Righteous Anger

     Your stereotypical Christian is a level-headed one. He or she probably likely avoids heated arguments like the plague and speaks in politeness when rebuking another. Bottling up an inner rage, they find different outlets for their anger in healthy and unhealthy ways--but almost always in private. You see, to most Christians being angry is being sinful, but this is dissonant with the image of Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple courtyard.
     Nowhere in the Bible does it tell believers to not get angry, rather it tells us to not sin in our anger.  Anger in and of itself is not a bad thing; the Bible actually endorses what might be called "righteous anger."  This kind of anger, fueled by the pain of others rather than personal discomfort.  When Jesus saw the temple being misused, He stormed in and put and end to it.  There was no directly personal matter that was under attack in that situation; He was acting in the interest of the greater good. 

     I see many Christians today that claim righteous anger, but it seems more often that their anger is indignant and their actions motivated by pride.  Why do I say this?  Because the crimes of the recipients are unworthy of the punishment they receive.  I saw one conversation between two people in which the Christian threw a bunch of questionable "knowledge" at a non-believer who made the mistake of attempting an intelligent and critically-thinking conversation.  In a situation where one should have responded in love and understanding, she chose to grow prideful and insulted personally.  

     Righteous anger is done lovingly, even though the love is tough love.  The guilty are not left unsure of their crimes, nor can they honestly feel they were treated unfairly (though they likely will until they learn their lesson).  The anger is ultimately for the benefit for many, including the guilty.  This is of utmost importance to remember.

     What I want to boil this down to is this: anger is not always a bad thing.  In fact, it often can be a good thing.  However, the difference between good and bad anger lies in who is the victim: your ego or something outside yourself. 

A Fragmented Union

     On the sunny afternoon of April 15th the United States changed, but only for a moment.  On a politically-charged expanse, flagpoles adorned with adversarial messages of ignorance and derisiveness quietly were placed on the floor.  Neighbors that had only moments before been talking down to one another stood with hands on shoulders and looked upon each other with understanding eyes.  For a moment the people of this nation did not see themselves as divided people all vying for control, but became a part of a Union devoted to the empowerment of the citizen.  And together we wept as a nation.  But it was only a moment.

     In the midst of the silence, someone picked up their flag and ferociously started pointing a finger away from him.  He waved his banner high, the bright colors shone in stark contrast from the blue of the sky, still tainted by the smoke.  Soon another found their banner and rushed to the defense of the accused individual, shouting even more harshly than the first.  Fingers indicated a number of directs, flying from the bomb sites to other flags to innocent victims wondering why this had happened to them.  Almost as quickly as it began, that moment ended.

     There is no denying that the Boston marathon bombings had a huge impact on the United States, if not the world.  Once again, the U.S. found itself as the victim of another act of terrorism.  Thankfully, this time around, the loss of life was relatively low, though many, many were affected by the blasts, by injuries physical and psychological.  But this blog is not dealing with those directly affected by the bombings.  I wanted to talk about those who only knew what happened by the daily news.  

     You see, the bombing only silenced the petty political wars of man for a moment before becoming another weapon for those wars.  It was barely the next day when I saw on my Facebook feed a picture of the bombing with the message of someone's political aspirations.  It disgusted me to see the pain of hundreds, or even thousands, used as some point for someone's argument.  I'm not saying that we should not think in the aftermath of a horrible event, but we should not use these events as some sort of false fuel for our personal crusades.  We have become so accustomed to pitting ourselves against an antagonistic world that we no longer can view anything but our own as reasonable.  

     That is why I mourn for that brief moment that we mourned as a nation.  For that brief moment when we all knew who the enemy was.  That brief moment when we stood arm-in-arm as the people, determined to form a more perfect union.     

My Beef with Postmodernism

     Today I wanted to take a little time to explain one of the major themes of my blog: postmodernism.  I have held a quite oppositional stance in regards to postmodernism, which is probably somewhat obvious from my blogs.  Much of the reason I stand so firmly against postmodernism is reflected in a personal mantra I try to follow: "Ignorance is the enemy."   

