Why do we celebrate Christmas?

I had a thought the other day & I have been mulling it over.

Why do we celebrate Christmas? Why don't we just celebrate Christ?

The last couple of years my church has mildly pushed people to take up the tradition of celebrating Advent. My (admittedly somewhat visceral) response has been along the line of: "...that is an European tradition. We have enough traditions here already. I don't need to take up any more...".

But maybe it is time to kick over our old traditions and take up some different ones.

Maybe by doing so we can re-emphasize Christ and de-emphasize shopping.

(But that way lies a rant. So I will just pose the question again for you:)

Why do we celebrate Christmas? Why don't we just celebrate Christ?

What do you think?

Redact this!?

I had a series of thoughts this morning that led me to a question. Follow me as I walk through them.

Yesterday I heard about the new movie "Redacted". I looked it up on IMDB and its own website. The movie is about "...the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers..." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0937237/synopsis). I looked at some of the trailers. It seems to me that the movie is intended to and will succeed in having the effect of giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. What were they thinking? Certainly Mark Cuban has the right to make the movie. Certainly I have the right to not go see it. ("If the people don't want to come to the ballpark, how you gonna stop 'em" - philosopher Yogi Berra).

But this was just the first step on my mental journey.

Certainly the crime (which is mentioned in the movie) committed by the soldiers was heinous. I am assuming that it really happened. If history is any guide, rape often accompanies war. So if it didn't happen in Iraq, it did somewhere else. It is an unjustifiable act whenever & wherever.

We are also told that our intelligence gatherers in Iraq are torturing POWs in order to obtain information to more successfully prosecute the war. Now I am all about successfully prosecuting the war. But ends do not justify means. It is sin to committ unjustifiable acts just because they aid in successful prosecution of the war.

Torture is defined as: the act of inflicting excruciating pain ... as a means of getting a confession or information ... . (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture) I "redacted" the definition a little to fit the intelligence gathering function of torture.

Tom Landry once said that a football coach was supposed to make men do what they really didn't want to do in order to help them achieve what they really wanted to achieve. (or something like that) No doubt some of the pain was excruciating. But it isn't torture.

When my children were young, I frequently spanked them. Sometimes part of the goal of the spanking was to get a confession (leading to repentance). They tried hard to make me believe that the pain was excruciating, & it is OK with me if it pained them. But that wasn't torture either.

The difference between what Tom Landry and I did, and torture is (I think) our intent. We intended it for the good of the recipient, and the torturer intends it to harm the recipient (or at least as a means to harm the recipient's army).

OK, one more stop on this path and I will have arrived at the conundrum.

Killing a human is wrong - usually. There are 3 times when it is OK to kill a human (I think): (1) After due process of law - capitol punishment, (2) Self defense, (3) War.

Now in war, we don't think it is necessary to give the other guy an even break. If we have overpowering force, or surprise, or any advantage then we use it and it is fine to do so. If the enemy combatant is a POW, we have overpowering force at our disposal in dealing with him. It is possible to torture him without killing him. & we would have been justified in killing him in combat. So are we justified in torturing him?

This leads me to a place where I am very uncomfortable. I seem to have created a justification for a means of prosecuting war (torture) that I naturally abhor.

Here are the points that I think are important in this issue:

(1) In war, we intend to do the enemy harm. This is OK.
(2) One of the things that makes the infliction of pain = torture is our intent.

SO - the implication is that the infliction of pain with the intent of prosecuting the war is OK.

Again, I am uncomfortable with the result of my logic. Help me out here.

Thought Experiment - ethics

I don't know where this stuff comes from...

I was driving down the road today and began to think about the morality / ethics of the lottery. I have always thought that gambling was the same general kind of thing as the consumption of alcohol. It is not immoral per se, but it easily becomes sin when it takes control of part of a Christian's life. But many people consider both gambling and alcohol to be immoral on any terms. I know of a church where the staffers have agreed among themselves to completely abstain from the consumption of alcohol in order to avoid the taint that it might bring if someone who considered it immoral learned of their use.

On the subject of gambling, consider the following thought experiment:

Suppose you were a pastor of a conservative, evangelical church. And you found that someone had placed a lottery ticket in the offering plate. Would you check to see if it won anything?

