, mindsets, and emotions that go with it, we had better strive to find and know the God who established "good".  Otherwise, we simply make it up, which will ultimately keep us at war, with millions living in poverty, addicted to drugs, selling their bodies, buying their bodies, exploiting and using people for their own selfish passions, and all other sorts of stuff. Why?  Because one mans "good" is different from another.  Yet - both men will die!

Something to think about as I grieve the loss of yet another family member.

Same Love

If you read this – please read the entire thing! Examine my argument, not my character!

A powerful voice for Christianity in the 21^st Century is Ravi Zacharias.  Mr. Zacharias often explains how music, the performing arts, and the entertainment industry have the biggest impact on the beliefs and values of a society.  He summarizes a quote from Andrew Fletcher’s about what really influences society.  Fletcher writes, “I said I knew a very wise man so much of Sir Christopher's sentiment, that he believed if a man were permitted to make all the ballads he need not care who should make the laws of a nation, and we find that most of the ancient legislators thought that they could not well reform the manners of any city without the help of a lyric, and sometimes of a dramatic poet.”  This quote is shortened by Zacharias and others into a convenient quip that says, “Let me write the songs of a nation – I don’t care who writes its laws”. 

I heard a fascinating song on the radio yesterday.  The song is entitled, “Same Love” and is performed by artists Ben Haggerty (Macklemore), Ryan Lewis, and apparently includes a young lady named Mary Lambert (not the film director).  The song was release in 2012 and was nominated for a Grammy for song of the year.  This song has a powerful influential message which includes both truths and falsehoods.  The song may even have helped influence the sentiment and support for same-sex marriage which emerged in July 2015 as the law of the land in the United Stated.

The song declares that God loves everyone (a truth – but unverified) and even quotes parts of 1^st Corinthians 13 (As a Christian, this is an authoritative source for me).  The song also affirms that human beings all feel and need to be loved (true but not verified) and that many people desire a romantic, committed life long relationship. However the song has two major flaws:  (1) a lack of knowledge; and (2) emotional and not logical conclusions.  In general, a lack of knowledge and flaws in logic and reason can lead to many falsehoods being promoted as a truth.  When philosophies are built and acted upon in masse and on large populations and societies that are built on something false, the result can be terrible. Thus, we really need to be careful regarding what we accept as truth!

Regarding the song, the major declaration which is wrong (lack of knowledge) states that people cannot change.  In the context of the song, the implication is that people cannot change their sexual orientation.  This is not true in either case.  Our minds are plastic, malleable, and changeable.  I can learn to love or hate people; to salivate at the ringing of a bell; or even to have a sexual reaction to a smell.  These things are verifiable and true. I am NOT a psychologist but I am reasonably educated and any basic college level psychology course presents this information.

So then, the examples of human beings changing fundamental dislikes, desires, etc, is well documented throughout history.  Ravi Zacharias quotes Adolf Hitler as saying, “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience - imperious, relentless and cruel”.  Assuming this quote has validity; such “change” can be developed in the masses for evil – as evident by the terrible results of Nazi Germany regarding the Jews.  If such deep and passionate characteristics can be changed in large groups for evil, how much more so can such change occur in one individual for good, or at least for something that some may consider neutral (not good or evil) and based on an individual’s uniqueness. 

The song, “Same Love” emphatically states that such change is impossible.  However, if a person can change something as fundamental as the deeply passionate values that support attempted genocide, I can surely change my sexual desires.  Most reasonable people would agree that I should attempt to change abusive, inappropriate, or out of control sexual desires such as pedophilia, being a serial rapist, or having a sexual addition whereby I attempt to have intercourse with several different people a day, serveral times a day, including with strangers!  Most reasonable people would agree that we CAN change such problematic sexual desires and actions into something more acceptable, healthy, and safe in a civil society.  (I say most because I’m sure there are a few people who would disagree).  For example, if a 35 year old man has a sincere and deeply heart-felt desire to love and have an on-going sexual relationship with a 7 year old child, we all agree that they cannot act on their sincere and deeply heart-felt desire.  Hopefully we also compassionately want to help this 35 year old man CHANGE and get this desire under control if not eliminate it completely.  Another example; if a person has sincere and heart-felt desire for ongoing romantic and sexual relationships with multiple partners at the same time, and all the adults in such a group agree to have such ongoing romantic and poly-amorous relationships, we would allow it as long as all the people are adults and consenting of their own free volitional will, BUT we don’t embrace it as a cultural value or practice to be promoted and celebrated as the goal of adult romantic relationships!

