Columbus Day

Yesterday was Columbus Day, at least here in the United States. I can still recall the image that was painted, and still is, about Christopher Columbus and his epic voyage: he was in search of wealth and fame--via a new trade route to the East Indies--and nothing else.

Although wealth and fame might have been consequences of a newly discovered trade route to the East Indies, such things were not what drove Columbus to persistently petition for financial backing for a westerly voyage. Rather, Columbus considered his voyage to be a spiritual journey, one that the LORD had called him to embark upon: "With a hand that could be felt, the Lord opened my mind to the fact that it would be possible . . . and he opened my will to desire to accomplish that project. . . . The Lord purposed that there should be something miraculous in this matter of the voyage to the Indies.”

And so, Columbus set out on his journey in obedience to the Holy Spirit, and not in bondage to a lust for wealth and nobility as many textbooks would have us believe. My point here is not to say that Columbus was a perfect man--far from it--but to illustrate that Columbus believed that God had ordained his voyages of discovery and that God would do wonderful things for the church through his discoveries. Seeing as this post is being written in the USA, the latter appears to be true, if not the former also.

As Columbus wrote in the logbook of his first voyage "I hope in Our Lord that [my recent voyage] will be the greatest honor to Christianity that, unexpectedly, has ever come about."

For a good summation of why Columbus sailed, read this.


Soli Deo Gloria

Comprehensive Convictions

Hindu and Buddhist priests recently selected the newest incarnation of one of their gods. The selection was none other than a 3-year-old girl. I do not intend to "bash" the Hindus or the Buddhists, but rather use this illustration to bring light to the fact that Christianity is the only religion (including agnosticism and atheism) that explains the world around us in a comprehensive and intellectually honest manner. This principle should make sense to us, after all, as Christianity is the TRUTH about God and His creation.

This panel of priests selected the girl out of several applicants, and based their decision from reading the girl's horoscope, checking for physical imperfections--you must have perfect hair, eyes, teeth, skin, and have no scars. Also, the girl must not be afraid of the dark. To ensure this last criteria, the girl must spend a night alone in a room filled with slaughtered goats and buffaloes. Oh, and during this horrific encounter, the girl must show NO fear, otherwise she is not the true deity incarnated. Over the coming years, this poor child will remain in almost complete isolation. Of course, the deity leaves the child at the onset of menstruation, at which point she is free to go on about her "normal" life. Superstition holds that men who marry former deities die young, so most of these girls remain unmarried, not to mention the adjustment of coming from several years of isolation to the real world.

The fact that man is choosing the incarnation of his deity is troubling enough, but the criteria used in the selection process is even more deplorable. Some might say this is why religion in dangerous. To such a remark I answer that yes, falsereligion is dangerous; but true religion--Christianity--is life saving and central to having a consistent and meaningful life. How are we to judge what is "right" religion versus "wrong" religion? We do so based upon truth, reason, and the moral law written in all of our consciences. To bow away from this command is to sentence future girls like this unfortunate 3-year-old to a life of hardship.


Soli Deo Gloria

Bella

I heard much about this movie when it was released in 2007, but unfortunately I did not make it to see the film while it was still in theaters. Now that it is out on DVD, a friend recently loaned me his copy. As is not surprising from all of the acclaim this film has received, it is well worth viewing.

Here is the synopsis, from the Bella website:

"An international soccer star is on his way to sign a multi-million dollar contract when a series of events unfold that bring his career to an abrupt end. A beautiful waitress, struggling to make it in New York City, discovers something about herself that she's unprepared for. In one irreversible moment, their lives are turned upside down . . . until a simple gesture of kindness brings them both together, turning an ordinary day into an unforgettable experience."

This film presents a strong pro-life message, and shows the unique blessing that results from choosing not to abort.

Besides the pro-life theme that should resonate in all of our hearts, there were three other particular parts of the film that I appreciated.

First, in the opening sequence, the narrator's voice gives the following maxim: "My mother used to say that if you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans."

Second, there is a scene where the two main characters are walking down a busy NY street, and they come across a homeless man. The man offers the couple a piece of origami art, to which one of the two main characters responds by explaining that she forgot her wallet. The blind man asks her to take the origami anyways, and in lieu of a monetary gift, asks her to describe what the sky looked like on that particular day.