     For those of you unfamiliar with this term "postmodernism," it refers to a popular mindset that there is not absolute truth, only subjective truth.  Each individual is free to develop what is true and pursue their own path to happiness, or enlightenment, or perfection.  No one can reasonably argue against another's viewpoint because their truth is not another's.  The main issues that it deals with are religion and philosophy.  The most common way it finds itself manifested in society is the "live and let live" way of living.

     Now, I want to say that it is a noble goal to live in harmony with one another, but ignorance is not the way to do so.  One does not build a stable relationship by avoiding any tough situations.  One does not have a healthy marriage when the couple never has an argument.  The real meat of a relationship is understanding the differences between your own way of thinking and someone else's.  Now this might not sound like it goes against what postmodernism stands for, but in practice, postmodernism finds the participants of a relationship simply avoiding the tough conversations because it gets nowhere.

     This is another fault that postmodernism has allowed to resurface in a big way: human pride.  In having our own personal truth, which goes uncontested, we grow arrogant that our own truth is obviously better than anyone else's.  So when we do have individuals who speak their mind about certain topics, we find they are often ignoramuses who simply like the sound of their own voice.  Thus the activity of reasonable debate grows more taboo in the company of friends.  

     It also further reinforces the mindset of "us vs. them" that seems to be extremely prevalent in U.S. society.  We make saints out of those who champion our cause and see only the straw men of our imaginations as the opposition.  Our well-meaning debates suddenly become games that hold a bloodthirsty crowd around the ring.  Arguments are left with either
victory" or "loss" rather than celebrating the victory of open minds. 

     So this is my problem with postmodernism: that it encourages people to convince themselves of their own rightness rather than go out and explore what people have to say.  The problems that our government faces are very much rooted in the problems of postmodern thinking.  The problems we as the voting and politically-active citizens face are because of those flawed ideas contained within postmodern thinking.  Please, if you get nothing else from my blogs, understand my motto and remember it: Ignorance is the enemy.    

Fear in the Modern Church

     The question was once posed, "Is it better to be feared or loved?"  While a thousand forgotten leaders have pondered their role in the progression of their nation, this is also a question that has been posed by Christians in relation to God: Is it better to love God or to fear Him?  The answer, as is prone to be in matters concerning God, is complicated: both.

     If you've ever been to Europe (which I have not, my information comes from others) something you might know is that the church buildings are very prominent in most, if not all, of the major cities that date back several hundred years.  In Germany, the churches are some of the few buildings that survived the harsh bombing in World War II.  These facts are not only a sign of the power of the church in those times, but also of the view of God they wanted to portray: one of a great and all-powerful God.  Upon entering these buildings, one is instantly humbled by the rich art and huge scale of their architecture.  Paintings on their interior invoke powerful feelings in the beholders.  

     Fast forward to today: most churches are not built in the same manner as they were in those former days.  This, though, is not reflective of the waning power and wealth of a collective church, but more reflective of a changing focus on the attributes of God.  Churches today are set in a modern style that blends in well with its surroundings.  Some sanctuaries now resemble concert halls more so than houses of God.  Most churches hold a variety of amenities that seemingly have no connection to the work of the Lord.  

     These two different styles of buildings hold very different styles of viewing God.  While those of former times may have viewed God as more a powerful and vengeful God, it seems that the people of today focus more on the Loving God portrayed in the Bible.  We can see this played out in many of the outlets of the Christian faith as well.  Worship songs, evangelism methods, and church attendees are a very noticeable part of this viewpoint change.  We can hear a lot of songs about God's love for us, but not as many that look at the awesome power and justice of God.  The ever-so-cliche line that "Jesus loves you" is another sign of the pushed view that our God is a God of love (though sadly this line finds itself often used as a weapon rather than a comforting word for a brother or sister in Christ).  One can also look at church congregations and see varying levels of formal wear, ranging from full suits to shorts and t-shirts.  

     Now, I want to take a time here to state that none of this is really a negative thing in the right context.  Nor am I trying to paint the old church as the prime example to aim for (if so, maybe I need to read my own stuff).  At all stages of its existence, the Church has been a flawed thing because it has been under the direction of flawed men and women. But there is a great deal of importance in the way we view God because it affects the way we serve Him.

