Political Correctness is Stupid and Obama is Wrong

Sometimes I just write exactly what comes to mind, so I hope you don't mind the subject title. I think I will prove my point in a second.

President Obama went to a boys and girls club to talk about the meaning of Christmas. But watch this video or read the transcript (from the White House's website). Kids are much smarter than we think. Highlights:

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the most important thing is just to remember why we celebrate Christmas.

CHILD: I know!

THE PRESIDENT: Do you know?

CHILD: The birth of baby Jesus.

THE PRESIDENT: The birth of baby Jesus, and what he symbolizes for people all around the world is the possibility of peace and people treating each other with respect. And so I just hope that spirit of giving that's so important at Christmas, I hope all of you guys remember that as well. You know, it's not just about getting gifts but it's also doing something for other people. So being nice to your mom and dad and grandma and aunties and showing respect to people -- that's really important too, that's part of the Christmas spirit, don't you think? Do you agree with me?

No, Mr. President, I don't agree with you. Instead of listening to you, I've chosen to read. And I've chosen to read the words Jesus himself said. Jesus, when he became an adult, told us why he came. He told us the meaning of Christmas. And it wasn't your answer. I don't even need my own, because Jesus' answer is so good.

"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." Luke 19:10

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45

Jesus didn't come to give us an example of niceness (that's the essence of liberal theology). Jesus came to die on a cross and to save lost people who don't know him. Even he said so.

That's not politically correct at all.

Interpreting Copenhagen

They don't like our worldview, but they like our religious language.

Please read Don Sweeting's take on Copenhagen.

One Recipe for Social Change on Abortion

Read John Piper's treatment of the 3rd wave in the fight against abortion in our culture.

More Bad Arguments on Moral Lawmaking

"You can't legislate what's in a person's heart. Making it a law won't change minds and hearts."

This phrase is one of the most prominent arguments I hear from pro-choice Christians and conservative libertarians. And the argument is absolute garbage on an experiential and intellectual level. For instance, if we believed this, then we'd be consistent in our applications. Consider the following:

1) We would never demand behavior of children on any level. We wouldn't teach them manners. We wouldn't teach them to be polite. We wouldn't teach them the difference between right and wrong. We would just allow them to act on whatever their heart tells them. Why would we give them laws (ie rules) to follow when their heart is not in it?

Of course we would never dream of doing this. It's a recipe for societal disaster, because we all know implicitly the depravity of the human heart. Teaching morals and manners is good on a social level and not just an individual level.

2) We would never have demanded civil rights legislation. We would never have enacted legislation that wasn't in people's hearts. Overt racism still existed and we would not have been so foolish as to "impose" the legislation of people's hearts.

Keep in mind that this legislation was quintessentially moral and appealed to absolute moral values (ie racism and segregation are wrong on the face of it). Sometimes it's imperative, indeed an act of collective moral conscious, to legislate right and wrong despite what popular opinion is.


Those are just two examples that counteract even the most far-off person's flippant argument about legislating the heart.

As always, it is absolutely imperative that the US Federal Government make abortion illegal except in rare circumstances. Children are dying. Millions of them. And so I will continue my constant analysis of bad arguments on abortion that I hear in the effort to change those very hearts and minds to make this politically tenable.

The Advent Conspiracy

It's rather odd to call something a conspiracy that's been around for 2000 years, but so it is.

The Advent Conspiracy is an attempted grassroots return to the true meaning of Christmas: the fact that Jesus came into the world as a Jew to save his people and the rest of the world from their sins and restore them to fellowship with God. As a result, the movement shuns consumerism and welcomes giving to the poor.

Time magazine has taken notice, and even takes a few side shots at cultural conservatism in the process.

A movement like Advent Conspiracy is countercultural on two fronts - fighting the secular idea that Christmas is a monthlong shopping and decorating ritual and also the powerful conservative notion that the holiday requires acknowledgement from the nation's retailers to be truly meaningful.

