Blandus Rex

Well, in the midst of all my Christmas studies, I lost sight of why we are celebrating Christmas. I knew it in my head. I was teaching it to others, but I did not own it in my heart.

I have been under a tremendous amount of pressure to get the nursery ready for little Regis. Some of this pressure I placed upon myself, some came from friends and family, but the bulk came from the Regina. She claims to be "nesting."

I cannot go into all the details, but things were not turning out as they should have and I eventually lost my cool and pounded the floor in anger and frustration. I broke my hand.

I am ashamed and embarrassed by my actions. I am a deacon and soon to be a minister of my church. I know that we are all sinners, but I should not have lost it like that.

Matthew 1:1-17 records a genealogy of Jesus Christ. It is filled with great names, but also scoundrels. Abraham repeatedly lied about his marital status to save his own life. Jacob was a bit of a swindler. Terah disguised herself as a prostitute to have sex with her father-in-law and bear his child. Rehab was a whore. Ruth was a Moabite – the decendents of Moab – incestuous offspring of Lot and his oldest daughter. David killed Uriah to lay with Bathsheba. Solomon, for all his wisdom, had many wives and never found real happiness. The list goes on, but the point is that God used all these remarkably fallible human beings in his divinely orchestrated plan to bring about our Savior.

I draw great comfort from this list. I see the miracle of divine intention. I see the purposefulness of history. But most of all, I see how the Lord uses some of the most screwed-up people to communicate his message. The list of most screwed-up people includes me.

As one screw-up to others, let me ask you to remember Jesus who is the Christ during your Christmas celebrations this year. In the midst of your preparations, in the midst of your baking, in wrapping, and shopping, and travelling, and families, and caroling, and watching those old cartoons on t.v. – Let us remember who it is that we celebrate, who it is that we worship, who it is who came to save. Let us remember the miracle that a screw-up like me (and you) can communicate the life-saving message of the Gospel of the Glorious & Risen Jesus Christ. Do not let your light be hidden, but raise it high that all people might come to trust Him and be saved.

Merry Christmas Everyone

Even dancing hippos receive bad parenting sometimes. I didn't know they made underware that big.

I have been struggling with the issue of circumcision lately. Not mine, of course. That decision was made for me a long time ago. No, I am the sole decision-maker for my son, Regis Filius, who is due in January. Sometimes I get a little nervous about parenting, but I am not really afraid of it. If I make a few mistakes, what of it? I apologize, learn from it, and move on with a little more wisdom. But circumcision is a one-time decision with life-long consequences. The kid is due in three weeks and I still don’t know what I will decide.

There is no religious motivation to circumcise. Christians do not curry favor with God by the removal of flesh. In fact, Paul repeatedly warns against the "false circumcision" and the "mutilators of the flesh." However, Paul also prompts Timothy to be circumcised as an adult so as not to hinder his ministry. I’m not saying that all ministers should be circumcised, but the New Testament does not disallow the practice if you want it.

There also does not seem to be any medical advantage to circumcision. There are studies that suggest possible medical benefits (decreased risk of cancer, some issues related to cleanliness), but there is nothing definite that is widely accepted by the medical community. Further, elective circumcision violates a general principle I hold that unnecessary surgery should not be performed. How do I balance possible long-term benefits against elective surgery? No association of Pediatric Physicians supports routine circumcision. Neither do they oppose it. From a medical standpoint, it is all up in the air at this time.

There is also not strong evidence about STDs. Both sides in the circumcision debate claim that the other side is the cause of increased rates of AIDS and other STDs. Fact is, my son should not be engaged in the type of risky behavior that leads to sexually transmitted diseases. If he is, then the disease is the least of his worries. I do not say this flippantly. But there are too many parents who spend their time and energy on other things, do not train their children, and then give them condoms and depo-shots as teenagers because they "just don’t know what else to do." From the day he is born, the Regina and I will train little Reg in the way he should go. Like many before us, our primary strategy for parenting will be active involvement in his development, not shock at his actions in adolescence.

Which brings us to the most contentious part of the debate: sexuality. Both, pro-circ and anti-circ claim that they have the best sex imaginable. There are many men who actually write testimonials about how much they love (or hate) circumcision’s affect on their lives. There is also a study that indicates that American women prefer a circumcised penis. Again, Reg should not be showing his penis to a lot of women – American or otherwise – and I hope that he has the good sense to settle down with a woman who does not have a lot of experience with a lot of penises. I don’t want my boy to lack any enjoyment from sex, but I also hope that he comes to realize (with the help of good parenting) a proper and healthy view of sex as part of a larger relationship (marriage = life[man + woman]). I hope his primary concern is to love his wife as himself and not whether his regular orgasm rates a "10" or a "7".