My point isn’t to condemn same-sex relationships, although I am against such sexual / romantic relationships.  My point is the flaws in the song and the claim it makes that sexual orientation cannot be changed. I am convinced that a straight person can change and learn to personally be involved in a same-sex relationship, embracing and loving their partner with the deepest love any two people can have for each other.  Thus, I clearly believe the opposite is also true – a gay or lesbian can change and learn to love and be loved by a person of the opposite biological sex.  My belief is built on the history of mankind being able to change very deep and personal desires, passions, wants and various behaviors driven by such longings.

We are human, we are not dogs, however Ivan Pavlov’s learning process, known as Classical Conditioning, Pavlovian conditioning or Respondent conditioning is a well-known idea.  There are limitations both academically and in practice to Classical Conditioning because human beings are exceedingly complex.  We cannot be reduced to deterministic machines and all the aspects of our wants, desires, and behaviors can’t be reduced into scientific/psychological units of stimulus and response. Yet, with these well documented caveats carefully and appropriately considered, sexual orientation along with many other deeply ingrained and internal drives within a human being, can be changed.  Some of these changes are neutral, some are evil, and many can be good (as addressed above regarding aberrant sexual attractions and behaviors we would all agree to be inappropriate or – might I say – wrong.)

I’ve spent a great deal speaking to the first problem with the song – the lack of knowledge, aka, their declarative proclamation that is weaved into the fabric of the song’s philosophical foundation, that sexual orientation cannot be changed.  The second and more pronounced flaw in the song is building an argument based on feelings and emotions as opposed to logic and solid reasoning.  A little boy crying because he was worried he was gay is terrible reasoning to be for or against same-sex relationships.  Illogical associations such as all boys play baseball and all girls play with dolls - the “illogical association” is also a terrible foundation for being for or against same-sex relationships.  People misunderstanding the thirty-five-hundred year old ancient text of Law, Prophets and Writings (Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim – i.e. the Tanakh or the Jewish Bible) – the fact that “people misunderstand the Tenakh” is a terrible foundation for being for or against same-sex relationships.  The fact that people in the United States, “America the brave”, fear what they do not know - this “fear” is also bad reasoning for deciding for or against the legitimacy of same-sex romantic relationships.

The statement that “God loves all his children” is a declarative prescriptive statement that pulls on the emotions and desires of the listener.  There is no logic because there is no verifiable antecedent. Which God?  What transcendent theological parameters can we use to identify this God and their children?  We can’t just make up our own god – then there would be 7 billion god’s, all made up by each individual human being!  The song’s author needs to at least give some reference so we can all agree or disagree with the statement that “God loves all his children”.   Also, many people are against name-calling and hate, but such things do not give logical reasons for why same-sex relationships are valid or not. Oppression, abusive or non-abusive churches, and the comfort of a homogeneous religious community does not aid in assessing the validity of same-sex relationships. 

Most people don’t realize when music, poetry, movies, and the like are prescribing a philosophical framework that promotes ideas and values that are not validated.  One could argue that values can be different and valid – this is a type of truth and we can see it in differing cultures between communities, regions, nations, and people-groups.  Carried too far it becomes moral relativism.  However, we know there are values – cannibalistic societies of the past that would eat the flesh of the defeated tribe – that have powerful moral implications. Sexual values that are supported by a society fall into this category because of the sheer impact of human sexuality on our lives and our existence.  Thus changing these values as we have certainly done between 1985 and 2015 has powerful implications for the future.  I do hope we realize that our music teaches ideas and ideas have consequences. The American experiment of the late 16^th century has proven its staying power and cultural prowess in the world for the past 230 years or so.  This current wave of changes in sexual values and morals is also having an impact. Radical religious movements and radical sexual norms all have an impact and time will tell us if they were helpful or harmful.  I wish I could be here in 200 years to look back and see what it all means.

Limitations of Power and Reputation

Power - it's really bad when not checked with love and compassion for people!  (Which, by the way, He Man did have love and compassion for people).

