Intruder?

We've all heard ridiculous arguments concerning abortion but I think this one takes the cake. This is the latest pro argument:

"It doesn't matter at what point a fertilized egg becomes a zygote or a zygote a fetus or a fetus a baby. Personhood is irrelevant. The state simply does not have the right to require any citizen to use their body to keep another citizen alive, much less for nine months. The state can't force us to donate blood or organs. The state can't make us sign up for bone marrow registries. If we choose to do these things, it is noble and good, but we still would never tolerate, as a society, being forced to do so. How much less, then, should we tolerate the state forcing women to use their bodies to keep other people alive for nine full months, with all the risks and permanent changes in the body this entails? How is this permissible if women are fully functioning moral agents with all the rights of citizenship and not state-owned incubators?"
(More from Intruder Alert)

What's worse than this is the response of Matt Kaufman, the writer of the article in Boundless. Maybe I should say that what's worse is his lack of argument. While he doesn't ignore it, he most certainly doesn't set forth a convincing thought. He appeals to the reader's sense of responsibility for those less able to care for themselves.

Lets think about this. How many people would actually walk by a child on the street and think nothing of it? How many people watch the food for the hungry commercials and just change the channel? Wake up people. We don't live in a perfect world. Why do we try to argue like we do?

Maybe a better way to approach the subject, as Christians, is to view it through the lens of Scripture. It's clear that a fetus is actually a person and there are numerous commands in the Bible that address the need to care for the helpless. "Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for Me." The words of the Messiah for His people.

Granted those arguments won't stand amongst the godless of our generation. For them I propose a different tactic. First, I propose that you pray. The truth is there is absolutely nothing that we can do. Sorry. We aren't in control. God is the one that softens the heart.

My response to those who would use this argument is probably not so gracious.

If you don't want to get pregnant, maybe you should be more responsible or better yet stop fooling around. Granted, there are circumstances that are out of our control. Rape is never pleasant but should one sin lead to another? Killing a child, unborn or otherwise, is still sin. You can't get around it. People argue for the rights of the mother all the time. What about the rights of the child? Or does it forfeit rights because it can't speak up? (Much more can be said about this but for now I'll leave it alone)

Unfortunately, the majority of abortions are instigated not by a woman who has been raped but rather by a woman who was careless.

On The Golden Compass

Many of the Christians I’ve talked to about The Golden Compass have had a very negative opinion of the movie – whether they have seen it or not. I finally decided to see it for myself. While entertaining in the least, it left me with much food for thought, and now that I’ve spent the last week mulling it over, I think I am finally ready to write something.

It’s true that The Golden Compass has a hidden agenda. I could see where the author was going before the movie was half over. Yes, there is a lot of symbolism and ultimately the characters in the movie are at war with the entity that represents God. I found the question of why very intriguing. The author clearly has a problem with God because He is sovereign.

The reason the characters are fighting is because this entity, referred to as the Magistrate, is out to rob people of their free will, represented by the small animal (known as a daemon) that follows around each person. The focus is on children because children are impressionable – a point of which the author is keenly aware. The children’s daemon is constantly changing shapes because they have not fully formed there opinions.

I find it interesting that the author makes this clear and one of his underlying messages is that we are ruining our children by instilling in them certain values and standards. In teaching our children about God we are destroying any possibility for them to develop and form their ideas on their own. But while this is the case, he has resented his ideas in the form of a movie that is directed toward children. Funny. So his ideas are okay to instill in children whereas Christian ideas are dangerous? Or maybe he didn’t think of that.

I don’t think that I would send my children to see the movie but I do think that when the movie comes out on DVD it would be well worth renting. I think Christians ought to be aware of what is being taught and not shy away from it. It’s true that the message is anti-God but it’s also true that we should be educated about what is going on in our world and what is being taught so that we can better minister to the world.

It’s also true that those responsible for production of the movie seem to have paid very close attention to the way The Chronicles of Narnia was made and the feel of the movies are similar. The movie is pleasing to the eye. Those responsible for the aesthetics should be proud. They did well but it really did lack originality. I felt very much as though they were trying to copy Tolkien and Lewis. The Nordic feel to the movie was very reminiscent of Tolkien’s trilogy, while the colours and the animals seemed to be from Narnia itself.

However skewed the message is, the movie was very entertaining. Yes, the polar bear are amazing and there is a sweet polar bear fight. See the movie and draw your own conclusions. These are mine.

Webster on Modesty

1. Having or showing a moderate or humble opinion of one's own value, abilities, achievements, etc. unassuming.

2. Not forward; shy or reserved.

3. Behaving according to a standard of what is proper or decorous; decent, pure; now especially, not displaying one's body.

4. Showing or caused by moderation; not extreme.

5. quiet and humble in appearance, style, etc.

What is an Incarnational Missionary?

An incarnational missionary is essentially a missionary who “undertake(s) the difficult task of learning to know and identify with the culture.” (Hiebert 91) They endeavor to understand the culture and deal with the theological problems of the culture. Their role is primarily to present the gospel so that it is understood in a meaningful, relevant way to the people of the culture. Then they establish churches.