A better job than I deserve

When I started this BLOG several weeks ago, I had in mind a series of posts along the line of "A better ____ than I deserve". One of them was "A better job that I deserve". But I didn't get arount to posting it in the natural order of things.

In mid-August we started a major software upgrade at my place of employment. It hasn't been going as smoothly as hoped, so the stress level has been high. So I haven't been energized to post on this topic until now. The upgrade project is making progress, and I have come to a significant realization.

Even when things are going below-average-well at my job, it is a better job than I deserve.

The thing that happened that put that thought in my mind was when the 4th or 5th person (department-head-level person) told me today that they appreciated what I have been doing for the County during this upgrade process. They realized that it had not been easy for anyone, but they thought it would have been harder for everyone without my efforts. I don't think that I have been looking down-in-the-mouth or like I needed encouraging (I hope not, anyway). And I have been here a long time without hearing that kind of encouragement (at least not in the quantity that I have heard it lately). So it just goes to show me that my co-workers really are better than I deserve.

My uncle once told me that there are a lot of people (probably a majority) in this world who get up 5 mornings a week and go to a job that they detest because they badly need the paycheck that comes with it. I enjoy my job (even when the projects aren't going as well as I would like). And that enjoyment is rare (if my uncle is right & I think he is) and so even more valuable. I don't deserve it.

I think that work is a gift from God. Work that I enjoy, that adequately provides for my family (if not in the style that they would like to become accustomed to, at least comfortably), that is valuable to (makes a difference to) the community, is indeed to be valued highly. It is more than I deserve.

Thank you, God.

1500 houses burned down in CA, & counting

I listened to the news this morning while shaving and the man said that over 1500 houses have burned to the ground in the current set of fires in southern California. Many of these houses are valued at over a million dollars each. The owners will have to clean off their lots before they can rebuild. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the insurance companies called it all an "Act of God" and refused to pay off. (& I sure hope that FEMA doesn't give some rich So. California guy a few million of our tax dollars to rebuild his mansion. Surely even the federal government is smarter than that?) The owners who last month had a solid, substantial home now have almost nothing.

I find myself being glad that I am not relying on my possessions (house, bank account, ...), my abilities (job, strength, intelligence), my family (wife, children, parents, siblings), or any earthly other thing to provide my family's security. My security comes from God & from God alone.

Tim Temple (long-time pastor of Abilene Bible Church) used to frequently quote "... men and machines will fail you...". When he said it to me, it was usually on the occasion of a computer failing. But the meaning is the same whether I have recently been failed by a man or a machine: God is the only one who will never fail me. So if I am going to trust something, shouldn't I trust something (Someone) who is worth trusting...who can deliver on His promises?

BTW - When confronting a llama, I suggest you wear mirrored, wrap-around sunglasses. The llama likes to spit. (If this comment doesn't make sense to you, then ignore it. Someone knows what I am talking about.)

epistemology / truth

The following is a distillation of musings that started while listening to a sermon yesterday morning. The question at the end (What do I really want?) is the topic that I would like comments on.

Q. What is the difference between the idea that the unknown includes knowledge that I don't have the background to understand as opposed to knowledge that I don't have the capacity to comprehend?

A. humility - Accepting that the reason I don't understand is because I am created w/o the capacity to understand ... instead of merely because I have inadequate education ... requires my humility.

Humanism will not admit that any knowledge is beyond the capacity of men to understand.

Is humility a character trait that is worth cultivating? The church answer is yes. But what is the humanist's answer? The man who blows his own horn often gets what he wants - the job, the promotion, ... .

What do I really want?
- personal peace & affluence?
- success? (my efforts having the result that I intend / A man's reach should exceed his grasp...)
- truth?
- justice / honor?
- heaven?
- ???

Once I would have said, almost without thinking: "truth and justice". But is that a cop-out? I really don't know but I will think about it and update this post if anything startling pops into my head.

What do you think?

The nature of free will

Usually when I hear someone talk about free will, they start by saying something like "Let's be clear on what free will is not first." This has always been kind of disappointing to me. I always like to have terms defined.

Anyway, I had a semi-random thought about the nature of free will this weekend and wanted to share it to see if it generated any synergy.