I suppose that's fine. Christmas, and more accurately "Advent," is about what the Advent Conspiracy says it's about. I suppose I just get a little tired when we make such a strong split between individual and cultural values. The legacy of the West is born out of the Christian view of Christmas. I'm just as interested in Christianity in the marketplace of ideas as I am with it's meaning in the life of an individual. These are not opposing ideals.

The Gospel According to Tiger Woods

I have a confession to make: I love Tiger Woods. I was in 7th grade when he broke onto the scene at the Masters and dominated the field in 1997. I was young, but the appreciation and admiration I held for Tiger Woods was strong and lasted well into my adult life now. In terms of athletes I loved to watch play, he is second only to Peyton Manning. If you know me, this is a big deal.

I don't wish to detail Tiger's "transgressions," because I do think he deserves a fair amount of privacy. I also don't want to speculate on how much I will or will not like him as a golfer in the future. I just can't say right now. What I want to call attention to is Tiger's incredible need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Excerpts from his widely read transcript are below:

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family... I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.

I don't think Tiger's apology to his wife or fans should go unnoticed. I sincerely believe this is a guy who senses profound guilt for his wrongdoing, and not just because he got caught. His penitential spirit is admirable. It's his response, though, that makes me sad: "I will strive to be a better person..."

A writer, about 2000 years ago, describes this predicament, and Tiger's solution doesn't seem to fix the problem.

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God...no one does good, not even one...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." Romans 3:10, 11, 12, 23 (ESV)

Not a one of us does good? In our hearts, we must acknowledge that not even our good actions are born out of completely pure, good, and God-honoring motives. Paul is right. Not one of us does good. That includes Tiger.

Our response to Tiger shouldn't be one of condemnation, lest we write our own tombstone engravings. There's only one solution to this problem, and it isn't to do better, because apparently we are incapable of doing so. Allow me to proceed with Paul's argument.

"[F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus...[F]or we hold that one is justified by faith..." Romans 3:23-24, 28

Doing better just won't do. We need a savior. All of us. Not just Tiger.

Timeless Wisdom

"Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people.

A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days...

By justice a king builds up the land but he who exacts gifts tears it down."

Proverbs 28:15-16 and 29:4

To whom could this advice be applied to today?

A treatise for Christmas

My new favorite author, G.K. Chesterton, has some interesting comments about Christmas. At this time of year, Christians remember that God entered the human story. He became a human, and we call him Jesus. It is truly a historical truth and doctrine unlike any other.

Without Christmas, we wouldn't even celebrate a Holiday season. But my point here isn't to incite the culture wars. It is to cite the enormity of Christmas in our culture. Chesterton notes:

"Any agnostic or atheist whose childhood has known a real Christmas has ever afterwards, whether he likes it or not, an association in his mind between two ideas that most of mankind must regard as remote from each other; the idea of a baby and the idea of the unknown strength that sustains the stars. His instincts and imagination can still connect them, when his reason can no longer see the need of the connection; for him there will always be some savour of religion about the mere picture of a mother and a baby; some hint of mercy and softening about the mere mention of the dreadful name of God. But the two ideas are not naturally or necessarily combined. They would not be necessarily combined for an ancient Greek or a Chinaman, ever for Aristotle or Confucius. It is no more inevitable to connect God with an infant that to connect gravitation with a kitten."

G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

In a paraphrase of the nephew in Dickens' classic work A Christmas Carol, though Christmas has never put a penny in my pocket, I say God bless it! And God bless it for its affects on our culture. Gift giving, and indeed the clamor for peace on earth, are with us because God became a baby.

Advent Means the Coming of Jesus

During the Advent season (note that I didn't say "holiday" or even "Christmas"), we wait for the coming of Jesus. Because of the church calendar, we celebrate the beginning of the year by recognizing the significance of when God became a man. Of course, Jesus will come again, and his second coming (his second "advent") we also anticipate.

So the entire season is about anticipation of God's presence in and amongst us. We Americans have messed that up significantly. We overload on debt, busyness, stress, and insignificance while God wants to choose to reside in our midst. But like the smallness of a little baby born in a cave in Bethlehem, we miss Him. We dont' see God.

