Church Kisses State

As we discussed the kingdom of God Sunday, I mentioned the complicated relationship that exists at times between the church and state. If you needed another example of the church compromising her commitment to the kingdom of God by becoming a tool for the kingdom of man, you need look no further than the Russian Orthodox church.

In exchange for prestige, public funding and government influence, the church has allowed herself to be used by Putin to legitimize his presidency. The strange relationship between the former head of the KGB and the church has been the subject of much analysis that others with more understanding of Russian politics and culture than myself can address. 

That strange relationship made an awkward moment caught on tape seem more bizarre. Here’s a clip from a visit Russian president Vladmir Putin made last week to the Valaam Monastery in Karelia.

 

There has been a lot of speculation regarding what’s taking place here. The official line is that this priest and Putin have a long relationship and that the Russian president was “joking” when he raised his fist at the priest. (NOTE to members of BCC: If you are thinking of joking with me in this way, you should know that I usually respond to this type of humor with a fetal position rather than laughter.)

We may not ever fully understand the exchange and why it took place. What is interesting is why the event has attracted so much attention. Putin’s relationship with the Russian Orthodox church appears to be an example of a church failing to keep itself separate from the entanglements of this earthly kingdom.

The church must to love her government enough to speak hard truths to it. We do not shy away from political discussion. Indeed, we embrace the opportunity to engage our culture. But as we do so, we must not allow ourselves or our message to be compromised by political parties or the lure of political influence. We proclaim Christ and Him crucified, eagerly anticipating the establishment of His kingdom. 

Musings from Sam's Club #4815

Yesterday, I was sitting in the Sam’s Club in Normal, Illinois, eating a crispy chicken sandwich and enjoying a chocolate milk shake.  (This is what I call a “fancy” date with my wife.)  In the half hour or so that we sat there, I experienced a LOT of great things. 

 

Being near the cash registers meant that I saw the amazing array of items purchased.  Items manufactured all over the world, shipped to this precise location, purchased by willing buyers.  It made me marvel at the wonders of the free market.  No government ordered and administered program could operate at such efficiencies.

I considered the food in front of me.  Someone had to raise chicken, slaughter it, process it, and ship it.  Someone had to raise wheat, bake it into bread, package and ship it.  Someone had to raise and process cocoa beans into chocolate.  Someone had to milk cows, process and ship the milk.  Someone had to create, manufacture, and ship a machine which would turn the processed milk and chocolate into the delectable shake before me.  Just amazing.

I considered the conversations that I heard around me.  A manager was apologizing to a customer.  The customer was happy to receive the apology, and there was true agreement.  The workers at the cash registers expressed happiness at being able to work with one another as they were starting their shift.  Families were walking out of the store talking happily with one another about their purchases.

I was impressed by the contentment of the workers.  They seemed thankful to have jobs and were happy with their conditions.  There was a young lady who had some developmental disabilities that was sweeping the floor.  She took her job very seriously.   It was clear that she wanted to this right.  She was diligent to see that she did not get in the way of any customers, yet she still wanted to get all the areas clean.

I saw a great diversity of people as I sat--a wide variety of races-- a wide variety of dress—a wide variety of wealth.  One white man entered the store with three black children, holding the hands of two of them.  I imagined that he was a foster father there to purchase school supplies.  There was a guy in a Menard’s shirt eating at the Sam’s club.  A UPS guy was buying stuff at a nearby cash register.  One man was checking out of the store with 300 lbs of kitty litter.  I joked with him that he must have lots of cats.  He joked back with me and with the Sam’s Club check out guy. 

 

What a great world!  My mind went to Psalm 8—God has crowned man with glory and honor.  He has given us dominion over the works of our hands and has put all things under our feet.

In most non-Christian worldviews, this is as far as it goes—“all praise to man, for he is good.”  In most Christian worldviews, there is such an awareness of depravity that we fail to see the imago Dei.  We seem almost to revel in our accurate depiction of what’s wrong in this world.  I too think the study of what is wrong is worthwhile because so few understand the horrific nature of sin and depravity.  See, for example, my post on "Self-Admiration" from June 28.

BUT, just once in awhile, it is likewise a worthy endeavor to stop and observe the remarkable imprint of the image of God in every human heart.  It is a worthy endeavor to praise our Maker for making us humans so remarkably special.  It is a worthy endeavor to consider that the people of this world are wonderfully made, and that God’s desire is that none of them would perish.

Thank you, Sam’s Club #4815, for this helpful reminder.

Scott Boerckel

Reflections on Thirteen Years of Marriage

Today (August 7, 2012), Whitney and I celebrate our thirteenth wedding anniversary. I have a few thoughts...

1. Thirteen years is a long time.

Assuming a normal life expectancy, thirteen years is about a sixth of my life. So, in one sense, thirteen years is a long time. When we got engaged, I remember trying to conceptualize what a lifetime commitment looked like. It wasn’t something I could fathom.

