Blandus Rex

New Blog Location!!

2004-05-19T13:45:00.000-04:00

please see the new and improved Blandus Rex at
ockhamist.com/blandus/

Thanx!

New Baby Killers

2004-05-19T13:44:00.000-04:00

A disturbing new trend in the fight of the baby killers is developing. The tools are the FDA and regulations regarding medical use of ultrasound equipment. The instigators are various abortion groups and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM).

The AIUM has been provoking the FDA into investigating and shutting down so-called Fetal Foto Boutiques. These are places where pregnant women can go to get 3-D and 4-D pictures and videos of their unborn child in special frames and keepsake ornaments. Some of these baby photo studios have been reported to use the ultrasound machines on higher energy exposures for as long as an hour to get the pictures. Although nothing has ever been proven, this is potentially harmful to the child and should not be practiced.

The official stance of the AIUM regarding the use of ultrasound technology is thus:

The AIUM advocates the responsible use of diagnostic ultrasound. The AIUM strongly discourages the non-medical use of ultrasound for psychosocial or entertainment purposes. The use of either 2-dimensional (2D) or 3-dimensional (3D) ultrasound to only view the fetus, obtain a picture of the fetus or determine the fetal gender without a medical indication is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice.

Everyone can agree that it is probably bad to have long-exposure high-energy ultrasounds on little babies, right? Isn’t it great that we have an agency like the FDA to protect us from those who would put us in harm’s way for a profit? No one really likes those cutesy strip-mall boutiques anyway, right?

Ahhhh, that’s what the baby killers would like you to think. Under the cover of “consumer protection” they move to restrict access to the truth about abortion.

You see, the key word in the AIUM’s statement is psychosocial. According to these experts, use of the ultrasound purely for informational or educational purposes – even if used correctly and under the supervision of a physician – is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice. This means that the official stance of the organization is that ultrasound machines may not be used in crisis pregnancy centers. The statement effectively moves the caring practice of the physicians at these centers outside the realm of acceptable medicine.

Before you think I am reading too much into this, here is a quote from a recent president of the AIUM, the very active L.A. doctor Lawrence Platt. Dr. Platt was interviewed by NPR recently and was asked about how the FDA’s new aggressive stance should apply to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. He said,

"I think that to use the equipment in this way is similarly a misuse of technology. To provide information is certainly appropriate, but to use it to sway one’s decision and impact someone’s rights, I think, is the wrong way to use this technology."

Apparently, Dr. Platt believes that if you have a "right", then you must immediately exercise it without discretion or evaluation of evidence. There also seems to be the idea that the purpose of a medical faculty is to suppress all information that runs contrary to his private non-medically informed sociopolitical vision. Generally, people believe that medical associations are about organizing and presenting medical facts. In reality, they are political institutions bent on achieving their own ends. The effects of sin cannot be regulated though extensive education. Doctors, as much as anyone, are corrupted by sin and may skew advice for selfish ambition. There is no true objectivity.

The most obvious factual statement is that abortion is always more harmful to a baby fetus than any level of ultrasound. This is so obvious that we should not assume that Dr. Platt and others like him at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine do not recognize it. This medical body has taken a political stand in favor of those who would promote violence against unborn children and actively work to suppress the efforts of those who have a different point of view. The culture war touches every soul and every organization is affected. If you know someone who belongs to the AIUM, encourage them to take a stand against the leadership that seeks to kill children – and remove psychosocial from the official position statement.

Blandus Moves!!!

2004-02-04T07:53:00.000-05:00

Well, it can't be called complete yet, but the new blog is limping along over at the Ockhamist.

You may now read Blandus Rex at http://www.ockhamist.com/blandus/.

See you there!

P.S.
If you have been very generous as to link to me, please update your link. Thanks.

The Case Against Homosexual Marriage

2004-01-15T10:14:00.000-05:00

Today, Al Mohler gives a reasonable cultural explanation of the case against homosexual marriage. He does so without a lot of hype and is honest about his presuppositions. If you think you are pro-"gay-marriage" and are open to considering arguments from the other side, I suggest you check it out.