Every October The Lord's Church in Greenbelt (now defunct, merged into the Bowie Church of Christ) used to have our fall retreat at an awesome facility called Camp Eder, a beautiful Church of the Brethren camp  in Fairfield PA, just outside of Gettysburg. We would drive up from the DC area, through the Catoctin Mountains of northern Maryland, into Southern PA.  It was a beautiful drive - if we could get the family together and leave in enough time to beat the Washington DC friday rush-hour exodus and get there before it got dark!

We would always pass this quaint little college called St. Mary's University, right off of   US 15, traveling north.  I didn't know anything about this college - that it was the 2nd oldest Catholic University in the United States and that they would soon be pursuing and inviting my daughter to visit who currently attends a Catholic high school in Washington DC.

The school is now in the news and the center of controversy involving the real heart and attitude of their new president, Simon Newman.  Newman came with the vision to "raise a lot of capital and start a lot of programs and start the university on a more aggressive growth trajectory" (Baltimore Sun, Dec 8, 2014).  I don't know this man, but I do know my own desire for power and reputation.  I also know, that as a man, I want to succeed professionally and in some sense, gain a little human-centric esteem!  I want the skills and ability to raise a lot of capital and to have an aggressive professional and even spiritual growth trajectory.  What's wrong with this desire?

The problem is that desire and plans and strategies like this must be ultimately for the benefit of others - not just a select group of others, but others, period.  For Newman, he may have wanted to raise the reputation of The Mount and improve the institutions academic standing, but to do so at the expense of students already matriculated is a bad idea.  To further expose his heart, apparently in a private conversation or in a private email note he explained that sacrifices need to be made to achieve the goals of growing the institution.  Newman referred to students who were likely to fail out academically as "cuddly bunnies". The imagery then turned dark!  He said, "You just have to drown the bunnies … put a Glock to their heads".  WOW!!  His heart, in secret, is revealed.

The limitation of our human desire for power, success, reputation, achievement, and the like are evident throughout history.  It's true on a national and global scale, corporate scale, within a family and it's true on a personal level.  The "win at all cost" philosophy just doesn't work.  Even a confessed atheist such as Sir. Richard Branson knows this and he's very successful.  He is actually considered a very kind man by the people who know him and work close with him.

To have the skills to bring about change and growth BUT not have an overtly altruistic and benevolent spirit will eventually limit the effectiveness of ones power.  Sure, such skills may be effective when you don't have to deal with people as much - which was proven by Mr. Newman's reputation as evidenced by his background.  He had 30 years' experience in business and finance, was the managing director of JP Capital Partners, a private equity firm, and CEO of Cornerstone Management Group, had successful started four businesses, and has raised more than $3 billion in equity funding.  HOWEVER, in role of a University President at a Catholic institution, it is imperative to show compassion, virtue, faith, and love - grace, mercy, benevolence, and concern for others should probably be internal character traits shown, in some way, by any candidate for such a job.  I'm not saying Mr. Newman doesn't care for others - but what we say in private does reflect our heart.  I'm certain he cares for his wife, children, friends and others - but the drive to accomplish a goal, a mission will sometimes make us forget what life is really all about.

I pray that Newman and Mount Saint Mary's University will make it through this difficult time - and I'm sure they will, even if Simon Newman steps down as a result of this.  I'm certain that the beauty of this campus on US 15 north, right there in the Catoctin Mountains, will continue to do what they've done since the very beginning, in 1808.   

Gonna Do it Anyway,

I just had a discussion with my daughter about a really stupid movie she wanted to go see - it's called, "The Boy".  It's a silly horror movie and teenagers love this stuff.  It only got ONE star by RottonTomatoes.  To humor her, I went and watched the trailer on youtube.  It is, indeed, a ridiculous premise, a ridiculous plot, and a ridiculous movie.  However, it really isn't supernatural - real people are doing the evil stuff when the babysitter is not looking.