The final argument to deal with is that of the child’s rights. Some claim that it is unethical to make a medical decision without the child’s consent. From my point of view this is just dumb. The child is a child and I am the parent. Part of my job as a caring parent is to make the medical decisions for him. He will get shots, he will get dental surgery, he will get glasses – and he will not have a say in any of it. My job as a parent is to do my best to prepare my boy for the rest of his life. The "no consent" argument is misplaced.

So, everyone has an opinion. The worlds of medicine, religion, and social custom are divided. There does not seem to be any clear evidence that would sway a neutral, rational decision-maker. I am circumcised. Do I want my son to look like me? Do I risk the possible drawbacks in the hope of some future benefit? There are three websites that may be of interest. The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages is an anti-circ site. They are very passionate about their stand, but some of their science sounds like young-earth creationists. A pro-circ site called CircumcisionInfo.com does a good job of balancing anti-circ emotionalism. The International Circumcision Information Reference Centre is a UK site that addresses more of the medical issues in a pro-circ way.

I know there are problems with Klink lately, but if you can leave me a message let me know what you think about the whole issue. What is my role as the Dad? What is best for the boy? Is circumcision preventive medicine or body mutilation? How would you decide?

A much celebrated post at Tilde’s place takes issue with popular manifestations of what is being called "the Christian worldview." While his disagreements over various applications of this particular worldview may be debated, what struck me was his call for a definition of a worldview. After all, if we claim one, we should know what we are talking about and be able to describe it to others. Tilde offered a conceptual beginning to the discussion that attempts to center on Christ. In the interest of bloggers considering "the Christian worldview," I would like to offer a more robust explanation.

Noetic structure : the sum total of everything a person believes.
Worldview : the conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality

A person’s worldview is how they answer questions raised by their noetic structure. There are several ways to categorize a discussion of worldviews. I like the method presented by James Sire in The Universe Next Door. He asks seven basic questions that get to "the essential, rock bottom answers" that a particular worldview provides. I will list them and then give a brief (very brief) introduction as to how Christianity answers them.

1) What is the prime reality – the really real?
God is the "really real." He is trinitarian – Father, Son, Holy Spirit are three distinct centers of consciousness sharing fully in one divine nature and activities of each. The second person of the trinity (Son) is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the creative agent of the triune God. Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully Man (doctrine of the incarnation). God is infinite, personal, transcendent, omniscient, sovereign, and good. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
The world was created by Christ, through Christ, and for Christ. God created the universe out of nothing. For his own good reasons, God created the universe with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system. (i.e. cause and effect are consistent and personal actions in the now can determine what happens in the next)

3) What is a human being?
Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, social capacity, and creativity. Every human being lives in a condition of sin and alienation from the Creator. As such, each person’s fate depends on their relationship with God. Human beings exist for God’s own good pleasure. The chief end of humans is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

4) What happens to a person at death?
Since God rejects sin, humans are separated from God for eternity in a place called Hell. Jesus Christ took on the form and very nature of a man becoming fully God and fully Man. He committed no sin and died as an atoning sacrifice for all humans who would admit their sin and trust his sacrifice to be sufficient for their salvation.

5) Why is it possible to know anything at all?
Human beings can know both the world around them and God himself because God has built into them the capacity to do so and because he takes an active role in communicating with them (Sire). The foundation of human knowledge is the character of God as creator. Everything exists that we might know God. God reveals himself by general revelation and special revelation.

6) How do we know what is right and wrong?
All human beings carry the image of God. As such, we are moral creatures. But, sin has distorted the image of God in humans. This explains is why humans turn away from God and the moral law. God has provided special revelation through scripture to guide humans in proper conduct. These scriptures provide both principles (general) and rules (specific) for human behavior. In ambiguous situations, Christians will be judged on adherence to God’s rules and the attitudes of their hearts in following principles.

7) What is the meaning of human history?
History is linear and meaningful. It has a beginning, middle, and end. God gives meaning to history.

So, what do we do with this information?
Well, if we are Christians then we use our formulation of theology – our worldview – to guide us in our thought, philosophy, and actions. When we articulate theological concepts, they will align with this worldview if they are to be called "Christian." If our individual thoughts and actions do not align with the definition of the Christian worldview, then we must question whether or not we may truly bear his name.

When Christians give a public opinion on the role of science and technology in culture, it should reflect this worldview. When we give opinions on public policy, these opinions should be guided by Christian teaching. When we raise our children, take care of our elderly, interact with people everyday – we should be guided by an expanded understanding of what these "rock bottom" concepts teach us. When we fail to do so, we dishonor the God who gave us life and run the risk of leading those weaker than ourselves astray.