     There is a very fine line between respecting a loving God and saying that "Jesus is my homeboy."  Likewise, there is also a big difference between a humble servant and a depressed, broken slave.  There is a delicate balance we must find in loving God and respecting Him.  The hard part of that is that this balance is loving God with all our heart and respecting Him with the same.  The nice part of this, though, is that they go hand-in-hand.  The more we respect the almighty creator of the universe, the more we can love Him and the more we love Him, the more we understand His great power and justice.

     I write this to ensure that we do not put God in a box, because He cannot be contained by the imagination of the greatest of us.  I write this to remind you that we have an amazing God who is greater than anything and everything; that there was a good reason great men tremble before God and fall prostrate before Him.  I also write to remind you that this God loves you with all His heart.  Remember that the next time you enter a church.   

In Response to "The Evolution Wars"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html

     Today's blog actually comes from a paper I am writing for class.  It's a bit lengthy, but I think it's pretty good.  Thanks for reading!  Please respond if you have something you want to say!

            I recently read the article by Claudia Wallis entitled “Evolution Wars.”  In this article, Wallis explores the teaching of macroevolution and intelligent design in schools and the movement behind these viewpoints.  I found this article to be only mildly informative as to the events surrounding the intelligent design/macroevolution controversy.  I also found it to be much in favor of the evolutionists’ point-of-view.  The relevant debate, however, seems not to depend upon one’s definition of the origins of man, but rather upon the purpose of the public educational system.

The Article

            Wallis’ article presents readers with the arguments of both the Darwinist viewpoint and the viewpoint of those who advocate intelligent design.  She then explores the methods the intelligent design community has used to further their cause and lessen the foothold of evolutionistic teaching as well as the response of the evolutionist community.  The quotes chosen to be used, questionable historicity, and language used in this article make it very much slanted towards the view of the evolutionists. 

            First, the quotes Wallis chose to use in this article, as well as the format she choose to use in presenting them, were used strategically in a manner that conveyed that all those arguments presented by the intelligent design community have been easily accounted for and answered by the Darwinist community.  This is simply not a matter of fact.  The work of not only the intelligent design community, but as well as many other anti-natural selection scientists, has posed major question regarding the origins of man.  Questions such as the “fine-tuning” of the universe as well as the lack of explanation for the energy in the universe have remained unanswered since they were posed.

            Wallis’ article also contains some convenient twists on historical facts.  The main error she makes here is that of omission, though it seems likely this was done deliberately.  At the mention of the Scopes trial (p. 28), she states that, “Tennessee famously banned the teaching of evolution and convicted school-teacher John Scopes of violating that ban in the ‘monkey trial’ of 1925.”  While these are all factual, they present Scopes as the helpless victim of government enforcement.  The reality is that Scopes was coerced into using the banned book by a set of individuals desiring to debate the law.  Scopes knew exactly what he was getting into and ultimately faced no punishment for his trial, though he faced a guilty judgment.  The arduous trial was used mainly as a weapon against the religious establishment; a weapon that would prove to be quite effective, especially when paired with the comically inaccurate, yet well-respected play, Inherit the Wind.

            The third problem with the article was that the very language used to describe either side of the debate made the intelligent design community out to be little more than right-wing radicals bent on ruining the day of scientific fact.  She hints at Behe being extreme with the inclusion of irrelevant facts in his description.  She boils down the intelligent design community as nothing more than “anti-Darwin” in several places.  Wallis goes along with the Darwinist-endorsed opinion that intelligent design is “unscientific,” classifying it as such later in the article.  Also often are the themes of the religious community being the big, bad, dogmatic wolf, forcing people into their will.  I find this especially ironic, as the scientific community gains its apparent unified viewpoint regarding the origins of man because of its extreme dogma on the topic.  These failings on the part of the writer impose a substantial amount of weakness to any amount of argument she might have attempted to make, but her question regarding what should be taught in schools is a very relevant thought in today’s culture.

The Problem

            The educational system of the United States has evolved into a large and very important part of our society as it has in all the world.  Individuals are not only legally required to attend school, they are practically required to out the absolute necessity of education in our culture.  One who desires to do more than work in the fast-food industry, or other such undesirable jobs, must at least complete secondary education.  As most students in America attend publicly-funded schools, they also play a large role in the political situation of the U.S.  Thus the rise of the evolution vs. intelligent design debate was no surprise as concerned parents wanted to ensure their children were not being brainwashed into a certain manner of thinking.  Their concern is a worthy one, but the reasoning for “teaching the controversy” goes far beyond simple religious freedom.

