I've never been interested in having my own children. I'm not sure why, but the parental passion that I see in others just isn't in me. I've been told all of my life that this makes me selfish, but I've never believed it. No one ever complains that C.S. Lewis and Paul the Apostle were childless, do they?
Here's only a few reasons that childless couples are not being selfish:
1 - We Do Take Care of Children
My wife and I know a lot of children, most of them nieces and nephews, and we're very involved with some of them. An uncle can be a unique person in a person's life, and I enjoy the role I get to play for these kids. I am able to be their friend and mentor, without being as much of an authority figure as a parent. (Sometimes, kids need that kind of interaction.) This means that they can tell me things that they might not tell a parent or a friend. Believe it, or not, I look forward to the time I get to spend with kids.
2 - Most Parents Wanted to Have Kids
Ask someone why they decided to have children and (assuming the pregnancy was not a surprise) they'll probably tell you about how much they love being around them. These people like babies and look forward to the thrill of being called "Mom," or "Dad." That's fine with me - if you want to have kids then I hope you're able to have a lot of them - but it's not exactly altruistic. Having children because you want to is nothing more than fulfilling your own desire. That's not any less "selfish" than what I'm doing.
3 - Our Passions are Leading us Elsewhere
Having children means is time consuming - no parent would disagree - and we all have to decide what we will do with the time that we have. When I'm not at my full-time job, I'm working on a degree in Medieval Studies learning about church history. I use this knowledge to teach the church about our past, and I wouldn't have time for that if I was taking care of children. If I were raising kids, I would also not be able to play music at local venues where my wife and I tell the story of Christianity through songs. And blogging would be difficult. There just aren't enough hours in the day to do all of it, and people who have never had a passion for raising a family can contribute a lot to society when they focus on what they love to do.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
Heaven is a Place on Earth - And So Is Hell
It is argued by at least some evangelicals that heaven is a place on earth. The argument typically claims that humans were created for the earth, the earth is our home, and when the end comes, believers will live on the New Earth. We experience Heaven now as we see glimpses of God's Kingdom around us.
In our world full of pain, suffering, and death, we often see Hell more than we see Heaven. Believers are to help those who do not yet know God and who have not experienced his grace and mercy to see glimpses of His Kingdom.
But how often do we do this? How often do we realize we can and should be experiencing God's Kingdom now, as opposed to getting caught up in the same labor and strife as those without hope.
Hell is a place on earth now, because many live life separated from God, out of fellowship with him, and with no hope of justice, righteousness, or eternal life. Many have no concept of a higher calling or great purpose in life. They do not understand the intrinsic value of life, only the demonic value of death.
We experience hell when we go through a break-up, when we lose a job, when a loved one is taken, when we see starvation the spread of disease, and extreme poverty. I recommend that we help others experience heaven by aiding the poor, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and comforting the heartbroken.
Perhaps if we do more to help others, we too will more deeply experience the beauty in God's Kingdom now.
In our world full of pain, suffering, and death, we often see Hell more than we see Heaven. Believers are to help those who do not yet know God and who have not experienced his grace and mercy to see glimpses of His Kingdom.
But how often do we do this? How often do we realize we can and should be experiencing God's Kingdom now, as opposed to getting caught up in the same labor and strife as those without hope.
Hell is a place on earth now, because many live life separated from God, out of fellowship with him, and with no hope of justice, righteousness, or eternal life. Many have no concept of a higher calling or great purpose in life. They do not understand the intrinsic value of life, only the demonic value of death.
We experience hell when we go through a break-up, when we lose a job, when a loved one is taken, when we see starvation the spread of disease, and extreme poverty. I recommend that we help others experience heaven by aiding the poor, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and comforting the heartbroken.
Perhaps if we do more to help others, we too will more deeply experience the beauty in God's Kingdom now.
Friday, August 23, 2013
If you're a theistic evolutionist, . . .
Theistic evolution is the theory that God used evolution to create life on earth as we know it today. If you're a theistic evolutionist, please don't do four things.
1. Don't be a Chris. Be a Beth.
2. Don't toss Adam out of your theology lightly. The New Testament talks about a lot of Old Testament people; a lot of theology in the New Testament depends on these folk: Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Melchizedek, Isaac, David, Zerubbabel, etc. Adam appears in passages including Luke 3, Mark 10, and Romans 5.
If you're a theistic evolutionist, then you probably believe that Abraham, David, and Zerubbabel are historical characters, and that the theological points Paul makes in Romans 4 based on the life of Abraham are based on a historical character.
So what is it that Abraham has in Romans 4 but Adam lacks in Romans 5, or that Adam lacks in Luke 3 but Abraham and David have in the same passage?
Not believing in a historical Adam without answering this question is a little careless, at best. At worst, it undermines the authority of Scripture.
(Of course one could believe in a historical Adam and still be a theistic evolutionist. Maybe Adam was just the first person who had evolved to the point where he could make a free and morally significant choice, or the first person God spoke to, or the first person to whom God gave an immortal soul, or something. This approach to Adam is a little bit speculative and impossible to prove from Scripture, but it is possible.)
3. Watch out for deism! Don't have a deistic region in your theology. Understand that God was involved in creation. Chance is not the father of us all. Nor are chance and a set of physical laws set up by God at the beginning of creation the father and mother of us all.