"The Joy of the Lord is your Strength"

2004-01-13T09:15:00.000-05:00

The Regis Fillius is finally here!

Date : 1/10/2004
Wt. : 7 lbs.
Lg : 20 in.

Mother and baby are both doing great! In fact, the Regina is better than I've ever seen her.

My hand is still broke (cast comes off on Thursday), so I can't type that much. Will have more to post later. Also, look for the site to be moving to a new address soon.

Christmas for Dummies

2003-12-22T10:19:00.000-05:00

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

A Thong for the Rest of Us

2003-12-20T10:31:00.000-05:00

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

To Be, or Not to Be...

2003-12-19T13:08:00.000-05:00

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?

Worldviews : Exposed!

2003-12-12T11:44:00.000-05:00

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

2003-12-09T12:12:00.000-05:00

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.

I Vote for $1

2003-12-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

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?

N.Y.U. Practices Safe Censorship

2003-12-04T19:17:00.000-05:00

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.

Quick-Hit Story Day

2003-12-04T11:23:00.000-05:00

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.

Moral / Ethical Fallout

2003-12-03T17:33:00.000-05:00

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.

Which way is Right?

2003-12-02T12:06:00.000-05:00

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.

Applied Science

2003-12-01T12:13:00.000-05:00

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?

Polite Dinner Conversation

2003-11-27T09:09:00.000-05:00

If you need something to jazz up your dinner conversation today, try this. Or start things slowly with this.

For Bob

2003-11-26T09:51:00.000-05:00

Why should Christians be concerned with the secular definition of marriage?

Bob asked me, "Can you make a good argument for why Christians should really care about how the state defines a civil marriage?"

I don't know if I can make a good argument or not (considering my view that most political speech is meaningless). I am reminded of the axiom that a good argument is one that convinces someone that you are right. In any case, these are my initial thoughts. I admit I don't have a highly developed theology of cultural engagement yet. I am still a student after all. But this is along the lines of why I think Christians should care about the civil definition of marriage. This list is slightly different that what I would argue about how Christians should affect governmental policy. I have a healthy respect for avoiding any style of theocracy, but I also do not believe an oppressive secularism is the answer.

Why Christians should be in the debate over "secular" marriage:
A:
1) Christians have a responsibility for personal holiness. We cannot achieve personal holiness ourselves, so we must work to conform ourselves to Christlikeness and God's revealed will (which we find in the Bible).
2) As part of pursuing God's revealed will, we are guided in the moral evaluation of certain behaviors, acts, situations, and ideas.
3) In an attempt to remain faithful to our calling, we must have some level of cultural engagement to stand for what is honoring to God. Not only because it is honoring to God to be faithful to him - but because if we really believe Him, then we know that the manner of life he recommends is the best option available to us.

B:
1) Marriage (one man, one woman, together for life) is one of the primary institutions the Lord has outlined for our benefit and his pleasure.
2) Considering [A.1 and A.2], we should strive in our own lives to live up to God's standard for marriage.
3) Considering [A.3], as opportunity presents itself, we should remain true to the Biblical witness of God's revealed will and work for those ideas and philosophical precepts (in this case the definition of marriage) that are not only honoring to God, but best for our society.

C:
1) Marriage in every culture is, in part, reflective of that culture.
2) Marriage in this country - though under attack, though improperly appreciated, though subject to disagreement - had as its foundation an ideal that was the best way to arrange the institution (God's way), and was reflective of the devout and ardent followers of God that gave rise to the historical American definition of the institution. "Civil" marriage (some would not recognize a distinction) reflects the religious and God-honoring foundation of marriage.
3) Any change in the foundational understanding is reflective of a culture shift (culture wars?) that does not align with what is agreeable to Christians, honoring to God, or best for society. Again, [A.3].