            Back in the humble beginnings of this great nation, the public school system was started as a means of teaching children how to read their Bibles.  I state this not as some ill-fated argument that the U.S. is a so-called “Christian nation,” but rather to discover the purpose of the educational system.  Back in those times, the ability to read the Bible was an important part of life.  So much so that the people decided it would be worth their money to pay someone else to educate their children in literacy.  Today, our schools teach more than simple English, but math, science, music, physical education, crafting, foreign languages, as well as a large amount of other courses.  What is the purpose of all this, though?  Many students often complain about seemingly frivolous classes (mainly math classes) that they will “never use in life” and, for the most part, they are correct.  So why is the educational system so vast?  I would argue that the purpose of the educational system’s vastness can be described in four different areas.

1.      Communication

One of the educational department’s main goals is to ensure the ability of citizens to communicate efficiently amongst one another.  Communication is vital to anyone who wants to be a part of the world on any level.

2.      Life Skills

Schools work to also develop skills, such as arithmetic, that are important for every field of work.  Schools also work to help develop students’ interests and shape them into a career.  Also, those “pointless” classes work to enable students to acquire new skills in life even after they have completed their education.

3.      Inter-Personal and Intra-Personal Skills

Public education works to ensure individuals are able to work in a community, as is required in almost every occupation available.

4.      Critical Thinking

Finally, schools work to develop the ability of students to think critically about the issues that surround them.  The ability to think critically is vital to the informed voter, worker, and citizen of a nation.

It is because of this last skill development that I believe the ability to “teach the controversy” in schools is extremely important.  As one of those topics that will seemingly never be resolved, it is important for students to be able to consider the facts for themselves and decide what is right.  Should we choose to simply teach one way or another we would be depriving them of this opportunity to become critical thinkers. 

This means I advocate the teaching of macroevolution in schools. Even as a Christian.  Though I am a decided young earth creationist, I also have an understanding that there are a lot of theories regarding how God created the universe.  Evolution coincides with some of them.  But just because I disagree with something does not mean that it should be stricken from the school curriculum. 

In conclusion, I think it is important for the U.S. educational system to be able to provide students with the ability to think critically and that means teaching about the existence of alternative views of the origins of man and the weaknesses of the commonly accepted scientific model, macroevolution.  If we fail to do this, we are training our next generation to fail.

The Sanctity of the Old

     I want to start by apologizing for both the lateness of this post as well as the entire absence of Friday's post.  I also want to encourage you all to comment on my posts should you have thoughts that you believe will expand and add to the topic.  I, by no means, am in possession of all the right answers and I don't want to pretend like I am.  Please, if you have a constructive comment to add, by all means post it.  Thanks for your readership!

     "The good ol' days" are often spoken of, but rarely reflect any manner of fact in reality.  The trend of seeing things as better "back then" is not a new one, but rather one that has stretched through human history for as long as there was a moment to look back to.  

     Christians, or even simply those who are religious, have a tendency to look happily at traditions and frown at those rising trends in the faith today.  One of the most notable looks at this is the attitudes of church members regarding the music in services.  Few will speak about the ever-revered hymns beyond the simple "they're boring" spoken by the over-exposed youth.  What is it that makes these songs inherently superior to those that are produced today?  Is the music quality that much more sophisticated?  This seems unlikely, as most hymns hold a rather simple structure.  Are their messages more theologically sound?  Doubtful, as some pretty deep stuff is the subject matter of many a new worship song.  No, the reason these things are held as the greatest good is because they have become safe--no one debates a song found in a hymnal, but those new songs are often questioned.

     Now I don't want to turn this blog into some sort of crusade against hymns--nor do I want to give off the impression that I do not like hymns.  They are simply the best representation for the point I want to get across here.  Humans desire to remain in the "safe zone" of life.  No one wants to go outside their comfort zone.  This is natural, though.  But what is natural is not always what is best.  We make saints of those who have long since passed and we make flawless work of those things we long to keep.  While retaining an optimistic outlook on the things of the past is an admirable view, there comes a problem when this view either distorts the past or it distorts our view of the present.