Free will is what allows men to choose to sin or to choose God.

What do you think?

Without clouds...

When I was in college, I knew a guy whose 2nd favorite song was "Without Clouds". The refrain went (something like):

"Without clouds, the rain can't wash the land,
without rain, the grass can't hide the sand,
without grass, the flower's bloom won't grow,
without pain, the joy in life won't show."

I read a lot, some sci-fi, some historical fiction, some other stuff. Almost always when I read about a person (either historical or fictional) who does something courageous, the point is made that fear is a part of courage. If the hero wasn't afraid, then what he did wasn't really courageous, was it?

In these examples the presence of the negative enhances, or adds a second positive quality to, the positive.

Last night - as I listened to a sermon about ancient Israel's king David, before he was king & when he was fleeing for his life from the current king, Saul - I began to muse on the nature of faith. I thought about how depression and doubts are frequently expressed by people who are called faithful. And it occured to me that doubt might have the same relationship to faith that fear has to courage...that clouds have to flowers. That is, rain (or water, anyway) is essential to the production of flowers. Fear is an integral part of courage. Is doubt an essential, integral part of faith?

Put another way: If I never have any doubts, is it because my faith is so strong? Or is it because what I have is a dogma that I have been taught to accept without thinking & not really faith at all - but a conditioned response?

James says (something like) ...count it all joy when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience... . If my faith is never tested by various trials does it merely mean that my patience is under-developed? Or does it mean that I don't really have faith?!

. . .

One of my favorite stories is about an old country preacher whose hallmark was thankfulness. He was thankful to God in every situation. One Sunday morning in February it was bitter cold. The roads were all but impassible. The water pipes in the church building had frozen and burst. A window had been broken and snow had blown into the sanctuary. And the heater was old, tired, and not even close to being up to the task of warming the building. The faithful few wryly commented to each other on the way into the service that the preacher could not possibly have anything to be thankful about today. He proved them wrong, though, with his opening prayer: "Dear God, we thank You that it is not always like it is today...". Maybe my next post will be a little lighter. I can't always be like I am today.

What do we want in a US President?

I have been hearing a lot about the crowd of people that are running for (the various party's nominations for) President of the United States. So and so is great. So and so is nothing but an old so and so.

Today I thought, what qualities do I really want in a President?

So I looked in my copy of the Constitution of the United States for the duties of the President. I jotted them down and sorted them into categories. Here is the result:

Head of the executive branch - sees that laws are faithfully executed

Commander in Chief of the armed services
& commissions officers of the United States

Makes treaties
Appoints ambassadors
Receives ambassadors / public ministers

Appoints Supreme Court judges

Give the legislature info on the state of the union
Gives recommendations to congress
Convene or adjourn congress

So the President has the duty, generally, of a CEO. He has the duties, specifically, of handling foreign policy (commander in chief of the armed forces & dealing with ambassadors & foreign ministers - both ours and theirs), appointing Supreme Court justices, and giving advice to Congress. I have never heard of the President exercising his authority to convene or adjourn Congress - in modern times, anyway. One of the things that Presidents do as part of their CEO duties is to provide and explain a vision for the way the United States should develop. This is frequently referred to as the President's "bully pulpit", I think. President Reagan refined this to a high art. It is the reason why he was the greatest president of the late 20th century (IMHO).

I don't think that anyone expects the President to personally command warfighting operations. So specific expertise in that area is not required. He is supposed to exercise oversight, though. And although he makes treaties, usually - but not always - the actual negotiating of the treaty is left to an ambassador.

So what does that leave us with, as qualities we need to have in a President? I think there are 2 things:

1. decision making skills (wisdom)
2. people skills

To see how we can determine if a person is likely to have wisdom, I think that we can look at the requirements for an elder (bishop) in I Timothy 3 -
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. " (There is a similar passage in Titus 1.)

This says a lot about people skills, too. But mostly only one-way -- how people view the candidate. The President must also be able to speak to people well, and to understand / judge people well. We can tell how well a candidate can speak to people (provide vision via the "bully pulpit") by observing him on the campaign trail. We can get an idea of how well he understands / judges people by looking at the people he surrounds himself with.