Most people allow their noetic structures to determine their worldview. The duty of Christians is to allow their worldview to determine their noetic structure. This is submission to God. This is a step on the path to holiness. This is how faith glorifies the Creator. All Christians are fallen and personal individuals. We will have different opinions on how these things work themselves out in our daily lives. But at the core of our thought, at the base of our logic, at the center of our opinions must be an understanding of the reality that God has defined for us through Christ.
Anything less is inadequate.

Carl F. H. Henry died two days ago. This is a sad, sad time for many evangelicals. But it is also a reminder of the call to action he represented:

"Our weak batteries can be recharged by a jump cable that reconnects believers to the divine current held in store for us by our supernatural Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer. We rely too much on our own finite power and world energy; we are dazzled by technology more than by theology and morality. To gain God's empowerment for mission we must first acknowledge our vulnerabilities and our spiritual immaturity. Beyond our lifetime, if Christ tarries, others will run the relay and carry the torch. For us, in the rocky terrain of the present-day cultural conflict, the time is now, and the race is now."

A eulogy for Carl F. H. Henry.

The Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement named in his honor.

Perhaps we will not end in civil war over the rampant fiatistic court system. The people could simply defund the judges (via Ann Coulter). I am strangely attracted to this idea.

Ms. Marshall has as much right to proclaim a right to gay marriage from the Massachusetts Supreme Court as I do to proclaim it from my column. The Massachusetts legislature ought to ignore the court's frivolous ruling – and cut the justices' salaries if they try it again.

This is the crux of the thing:

While conservatives keep pretending we live in a democracy, liberals are operating on the rule of the jungle. The idea of the rule of law is that if your daughter is raped and murdered, you won't go out and kill the guy who did it. In return for your forbearance, you get to vote for the rulers who will see that justice is done. But liberals cheat. They won't let us vote on an increasingly large number of issues by defining the entire universe – abortion, gay marriage, high-school convocations – as a "constitutional" issue.

You may disagree, but from this conservative's point of view - the Liberals cheat. Seems past time to fight back somehow. Excercising the people's right to set state salaries seems like as good a place to start as any.

Should conservatives return to the law of the jungle to set things right?

NYU practiced safe censorship this past October when they denied a student's desire to film explicit sex acts in front of an NYU class. Now to be clear : Blandus is against porn. This would be porn. But even beyond that, I think the girl's defense of "artistic freedom" is a little off base.

Paula Carmicino claims that she wanted to contrast "animalistic" sex acts with more mundane activities. From the NYT article:

"She planned to intersperse 30-second clips of passionate sex with scenes of the couple engaged in more mundane activities, like watching television and reading a newspaper.
Simulating the sex would have defeated her purpose, she said. "That's censoring the sex part. My thing is how we censor ourselves during the day when we're not having sex."

The problem with her artistic method is multi-fold:
(1) She was using actors, not "real people."
(2) No one has sex in front of a class full of students - any "animalistic" behavior would not be authentic, but should be believed to be contrived.
(3) Few people, especially actors, behave "normally" when they are on camera. The mundane self-censorship would have as much to do with camera presence as with everyday life.

I am not against "art." But if you are going to claim that you are trying to depict two facets of "real life" you can't contrive a method that flaws your intention. If you are really creating "art" and not just trying to shock or sensationalize then you should be able communicate no matter your limitations. Ms. Carmicino could have accomplished her stated goals much better by following the university's guidelines, but instead chose to claim a non-existent victimhood. Christianity supports human expression through art, but Christians should demand at least some level of common sense from art's practicioners.

All the Smooth News Unfit to Print Anywhere Else....

If any doubt remained, proof that the Political Left is filled with oportunistic whores. If Babes Against Bush is what passes for democracy, maybe we shouldn't be exporting it.

In an ever-expanding drive for true tolerance, Canada is enforcing Islamic Law. Bob, get your Qu'ran ready, these things have migrated South lately.

A 2nd grade child was disciplined for engaging in sexual related talk in Lafayette. ACLU approves of this particular type of sexual speech and will sue to protect the student's 1st Amendment Rights. They should know from many other school-related 1st Amendment cases involving Christian students that the speech is not protected unless it is student-led and takes place outside of any organized school sponsored activity (like classroom instruction time).

Tony Blair talks some sense about public higher education, gets put down by party leaders. Students in opposition prove they are right by singing children's songs. With all due respect to my British readers - Makes me proud to be an American.

Now that the tsunami of "Gay-Marriage" is crashing down upon us, I thought I'd brainstorm about some of the things that would change once we stripped the word "marriage" of all legitimate meaning.