D:
1) Christians are told to submit (in a general way) to government authorities and pray for them. God, in his sovereignty, has established various governments in order to restrain evil and and work some of the works of his common grace (general benefits for all mankind).
2) In America, this creates an interesting challenge. In one sense, it is easy to pray for elected leaders. In another sense, our leaders lead only with our permission and on our behalf. In one understanding, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people includes us. We are the people that we should be submitting to when we seek to honor God by our reflection of his righteousness.
3) As such, American Christians have a particular responsibility to engage in cultural debates and determine policy, legality, method, and philosophy. If I were a king, I would still be responsible to God for my actions. In America, I am one who is enabled to shape public policy. I have a responsibility to do so in a way that is honoring and pleasing to God.

Part of Bob's question assumes a certain level of legitimacy of those who oppose biblical Christians on this issue. It assumes that those citizens who identify themselves as gay (or in other cases, simply secular) have the stable ground for political action and "religious people" must justify their involvement. I could just as easily ask from the basis of another worldview, "Why would gay people care about the state definition of marriage? After all, they are already sinning by practicing homosexuality, why are they uncomfortable about the sin of sexual intercourse outside of marriage?"
**BTW - I would not pose this question in this debate. But it is a rational question given another set of assumptions about as far on the other side of center as Bob's inquiry.**

Christians have the right, and the responsibility, to be engaged in the cultural debate and the marketplace of ideas. We are losing on marriage, because the other side has more influential people dictating from the bench what will be Right and what will be Wrong. They may have the legal authority to do so, but not everything that is permissible is beneficial. Christians should care about their society. Christians should be involved.

To My Friends : I

2003-11-25T10:22:00.000-05:00

From Blandus, to all my friends who access this site and are pleased to join in the faithful work of honoring Christ Jesus with your every effort in every aspect of your life. Thank you for your love and faith.

Let us encourage one another that our goal is to be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transformed us to the kingdom of his beloved Son. In him alone we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

When will the War on Terror really begin?

2003-11-21T11:23:00.000-05:00

Well, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that they knew better than everyone else how to define the concept and institution of marriage. They sat as judges of Speech and Philosophy and declared that there are no rational arguments for not allowing gay and lesbian people to form a "marriage." Masters of Logic, they denied the possibility of a rational argument from all Americans who hold to a traditional concept of marriage, then gave their State Legislature six months to attempt to find one.

We find ourselves in an age of Judicial tyranny. Activist judges are choosing sides and predetermining the outcomes of the cases before them. We are divorced from any objective notion of law. On the social issues of the day, the current laws and the "old" reasons for having them no longer matter as much as the political and philosophical views of Justices drunk with their own power.

I don't think these flexinomialists understand the dangerous game they are playing. They think that simply because judges say, "This is the law," then that is the law. They forget that American government only rules by the will of the people. These activists are forcing people to choose between respect for the third tier of our governmental institution and the rule of actual law. Non-activists must choose if they will be ruled by an oligarchy of those who are so bold to claim the power of the people as their own or if they will be ruled by law and conscience. The desire for uncertain stability and tolerance will last only so long. Those who disagree and become increasingly alienated by the Left's progressively pushy actions will eventually reach a breaking point and unchecked pockets of civil rebellion will erupt. When they do, the Left will cry out, "See, this is what conservatives are really like. We tried to tell you all along!" Such is the nature of human sin; but they will have only themselves to blame.

The Judicial Left has again taken a stand against Christianity. By declaring all appeals to a moral code governing sexual behavior "irrational," they set the stage for further discrimination against us. It becomes increasingly easier for Psychology to declare Christians "unsound" or "unfit" or "diseased" when the legal definition of moral opposition is "not rational." Do not laugh or scoff. Watch where this takes us. You must decide now how you will fight. When the Leftist Hammer falls, it will be swift and there will be no time for opinion polls, no time to examine your beliefs, no time to sway your neighbor’s point of view. Stand for your faith. Stand for right. Stand for God. And prepare yourself for the future kingdom.