Long-term commitments were not something with which I had experience. Of the eight schools I attended, my average tenure was 2-3 years. By the time I was 12, we had lived in eight homes.

And it scared me because I enjoyed the change of scenery. That’s a permissible personality quirk when you’re transferring schools or forwarding your mail, but it’s not a trait that should manifest itself in one’s marriage.

After we got engaged, I looked at other marriages in our church and was overwhelmed as I contemplated the marriages of older saints. Some had been married three or five or even ten years! I don’t know if I had even the ability to contemplate a thirteen-year marriage.

2. Thirteen years is a short time.

Now that I stand on the other side of thirteen years, it’s somewhat cliché but I’ll say it anyway: it’s gone by quickly.

I know, I know: time always goes by quickly. But marriage—a good marriage—goes by quickly in some unique ways. Marriage quick is different than children-aging quick or getting-old quick.

In a good marriage you realize how much more you want to get to know this person you married. And you’ve spent time getting to know them, but in comparison with how much you want to know them and how much more time you need with them, the time you’ve spent with them seems like no time at all.

And then as you think you’ve finally gotten to get a handle on who they are. . .they change! Not always in major, drastic ways but in smaller, subtle, beautiful ways that increase your delight in them.

When we got married, neither Whitney nor I drank coffee. In fact, we were somewhat obnoxious about it. One day, several years into our marriage, she became a social coffee drinker.

I was shocked. I had married a non-coffee drinker. Who was this strange and fascinating creature that drank coffee (on rare occasions and extremely doctored up)? She was different than the person I had said “I do” too.

That experience provided me the first glimpse into a remarkable truth: my wife is not a static creature. Pursuing oneness with her is not like chasing after a stationary target. It’s not like shooting an arrow at a target painted on a wall. It’s like affixing a target on a particle of light hurtling through the universe and trying to pursue it at a speed just slightly faster than the speed of light. You slowly get closer and closer and then the particle passes close to a planet and is bent ever so slightly and alters it’s path.

One of the joys of life with Whitney is the ability to pursue her and pursue her and follow her as she evolves and changes. Thirteen years is too short a time to catch up with my shooting particle of light, but I’m making progress and enjoying a fascinating journey through the universe with her.

3.      God is gracious.

What will the next thirteen years look like? I don’t know, nor will I presume on God’s grace continuing to be manifested in the way I’d like. As James warns us:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin (Jas 4:13-17).

The point of all this is to acknowledge God’s graciousness to Whitney and me over the past thirteen years. If God were to call me home tomorrow, I’d have no right to complain—but, all the same, I’d enjoy some more time here with my bride, chasing my beautiful particle of light and joy! Happy Anniversary, Whitney!

Education does not change depravity

I am bewildered at the virtues attributed to education.  Most people today, of all political and most religious stripes, hold the virtue of education as axiomatic.  In fact, any “formal” education is regarded as a purifying moral agent.  If we could just get everyone into school as early as possible and keep them there through high school and preferably college, we would have a just and kind society.

Enter James Holmes.  Holmes killed 12 people and injured 58 others in a shooting spree in an Aurora, Colorado theater.  Holmes is also well educated.  Until very recently, he was in a Ph.D. program in neuroscience, having graduated with honors from a baccalaureate program in the University of California system.  He was one of six students admitted to the doctoral program and received a prestigious NIH grant that paid for his tuition and an additional $26,000 annual stipend.

Some pundits are trying to walk back the “brilliant” killer theory, especially those in academia. (See for example, http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/329808/3/James-Holmes-intelligence-called-into-question).   However, Holmes’ intelligence or lack thereof is not germane.   What is germane is that we have a highly educated person who received all of his education in our better schools.  Holmes’ education, instead of making him a morally upright person, enabled him to be a diabolically sophisticated killer.   The education of wicked people will only create more sophisticated wicked people.  Here are some wise words from our 26^th President on the subject of the value of education without a moral basis:

 “A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.”  Theodore Roosevelt

“To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” Theodore Roosevelt

Of course, teaching “morals” raises an important question—whose morals?  Since the early 1960s, public education in America largely has abandoned the field of moral education.  The reason is that moral education requires some authority higher than ourselves.  So, at best, public education ought to do no harm to the moral education of young minds.  However, since all moral tenets except those that flow from atheistic materialism are regarded as an “establishment of religion,” public education leaders have attempted to remove any vestige of absolute moral authority.  This is, of course, every bit as much an “establishment of religion,” but our nation’s experts reason that education itself produces moral virtue.  We must keep all mention of God or especially Jesus or the Bible as moral authorities as far away from impressionable minds as possible. . . at least until someone is shooting live ammo at us.  Then, we can have our cries to God and even prayer vigils in the aftermath of massacre, until the media moves on to another story.

Martin Luther said, “I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.”