     Holding those "old things" at a higher level than those things being produced now is a special kind of irrationality--one that every one of us is guilty of.  We can actually gain a lot bigger and better perspective in life from the realization that not everything about those things was and is perfect.  That organ that is so beloved by churches today was once thought to be the work of the devil in its first days.  The deified Martin Luther King Jr. was hardly above reproach, but look at the work he was able to accomplish as a flesh-and-blood man in the service of God.  

     I think the same thing often applied to the main men and women of the Bible.  We think of just how much of a connection they had with God and just how naturally these acts of greatness came for them.  This is wrong, though.  Those men and women suffered from many of the same faults we all wrestle with.  Many described in the Bible questioned what they were being told to do.  Many questioned the existence of God, or at least His sovereignty.  The Bible is filled with perfectly flawed individuals.  Individuals just like you and me.

     So I leave you with this: go and be like those in the Bible.  The deeds God can and will accomplish through you are no less great than those accomplished through David and Paul.  find encouragement from the flaws we all share and overcome.

Is Government a Business?

     With the recent talk concerning the national budget and the ever-rising national debt, there has been a lot of talk concerning how to remedy the bad situation that we find ourselves in today.  Some of this talk leads to comparisons between the government and a business.  Many people have protested against this comparison.  Do I think government is a business?  No, but government (and those governed) have a lot they can learn from business practices.  

     I'm going to start off with a rough analogy: imagine Netflix is similar to our government.  We as the "constituents" pay subscription fees (like taxes) and we elect the members of Netflix leadership (for the purposes of this example).  We receive the benefits of Netflix quite happily ... for a while.  Pretty soon, though, someone starts thinking Netflix should start having an expanded movie selection.  So they phone up their local representative and that representative, desiring heavily to be re-elected, does their best work to ensure they get what they want.  Things continue to work fine until someone again decides they don't get enough from Netflix.  "I want music too," someone thinks and soon calls their representative, demanding that music be added to the services.  The representative tentatively replies that he can push that, but subscription fees might rise.  The caller slowly decides that that would be acceptable and, eventually, music would be added to the services.  This process would repeat and after prices have risen a decent amount, someone would start complaining.  Add in a few prices rises brought about by necessity (rising hardware costs, inflation, etc.) and people would be livid.  Netflix would be forced between raising prices to accommodate all the features that the people want or cutting features--a lose-lose situation.  Years down the line, people have become accustomed to Netflix providing their meals for them, forgetting what Netflix was meant to do in the first place.  The company, meanwhile, finds itself in a rapidly sinking ship.  In desperation, it tries to cut features--only to find a wall of opposition from the people.  Finding a greater fear of suggesting to raise prices, Netflix instead simply continues to comply with the wishes of the people, hoping salvation might come later ... when new leaders are elected.  This myth is to remain such, though, and Netflix crashes and burns in a big way.

     My analogy above is a bit strange, as a synthesis of government and pure business would be, but it illustrates the idea I want to convey: government could learn a lot from smart business practices.  Part of the flaw of government is an innate flaw in mankind--those who are in a position desire to remain in that position.  Those we elect into office will make promises and do things to appease their constituents that have ill effects on the state as a whole.  The other part of the flaw resides in the people, who demand that the government render an increasing amount of services.  In our analogy, if Netflix was behaving as a business should have, it would have refused to offer music as a service.  Netflix is a movie service, not a music service.  Even further down the line, Netflix could have cut certain features in order to maintain prices.  People would have complained, but in the end it all works out.  When the government attempts to cut funding for something, we end up with this:

We grasp on to every little thing like pathological hoarders, unwilling to part with even the smallest, most insignificant things.  The government, afraid of insulting or angering people, complies and nothing changes.

     Smart businesses do not find themselves in the situation the U.S. government currently finds itself.  This is partly because of the cold efficiency businesses can have in consideration to money, but also because they know how to maintain a balance.  The U.S. government can and direly needs to learn something from businesses, or it will meet the same fate as our fictional Netflix.

Just to be safe, the picture above came from Josh Ciesla on his Twitter.