Before I ask you what you think, notice what I have not said. I have not said that a President of the U.S. needs to espouse a certain position on any particular issue. Personally, I think that the requirement that a President have wisdom gives conservatives the inside track. Remember Winston Churchill's famous quote: "If a young man is not liberal, he has no heart. If an old man is not conservative, he has no brain." (or something like that). But I don't think a particular political doctrine is as important - in a President - as wisdom & people skills (some might say - character).

What do you think?

A question of sainthood

I have been reading lately about Mother Teresa. Apparently people are writing biographies about her in the hopes of more quickly elevating her to sainthood status in the Roman Catholic church. This is, IMHO, a waste of time. Either she already is a saint, or she isn't. And the RC church doesn't have the authority to say either way. But it does bring me to the question:

Can one claim false doctrine about salvation their entire life and nonetheless be saved?

The example of Mother Teresa is prime. I never met her, but if the reports are to be believed she displayed as much spiritual fruit as anyone could be expected to display. But she strongly supported the RC doctrine that her salvation was partly due to her own efforts.

Is it possible that all her fruit was false fruit? If she was not truly a saint (in the Protestant sense of being a believer in Christ) then all her good works are the spiritual equivalent of trash - worthless - false fruit.

If she is truly a saint then it is in spite of, not because of, her adherence to RC doctrine about salvation via baptism, confession, ... (ones own works).

If I understand it correctly, the concept of "perseverence of the saints" (the P in TULIP - the 5th point of 5-point Calvinism) says - or at least implies - that a true believer will eventually show fruit. God will not allow him to stagnate forever, but will whip him into shape. Is the obverse - that a person who continually shows fruit (right up until the day of his death) necessarily a true believer? Obviously non-believers can occaisionally perform good acts. But this woman (again, if the reports are to be believed) constantly, regularly performed good acts & did very little else.

Let me state the question another way: Did Mother Teresa show us her faith by her works? Or did she prove her lack of true saving faith by her consistent profession of belief in salvation by works?

The example of Mother Teresa aside, this is an interesting concept to me.

On the balance, I have to say that Mother Teresa was never a believer because she trusted in the finished work of Christ plus her own works, instead of trusting only in Christ. But there is that nagging question: How can an unregenerate sinner consistently produce false fruit of such quality?

Let me know what you think.

A better wife than I deserve

One of the things that God has given me that is better than I really deserve is my wife.

"Who can find a virtuous woman? Her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband safely trusts in her... She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life... Strength and honour are her clothing... She opens her mouth with wisdom... Many daughters have done virtuously, but you excell them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that fears the LORD, she shall be praised." Proverbs 31:10-ff (my paraphrase) King Lemuel never met my wife - but he knew her.

I thank God for her every day.

Everything that I am &/or aspire to be is made possible by the grace of God and the help of my wife.

And I think it is important that I say this about her in public. She doesn't often get the praise that I think she deserves. So I want to give her a little bit of it today.

What I deserve vs. What I get

I really am doing better than I deserve. I will tell you why I think so.

The concept of "what I deserve" is all about justice. If I do well, then I deserve a reward. If I do poorly, then I deserve to be punished. Many of us have parents that understood this concept very well. Personally, I grew up well acquainted with a belt. (If you know what I mean, and I think you do.)

Most people would probably say that they are willing to accept justice from life. This is because most people figure that they are doing better then average - or good enough to get by anyway. This would be true, if the standard by which their actions were judged was the average of all the actions of people in the world. (Although, a lot of them would be surprised - half the people are below average by definition.)

But the reality is much worse than that. The standard by which our actions are judged is the standard promulgated by God, and it is not true that the average man meets that standard. What is true is that only one man ever met the standard completely. The rest of us are in trouble.

The good news is that, because of the one man (Jesus, the Christ) that did meet the standard and what he did (give the fruit of his efforts to pay the penalty of my inability to meet God's standard), then I receive the reward that He deserves (life as a child of God) rather than the punishment that I deserve (death as an enemy of God).

I think that "doing better than I deserve" is an understatement.

What do you think?

The photograph from my ID card

I really am this serious much of the time nowadays. We are in the throes of implementing a new software package and spending a lot of time up to our necks in alligators (up to our necks in "bugs", really).