All the Women are Strong, All the Men are Good-Looking, and all the Children are Above Average...

2003-11-17T09:44:00.000-05:00

In America, most people are below average. As I drive through town or walk through the mall I notice the following things...

* Most women's butts are too big and too low
* Most men are overweight and their clothes don't fit quite right
* Most "rebellious" teenagers all dress alike
* Most women over 19 are not attractive (not like the magazines)
* Most men are indeed ugly
* Most boys and girls under 16 are moving towards obesity
* Most "cool dudes" look stupid
* Most "hot babes" look anorexic and trashy
* Most people do not have a "nice car"
* Most people's "nice cars" are indistinguishable from "average cars"
* Most people have no sense of style in their personal dress
* Most people do not realize that the world does not revolve around them

It is obscene for so many below-ideal people to think that their opinions on anything matter to anyone. Americans live a lie that they are inherently worth anything. Just by their own existence, they believe that they have the ability to think and speak as they like, they believe that they have a right to their own bodies, they think that they have a right to live as they please. Why?

It is only our identity in Christ that gives us any meaning, any inherent worth. It is only the fact that we have been created by Him, through Him, and for Him that allows us to believe we are special. When we say that we have been "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights," we mean exactly that. We do not gain our "inalienable rights" because we are at the top of the food chain - because somehow we were lucky enough to have evolved farthest fastest. Our rights and dignities are not derived from our biology or citizenship, but our relationship to the Creator.

It is lunacy that so many people fight so hard for rights that they do not have without the moral legitimacy of "a god" to back them up. Those who derive their rights from the State will be defeated when the nature of the state changes. They will ultimately face eternity in Hell for the nature of their disbelief.

Progressively Parallel

2003-11-14T06:00:00.000-05:00

Vignette One
Tina gets a promotion after completing a master’s degree she earned through the tuition reimbursement program in her company - a large company in a competitive industry. She is part of the Research and Development department and is in charge of many trade secrets. She decides that companies are oppressive and constrain her right to associate in whatever way she desires with whomever she may wish. Tina delivers patent information to a competitor in exchange for a seat on the board of a prestigious industry think tank. She pats herself on the back for her openness and ingenuity until she is fired, sued, and jailed for breaking the rules and working against the company that made it all possible for her.

Vignette Two
John decides that he understands better how to be an American than the people who supposedly "wrote" the Constitution of the United States. "The Constitution is an outdated document," he says. "It was fine for the people of that day, but times have changed so much that it doesn’t really apply." He believes that "nations" are artificial and limiting constructs – we need to be more inclusive. He avoids paying his taxes and instead sends his money to France. He brags about his accomplishments until he is jailed for failure to follow the law and beat up in prison as one who aligned himself with a nation that speaks against us.

Vignette Three
Heath goes away to college and becomes a "progressive" Christian. He throws off the shackles of his religious past and claims, "My intelligence tells me that the Bible is not really true, not really trustworthy, not really relevant for today." He talks a good game and convinces others of weak and vacillating faith that they too should not trust the scriptures. The people he influences go on to reject much of what is right and true about the historic beliefs of his "old" faith and create a whole new set of standards by which they think God should interact with man. Heath earns the praise of enlightened pagans and feels quite content with his work until he is cast into the outer darkness of Hell by the God he was so sure did not exist but who did indeed have standards.

All Politics Are Personal...

2003-11-13T06:00:00.000-05:00

In addition to the phrase "All political speech is meaningless," we will add "All Politics are personal."

Psychology is What You Make It

2003-11-12T08:28:00.000-05:00

Psychology can never be more than a social science. The basic process for determining if something is a "disorder" or not is that a couple of guys do some research in a particular culture, region, people group, etc and test for responses to various kinds of stress. This stress may be induced by the researchers or may be self-reported by study participants. Then the researchers normalize the data and publish it in a "peer reviewed publication." This means a journal or magazine whose cheif editors have lots of letters after their names - showing that they are very smart and can be "trusted." Then all, most, or even some of an organization like the American Psychological Association (which represents a portion of all practicing psychologists and mental/emotional care workers) read the journal and decide if they agree or disagree with the conclusions of the researchers. If one of the readers feels strongly about it then they will make a motion at a meeting and people will vote on whether or not the study portrays reality. If the vote passes, viola!, the characteristic behavior is a disorder. Sometime later, someone can make a motion to remove the description of the disorder - vote carries - viola!, the study no longer reflects reality.