The study of cultural anthropology and cross-cultural communication are important. Studying cultural anthropology enables the missionary to better understand what he sees and hears and experiences in the new culture. It helps to act as a filter to help him learn and process the culture. Cross-cultural communication is helpful to allowing true communication of ideas and concepts to the culture. It sometimes requires the changing of words or phrases or ideas so that the meaning is understood properly. For instance, if a culture doesn't have sheep the phrase, “Lamb of God” might not be understood. So, in effort to maintain the concept, the missionary might change the expression to “Goat of God.”

So, essentially the study of anthropology aids the incarnational missionary in the learning of cultural relevance and cross-cultural communication enables truer communication between the peoples. Which is the aim of the incarnational missionary – to minister effectively to the people of a different culture than his own.

This is an essay answer to a question from a test earlier this year. I just ran across it today and thought that it would be beneficial to post because we are all, as Christians, in a way missionaries and dare I say we should be incarnational missionaries at different points in our interaction with the world, be it in this American culture or another culture.

The Problem of Christianity vs. Science

Within the realms of science, they will tell you that there is no room for God. No, they won't necessarily call you stupid for believing there is a God but they will not allow you to play in their field if you bring Him with you.

What's wrong with this picture?

Why is it that in God's universe men have the audacity to tell Him, the Maker what they study and claim to understand, that He's not allowed within the realm of science? Am I the only one who sees how obsurd that is? Surely not.

I would like to suggest that it is the fault of the Christians just as much as it is the fault of the scientists. Though the scientists tell us that we can't study science because we drag God into it, Christians are too timid and passive to stand up for the Truth -- which by the way, does belong in all of the sciences.

Why are we so quiet? Are we afraid that they are right? Do we fear that we might possibly prove that God is a lie just like they say?
Have we no sense at all? We are better suited than anyone to explore God's universe and study it. We have our eyes opened to the truth of the Gospel. This allows us to see the world for what it is: God's. If we can see it in view of the Gospel we will see even more clearly that faith and reason aren't two seperate worlds. They belong together unified.

Craig said, "We treat them like their right!"
I agree with him. There is no place for timidity and passivity within the christian life. If we don't stand up for what is Truth, who will? The scientists? We have spent the last two hundred years "letting the scientists handle it" and we see how well they've upheld the Truth, don't we?

We have no right to be fearful.
Scripture commands us to fight the good fight.
That is applicable in all aspects of the christian life.
What are we waiting for?

homeschooling

i have something on my mind. actually, i have a lot on my mind. i'm not really sure what is going to end up on this page though. class this morning was interesting but the prof lost me after the first hour. that's not to say didn't get anything out of the second half of the lecture -- i did. however, i was better focussed in the first half.

the subject was essentially education. it's intriguing to me how that subject has been coming up very consistently throughout the past week. i am not generally overly concerned with the subject but it seems to me that maybe God is trying to cause me to be decided as to where i stand in correspondence with education.

i was homeschooled. i liked it until about middle school. i was really rather sheltered. that's not a bad thing up to a point but there does come a time when you have to start letting your kids be out a little more in the world so that when they turn eighteen years of age they aren't unable to cope with what is in the world. for me, i began to want to get out there a little prematurely. we changed churches and i suddenly found myself without friends and i didn't really know how to go about making friends. before, all my friends were kids i'd grown up with and competed with in gymnastics. there was no effort needed to really build those relationships. but when you start from scratch it's a whole new world.

in retrospect, i don't want my kids to have that struggle. i want them to be easily able to make friends and keep them and that not based on the fact that they are among the outcasts but because they are good well rounded individuals who can relate easily to people. this isn't entirely learned. i realize that but some of it can be.

now, what does all of this have to do with education? it comes to this. i don't want to sacrifice education for social skills. previously my mindset was lazy. i took the position that it would be better for my kids to go to a school -- any school. i'd help them with their homework and make sure that they studied and actually learned but they'd go to school and learn to develop social skills. but i have reexamined that. i am quite certain now that i will homeschool. likely, it will be from K-6th grade at the very least. that way i have the time to raise them up in the truth of the gospel and give them a solid foundation for the rest of their education to be based on. i think that is bare minimum. i want to train them up so that they are responsible and mature and able to know what they believe and defend it if need be.

socially, i think that children learn from their parents how to interact. so keeping my kids out of school when they're young will not injure them. they will have plenty of interaction with kids in church and cousins, Lord willing, and neighbors and the like. as awful as middle school and highschool were, i think that i did turn out alright. i had a couple rough years but i learn quickly.

i actually look forward to homeschooling. Lord willing, i can begin cultivate in them the love for God's work in the world, and other cultures and languages that i have. what could be better than to train up missions minded children with a great love for the Lord and His peoples.

Shakespeare Said It Best

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
Oh no! It is an ever fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken...


exerpt from a Sonnet (117?)