Third, I appreciated that the authors of the script did not transform the two main characters' relationship from a budding friendship into a romantic relationship.

I recommend that you either go rent or buy this film. It has received much fanfare, and for good reason.


Soli Deo Gloria

Until Death Do Us Part

A recent article in the Washington Post, written by William Saletan, does a good job of exposing a current trend in the medical community: determining when "death" occurs for the purpose of harvesting organs.

According to Saletan, there is some fuzziness concerning whether a person is dead and, hence, the transplant surgeons can move in and take the organs of the declared deceased. When is a person dead? When the heart stops beating on its own? When the brain stops functioning? When one is in a persistent vegetative state? When one relies on a machine for life supporting functions?

Where do we draw the line, we often ask? The posture of this question, however, is the root of our predicament. On such foundational issues as life and death, humans ought not be drawing lines. Rather, we should endeavor to discover and understand the lines that God has already drawn. Our two primary aids in this endeavor are revelation and reason: neither working independent of the other.

The alternative--drawing our own lines--leads to the current predicament. Such a predicament, as Saletan reveals, is a increasing trend towards declaring a person dead sooner and sooner in the ballgame. The danger in this practice is obvious. But just as troubling is the lack of respect for human life that is being displayed by this practice.

The rationale given in support of a sooner-in-time death declaration is that the longer we wait to determine whether a person is actually dead or not reduces the efficacy of the organs that are harvested out of said person. I would be harder pressed to find a clearer expression of utilitarianism than what is contained in this rationale.

I am not surprised when I find veins of utilitarianism in our society, but finding it in the medical community, in those we depend upon in life-threatening situations, is especially troubling.

In matters of life and death, our premise must be the image of God, and not whether one can contribute to society.


Soli Deo Gloria

The Law as a Teacher

If it’s legal, it’s okay. This mentality pervades much of our society—whether it is abortion, sexual relations outside of matrimony, wearing a t-shirt with an expletive on it, or a host of activities that are not prohibited by law.

Through the law given to Moses and the natural law, we have an innate tendency to associate law with morality. Indeed, many of our laws are premised on moral principles—murder (do not kill), theft (do not steal), etc. But, what about laws that are not premised on morality? Or, worse yet, what about laws that are premised on immoral principles?

It is in such situations that the mentality of “if it’s legal, it’s okay” becomes problematic. At a minimum this reminds us of the significant role that lawmakers fulfill. But I am more concerned with our youth. Growing up with a particular set of laws creates a tendency to be lackadaisical in analyzing such laws. This is why it is important that we teach ourselves and our children to think independently and critically.

The law does not create what is right. What is right exists independently of the laws of any nation.

Soli Deo Gloria.

A Child or a Parasite?

Pregnancy. It is a time of jubilation for some and yet a time of vexation for others. Pro-life for some and yet pro-abortion for others. The abortion debate has been raging for many decades in America and it does not appear to be relenting any time soon. Is "it" a child, a human being, an image bearer of God? Or is "it" a mere fetus, an obstacle to obtaining greater economic and social "freedom"? There is much boisterous disagreement on this point.

But how do our laws view unborn children? Surely if there is consistency anywhere in society, it is in the law. Yet, even the laws that govern our everyday lives seemed to be confused on this foundational question.

Many states have the following law (or some version thereof), which can cause the defendant's sentence to be increased: "During the course of the commission of the offense, the death of an unborn child at any stage of its development occurred." So, for example, if you rob a woman who happens to be 1 month pregnant, and you cause her to lose her child as a result of the robbery, then it is possible that your sentence would be increased as a result--and rightfully so.

BUT, this very same woman may walk down the street and obtain a legally sanctioned abortion. The end result for the unborn child is the same: death. Yet we punish the one act and celebrate and voraciously defend the other.

Where's the consistency? I'm afraid the inconsistency is not with the law, but those whom are subject to the law--the people. You and I. I will post this blog entry and go on about my life. You will read it and your mind will soon wander to the busyness of life. We shutter at the atrocious practice, yet we live our lives as though it doesn't exist. Until we are actually moved to action, I'm afraid our words and ideas become like mere water droplets of morning dew, whisked away by the first rays of the dawning sun.


Soli Deo Gloria.