Regardless, I took the discussion in the direction of the supernatural and the idea of seeing the devil face to face.  If you saw any kind of supernatural being that you could validate beyond the shadow of a doubt - I mean, in absolute certainty, you have experienced an encounter with the unseen, supernatural realm... if you saw or experience such an entity even from Satan's domain, what would it mean?  In short, it would mean that this realm actually does exists, albeit, inappreciable with tools and instruments from our 3-dimensional world. Sorry Ghosbusters - there is no way to invent and use a P.K.E. Meter i.e. Psychokinetic Energy Meter, or Proton Packs, or any other psychic or metaphysical detection device .

By the very definition of supernatural spiritual, no such tool can be created that can reach into this realm to detect anything there.  However, also by definition, things from that realm can enter into our world.  From a Christian point-of-view, this would include angels, demons, heavenly beings, satanic beings, and of course God himself (itself?) as well as Satan.

So, the discussion went something like this - if we saw the devil, what would that mean?  It would mean that he is real, thus God is real, thus there really is a supernatural realm. However, I went on to explain that unfortunately, even the solid, proven belief with evidence of the existence of such a realm would NOT cause many people - if not most people - to actually change and strive to live for God.  Why?  BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY CARE!  You see, many non-believers say that if they saw real miracle, a certifiable, authentic, real-life miracle, they would then believe in God. However, this is simply not true.

You see, we have free will, and thus, we will ultimately do whatever we really want to do.  Most of us, if speeding, will slow down when we see the police car just ahead - unless it is an emergency and the priority, for example, of saving a child's life who is dying in the back-seat, become higher than getting a speeding ticket.  However, there are a few people who simply just don't care!  Aside from psychological or emotional dysfunction or damage, some people - and we can all probably think of someone in our past if we have lived long enough - will simply do whatever they want, regardless of the expected undesirable outcome OR the anticipated joyful and wonderful outcome.

You see, we have the uncanny ability to hold in our heads ideas that are logically mutually exclusive, and function as if both ideas are absolutely true.  Young people do this more.  Old people tend to become cynical as they discover that certain realities exists and what we want or wish for cannot change such things.

We see this in the Bible with real people - they will witness the miracle and do something stupid anyway.  David sins with Bathsheba (2 Samuel chapters 11-12), Peter is prejudice against the gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-14), Elijah runs for his life (1 Kings 19:1-18), and the list goes on and on and on.  The obvious is during the exodus from Egypt, these people saw the power of God and yet, they still rejected God, especially the Golden Calf incident as recorded in Exodus 32.  However, mankind isn't the only beings susceptible to such idiocy.  As James so clearly points out, even the demons believe in God but it does them no good! (James 2:18-19).

I'm not sure how to overcome this tendency.  I succumb to this in my thinking more so than in my actions.  Logic and wisdom says one thing, but my passions and desires say something different.  As Woody Allen is purported to have said about marrying Soon-Yi Previn (Soon-Yi was 21, Woody was 56 and she was his girlfriends adopted daughter), "the heart want's what the heart want's".  Yet, it seems that, outside of mental illness or major hormonal imbalances, we DO have some control over our emotions, including all forms of love - family, friendship, and romantic based love.  The sad part is that most people don't know this or don't believe it so they don't try.  As a result, regardless of the consequences, we are going to do what we want to do!  Our brains are driven by our unbridled emotions and say to our bodies, "I'm gonna do it anyway".

The Bible does teach that we have some control over this tendency and change what we want emotionally.  We are told to "train ourselves to be godly" (1 Timothy 4:7).  The following ideas are ways we can do this:

1. Col 3:1-4, “set your minds (and hearts) on things above…”, - a volitional command.
2. Phil 4:8, “…whatever is true, right, noble… think about such things.” – a volitional command
3. 2 Cor 4:18, “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen…”, - what to think about/focus on.
4. 2 Peter 1:5-8, “add to your faith goodness… knowledge… self-control… theses qualities…will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”. - character values to develop on purpose.
5. Romans 12:2, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” - modifying the mind so that it is "renewed", i.e. naturally godly

With that said, we really don't have to "do it anyway".  I fact, I think we can even change what we think about and dream about based on what we read, watch, listen to, people we hang out with, etc, etc, etc.  As Christians - if you are a Christian, then if you and I devote ourselves to changing in this way, we will minimize our hypocritical tendencies and literally change from the inside out to become the saints and sages this world needs as a moral compass AND to authentically reflect the God of the universe to a loss world.