I support psychological research. I am generally in favor of peer reviewed journals. But I do not like people claiming more than their own rules of conduct will allow. The APA is a lot of western trained, political-minded, social scientists who have some level of knowledge of the behavioral characteristics of (usually) white Americans. This knowledge cannot be emperically confirmed by a majority vote and it cannot be universally applied to a global population through time. No matter what the APA would like you to believe about their "science."

Most may not know that the elections for 2005 President of the APA are done by mail and will close December 1. Among the candidates:
* Ronald F. Levant, EdD - believes that psychology is an emperical science on par with chemistry or physics and will fight to have psychology included as one of the medical disciplines automatically included in any federal legislation concerning the health care industry. He would also work to remove from membership in the APA those mental health care workers who do not identify with the majority opinions of the APA - thus increasing the homogenity of voices within the organization and, hopefully, increasing its political power in the national arena.

* Dr. Jerry H. Clark - who would work hard to take the APA "well beyond protecting 'women's right to choose,' to make it emphatically clear that limiting the population is the ongoing responsibility of everyone who has reached puberty." Yep.

The other three are not as bad - and even have some ideas that generally align with this post - but all assume that psychological help is a necessary and vital part of every person's life. Surprisingly to some, I agree with them.

Where I depart from psychology is in the method by which we ideally receive our mental/emotional care. This is the responsibility of the church. However, the church has simultaneously neglected its duties to foster emotionally secure community environments and gone along with the notion that "science-based" counseling is fundementally more legitimate than "bible-based" counseling. Psychological research has something to offer the Christian community, but like everything else, results and conclusions must be read in the light of scripture. Sin and sin's distorting effects are not accounted for in most "peer-reviewed" journals - when the data is reread without a bias against the supernatural element to personality and behavior new conclusions can sometimes be drawn. The APA - no matter how learned they might be - will always fight to protect their members clinical status and monetary security. This is a very natural bias that needs to be included in the evaluation of their positions and understood by the "unlearned" masses who are supposed to accept their decrees because they are the "experts in human behavior."

This is why I am thankful there are organizations like the American Association of Christian Counselors - who take the valid points of culturally-relevant psychological research and proper theology and train and advise all mental/emotional care givers in the most effective ways to provide that care. Not all "Christian counselors" can be trusted - either because they are liberal in theology and do not really trust the Bible, or because they are too anti-psychology and may distort care doing more harm than good. The members of the AACC are currently doing a good job of balancing all of the information God has allowed us to know and integrating it into acceptable strategies of care that both actually help the client and honor God.

Bad Blogger

2003-11-11T08:28:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted in awhile. Chalk it up to life stress - HEBREW is killing me. Greek is relentless. On top of that, my Pastoral Care prof saved up a bunch of chapters and I have 7 due today? Why didn't he make it 2 a week and spread the work? Not very caring of him, I'd say.

Anyway, others are carrying the ball with updated sites, among them:
Bob, ~gauche, the Chairman (even though he may be a damn yankee), Mr. Cook, and of course - the new and improved Ockhamist.

Don't forget to check out this site.

Also, some have wondered why I did not comment on Metzger's post about the Bible. Simple reason - you've got to have a place to start - some point of agreement - before you can work out all the longer issues. If the man categorically rejects the authority of scripture, then there is not much to argue about except a lot of hashing over words that only make sense to the speakers.

I got a new computer this week (Thanks, Jake) and as soon as it is back to proper working order, I will again be full force on the page - I've got some stuff building.