Let me start by quoting George Will:

Last June the U.S. Supreme Court, overturning Texas's anti-sodomy laws, spoke of a need to respect "autonomy of the self . . . [in] certain intimate conduct." The Massachusetts court, taking its bearings from that ruling, cited "respect for individual autonomy" -- emphasis added -- when defining marriage simply as "the exclusive and permanent commitment of the married partners to one another."

The binary idea of marriage -- friends and foes of gay marriage agree it is an institution involving couples -- arose because there are two sexes. But if the meaning of marriage and the right to marital status is sufficiently defined with reference to "autonomy of the self . . . [in] certain intimate conduct," what principled, nonarbitrary ground is there for denying the right of marriage to, say, a threesome whose members insist that it is necessary for their self-fulfillment through intimacy?

What principled, nonarbitrary ground is there for denying any of the following?

1) Polygamists - Let's Go! (thanks to Jake for the link)

2) Since many sexual codes of conduct are based on a common understanding of appropriate male/female relationships (an understanding that has its roots in the traditional understanding of marriage) - there is increasingly no rational reason to keep a Physician from dating an active patient, or a Psychologist/Client, or Social Worker/Client, or a Teacher/Student. As the basis of marriage becomes the "autonomy of the sexual self" (ASS), there can be no group who can stand in the way of two ASSes trying to consensually make a go of it.

3) Most states do not require partners to select a common last name after marriage. Two good buddies can now beat the "family calling plan" system of many cellular phone companies by claiming to be married and shouting "discrimination" at anyone who refuses to do business with them. In fact, this will become possible for entire sales forces - drastically cutting overhead with all those free minutes. Multiple other scams are now possible.

4) Sometimes my ASS wants to have sex with other women. Adultery can no longer really be considered a valid reason for divorce in our enlightened culture can it? My wife wants to divorce me because I exercised my constitutionally protected ASS? I want half of her money! - and tack on a little extra for my pain and suffering while yer at it...

5) Look for immigration rates to rise, once aliens figure out that if they can get one person nationalized, the rest of the family can all marry him and move to the USofA in perfect legality. What red-blooded American man wouldn't want a female from each continent to marry him? Or a man from each continent? Or both? Why not??

6) Of course I can have my dog in the hospital room with me! You can't discriminate against my wife! Look, some men prefer to have sex with non-humans...How can we judge them? What right do we have dispute him and his animal's ASS?

7) If my I like my daughter's ASS and she likes mine, who are you to judge us?

No. The only way to keep any of the above from happening is for judges to decide that they will fiat against them. Once any common understanding of marriage is stripped away and all moral arguments are regulated to the "not rational" junkheap only the individuals holding the power of the state can decide what is Right and what is Wrong. Only the legal definitions of the people in power matter. This leads to . . .

8) Allegiance to the State becomes the only acceptable form of belief. Agree with the State or the State will incarcerate you for your "re-education" in the acceptable forms of belief and behavior within the State.
There is only one State and the Supreme Court Justices are its Prophets Interpreters.
Behold the State. Worship the State. You are one with the State....

We no longer have law to protect us. Perhaps we can pass an FMA. Even so, it may not be enough.

So, each and every night, I sit down with the Regina and we read the daily entry in our little what-your-baby-is-doing-right-now book. Here is something it told us last night:

"Five-sixths of the iron stored in the baby's liver accumulates during the last trimester. The stored iron will compensate in the baby's first four months out of the womb for inadequate amounts of iron in breast milk or formulas..."

Do you see what the author did? She implied that there was something deficient in the way the mother delievers nutrients and so babies have to compensate for that fact by storing iron. This is evolutionary-type language and goes to show how popular notions can infiltrate everyday life situations.

Why not say the following:

The baby's liver is currently storing five-sixths of the iron it will need in the first four months after birth. The mother's breast milk contains exactly the right amount of better bio-available iron to sustain the child until solid foods are introduced...

You see, the first example implicitly denies the existence of a Planner. The second example honors God and his provision. The notion of "objective" language is usually a myth. Even common examples of speech betray a person's fundamental belief system, also know as a worldview. Make sure that your worldview accepts and relies upon the actual existence and work of your Creator. Seek to live your life, and speak your speech, in a way that honors him.

Don't know what to do after exams? Try some Homemade Liquid Nitrogen Cream!

Let Mom and Dad know that you are actually more useful now that you have a degree. You cut 30-40 minutes off the time it takes to make ice cream and it only cost them 50 Grand!

What tasty ingredients (or industrial strength chemicals) would you put in your super-as-all-heck-deluxe ice cream recipie?