The order and beauty of creation was part of God's plan. How excellent is His name in all the earth!
In other words, it's better to be a theistic evolutionist than simply to be an evolutionist who happens to be a theist.
4. Don't make God responsible for death and suffering. If eons of natural selection preceded the emergence of humans with the power to make a choice, then eons of death and suffering came before any sin had been committed by human beings. Who is guilty for that death and suffering?
(By the way, Alvin Plantinga answers this by saying that the free choice of created beings is responsible for that death and suffering, just not the free choice of human beings. There were other, angelic beings created before humans, and they sinned first.)
1. Don't be a Chris. Be a Beth.
2. Don't toss Adam out of your theology lightly. The New Testament talks about a lot of Old Testament people; a lot of theology in the New Testament depends on these folk: Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Melchizedek, Isaac, David, Zerubbabel, etc. Adam appears in passages including Luke 3, Mark 10, and Romans 5.
If you're a theistic evolutionist, then you probably believe that Abraham, David, and Zerubbabel are historical characters, and that the theological points Paul makes in Romans 4 based on the life of Abraham are based on a historical character.
So what is it that Abraham has in Romans 4 but Adam lacks in Romans 5, or that Adam lacks in Luke 3 but Abraham and David have in the same passage?
Not believing in a historical Adam without answering this question is a little careless, at best. At worst, it undermines the authority of Scripture.
(Of course one could believe in a historical Adam and still be a theistic evolutionist. Maybe Adam was just the first person who had evolved to the point where he could make a free and morally significant choice, or the first person God spoke to, or the first person to whom God gave an immortal soul, or something. This approach to Adam is a little bit speculative and impossible to prove from Scripture, but it is possible.)
3. Watch out for deism! Don't have a deistic region in your theology. Understand that God was involved in creation. Chance is not the father of us all. Nor are chance and a set of physical laws set up by God at the beginning of creation the father and mother of us all.
The order and beauty of creation was part of God's plan. How excellent is His name in all the earth!
In other words, it's better to be a theistic evolutionist than simply to be an evolutionist who happens to be a theist.
God made this guinea pig.
(By the way, Alvin Plantinga answers this by saying that the free choice of created beings is responsible for that death and suffering, just not the free choice of human beings. There were other, angelic beings created before humans, and they sinned first.)
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Leadership
It is easy to condemn leaders. Everyone enjoys being a critic of those making a difference: CEO's, politicians, pastors, an even some celebrities.
We often think we can do a better job, or that they should be using their influence differently.
But one thing we cannot criticize them for, is actually doing something.
Our critiques generally end at the level of conversation. Very rarely do people get out there and actually do a better job than those we consider to be leaders are already doing.
Several years ago, sociologist Michael Lindsay interviewed over 300 influential people in the United States. He found that all of them noted they had to work within stipulations and that they could not just do whatever they wanted. This means that leaders often do not have as much power as we think they do, and they do not always have the ability to do things better than what they are doing (even if they wish they could).
Despite their limitations in power, having to deal with constant critics, having their flaws/blunders unveiled to the world, frequently not receiving as much as a thank you from those they help, and regularly being taken advantage of, they continue to lead. What courage they must have!!!
Let us remember to pray for our leaders; our leaders at work, in the community, in the state, in the country, and around the world. Let us gain insight into the difficult nature of being responsible for others and for providing resources to our world. We need to encourage those we empower to lead and those who are called to lead. We need to enable them to accomplish the tasks at hand, whatever they may be.
There is a song that says: "someone said give peace a chance, and that's all he would say." This quote refers to John Lennon who wrote the song, "Give Peace a Chance." The lyric above notes that apart from calling for peace, the singer did little to actually create or bring about peace. It is easy to criticize but harder to act. If you are called to do something, lead in the action. Be courageous and do something, don't just wine about what is not being done well.
We often think we can do a better job, or that they should be using their influence differently.
But one thing we cannot criticize them for, is actually doing something.
Our critiques generally end at the level of conversation. Very rarely do people get out there and actually do a better job than those we consider to be leaders are already doing.
Several years ago, sociologist Michael Lindsay interviewed over 300 influential people in the United States. He found that all of them noted they had to work within stipulations and that they could not just do whatever they wanted. This means that leaders often do not have as much power as we think they do, and they do not always have the ability to do things better than what they are doing (even if they wish they could).
Despite their limitations in power, having to deal with constant critics, having their flaws/blunders unveiled to the world, frequently not receiving as much as a thank you from those they help, and regularly being taken advantage of, they continue to lead. What courage they must have!!!
Let us remember to pray for our leaders; our leaders at work, in the community, in the state, in the country, and around the world. Let us gain insight into the difficult nature of being responsible for others and for providing resources to our world. We need to encourage those we empower to lead and those who are called to lead. We need to enable them to accomplish the tasks at hand, whatever they may be.
There is a song that says: "someone said give peace a chance, and that's all he would say." This quote refers to John Lennon who wrote the song, "Give Peace a Chance." The lyric above notes that apart from calling for peace, the singer did little to actually create or bring about peace. It is easy to criticize but harder to act. If you are called to do something, lead in the action. Be courageous and do something, don't just wine about what is not being done well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)