Don't miss God this Advent season. If you live in Denver, one way you can catch a glimpse of God is to join my church, Cherry Creek Presbyterian, in our journey back to 1st century Bethlehem. There are plenty of activities associated with our Journey to Bethlehem: fair trade practices, a Christmas concert, and a re-creation of 1st century Bethlehem.

For more details, please visit here.

More Thoughts on Mammograms

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (ESV)" Genesis 9:6

The above quotation from Genesis is not used to incite or even reference murder. This verse is important in the literary context of Genesis, because God created humanity in His own image in Genesis chapter 1. But in chapter 3, humanity fell by sinning for the first time. Yet in chapter 9 we see that the image of God is still retained in humanity even after the fall. In fact, it's a reason not to murder. The point? Each and every human life has value. This is a fundamental doctrine in the Christian worldview. It is not a fundamental doctrine of utilitarianism. And these doctrines are at opposite ends of the mammogram debate.

Time Magazine has an article analyzing the debate in more detail this week. Note the worldviews at work in the article. Essentially, here's the essence of the Christian worldview:

By and large, American patients (not to mention politicians and cancer advocacy groups) still subscribe to the view that every life is worth saving, no matter the cost, and that when it comes to prevention, screening is always good and more is always better.

And now the utilitarian worldview:

But such personal calculations do not apply in the same way to an entire population, where the benefit to some must be weighed against the harm to others.

Besides the fact that this article (and every other article I've read on the matter) doesn't really discuss individual harms besides the bogus factor of "stress", this article is relying on the fact that somebody has to worry on a societal level what care people receive. Why is such population calculation necessary? Well, it would be necessary if the government were heavily invested in the costs of healthcare. And our government is heavily invested in healthcare, and it is trying to be more than it already is. Please advise that the government's increased role in healthcare is thus a looming spector of problems.

The utilitarian argument is essentially that society must do what is greatest for the most amount of people. If we decide that society can spend less money and not that many people are affected by having less mammogram screening, then society benefits by having more resources (read: money). The most amount of people are served by the greatest good. But if society (read: government) is making these decisions instead of individuals, then individuals are screwed. Each and every human life does not matter in that scenario.

The Christian worldview is morally good. Utilitarianism is morally evil. There is not enough time or space on a blog to show you how utilitarian the U.S. government is becoming. Thankfully, cancer groups and women's groups (that are traditionally liberal) are fighting off these government recommendations regarding mammograms. And whether they know it or not, or whether they acknowledge it or not, they are influenced by the Christian worldview.

Now if only we could apply this logic from the women's groups to the debate on abortion.

Sadness

"My tears have been my food day and night, while men say to me all day long, 'Where is your God?'... Why are you so downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me?" Psalm 42:3,5

I just had a meaningful conversation with a friend who had a family member pass away recently. He was honest with me, saying he was capable of mood swings as he felt anger and deep sadness and contentment all within a period of minutes. I think he just needed someone to tell him that it was okay to feel sadness, and it was okay to be angry.

God is perfectly capable of handling our emotions after all. In fact, it seems that due to the Psalmist's language, God actually welcomes our honest frustrations and yearnings. Locating our deep sadness in Him is much more satisfying than any elixir we conjur for ourselves: drink, tv, or sex.

Perhaps a big myth, often perpetuated by Christians (which is why much of the world labels us "hypocrites"), is that Christians are consistently happy and perfect in every way. Of course, quite the opposite is the reality. Our worldview is really the only one where the answer to the human problem (ie sin/brokenness/corruption of our hearts) is accomplished by God alone and not by mere human effort. When someone, especially a non-Christian, remarks to me that Christians are imperfect and hypocritical, I respond, "Well, that's kind of the point. That's why we need God."

And I think, by extension, this applies to our sadness. Christians can be sad, even depressed. Read Psalm 42: that guy struggled. Or 1 Kings 19: Elijah seemed quite depressed there as well.

The beauty of Christianity is that we lay all of our brokenness and deep sorrow on Christ at the cross, for he redeems it all. And one day, one fateful day, "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.