In the case of the well educated James Holmes, this was all too sadly true.  And if Jeremiah 17:9 and Romans 3:9-20 are true (and they are!), it is sadly true of us all.

Have mercy upon us, O Lord.

The Batman Tragedy and an Evangelical Controversy

It's nice when, after you've finally decided to wade into an Evangelical brouhaha, the controversy suddenly dissipates.

Last week, I was alerted to an article written by Jared Wilson, a member of The Gospel Coalition. The article was written as a response to the popular Fifty Shades of Grey books and was supposed to show how a complimentarian understanding of the roles of men and women is a powerful antidote to the degrading relationships described in those books. Complimentarianism is the view that men and women are equal before God and have distinct roles in the church and home.

The article was poorly executed. I won’t go into the specifics because Jared has apologized and removed it from The Gospel Coalition’s site. Suffice it to say, some of the language utilized to describe the sexual relationship between a husband and wife felt harsh and domineering to many readers.

Egalitarian readers of the article—those who would argue that there should not be a distinction in roles on the basis of gender—were upset. Many went too far, accusing Jared of advocating marital abuse when his intention was clearly the opposite. Jared seemed to be doubling down, arguing that the critics weren't understanding his point.

I was reluctant to enter the discussion. I really like Jared and felt like much of the criticism crossed the line and didn't address the essence of what he said. At the same time, I was concerned about the picture of complimentarianism that was being painted by one of our own. I had decided to venture into this conversation when suddenly it was over. As I said, Jared apologized and most graciously accepted his apology. 

Controversy over (mostly).

So why am I wading into the conversation?

I fear that the term "complimentarianism" is being compromised. In our current discussions, we are using words like "leadership" and "headship" to emphasize the very character traits Scripture warns us against in Genesis 3 at the fall. Put simply, men, our job is not to "rule" our wives! When I use the term complimentarian to describe my position, I fear that people misunderstand what I mean.  They—complimentarians, egalitarians, patriarchs—all impart secular views of authority and leadership and import them into the discussion.   

I want to advocate a different understanding of leadership and authority, and, therefore, complimentarianism.  It is an understanding based not only on Paul's words to husbands in Ephesians 5:22-33 but also Jesus' words in Matthew 20:20-28 on leadership. To do so, I don't want to use the imagery of a CEO or a coach or a father to describe the role of a husband. Instead, I want to use some of the violent images from Aurora, Colorado.

The tragedy in the early hours of Friday, July 20, 2012 at a theater showing a screening of the new Batman movie was horrific. In terms of casualties, it is the worst shooting in U.S. history. One aspect of the story that is garnering more attention today is the similarity in the stories of three of the twelve fatalities. A quarter of the people who perished in that theatre were men shielding their girlfriends from the bullets of a madman. 

These men who died were not perfect men. You can read their biographies and learn of their frailties. But all of them, at that last moment when it really counted, flung their girlfriends to the ground and sacrificed their lives for them. Even the left-of-center website Slate noted the “ingrained” impulse in men to protect women thatwas brought out in the tragedy.

This is the image of complementarianism I wish to communicate to my sons and other men in the church. Our role is not to be served by our wives. Our role is to sacrificially give up our lives for our wives on a moment by moment basis.

This means not only throwing our bodies on top of them as a deranged shooter is on the loose. It means doing the laundry, cleaning the house, caring for the children, cooking dinner, being quick to apologize and a million other tiny things. 

Men, love your wives as Christ loved the church.

The Name of Jesus

Recently the volunteer chaplains for North Carolina's Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department were instructed to leave the name of Jesus out of their prayers at official ceremonies.

The Charlotte Observer reports that the directive to leave the name of Jesus out of public prayers applies to events such as police graduations, memorials and promotions. Major John Diggs explained that the goal is to be more sensitive to all the religions of the more than 2,000 police employees. Diggs argues that the policy is not designed to diminish anyone's Christian beliefs, but to be more inclusive to all.  This directive possesses teeth.  Any chaplain unable to comply with this directive will be relieved of service and replaced.

This news story reminded me of the time I was asked to pray to open the Illinois House of Representatives.  I was honored by the opportunity.  A few minutes before I was to pray, an official gave me a paper outlining my responsibilities.  The instructions on the sheet forbid me to use the name of any historical religious figures in my prayer.  I recognized that while the language on the paper was generic, the intent was to eliminate the name of Jesus from the public prayers of the House.  Before praying, I talked with our community's state representative about the instructions that were given me.  I knew that I could not pray if I did not honor Jesus in my prayer.  I was relieved when he laughed and told me to pray freely in Jesus' name as I had planned.  He told me that the state still recognized religious freedom.

The name of Jesus troubles the world.  This name has been the source of hostility from the first century forward.  In Acts 4, Peter declared to the religious leaders the truth that "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”  (Acts 4:12)  The religious leaders were alarmed by this message that exalted Jesus and consulted one another regarding the appropriate response to the apostles' message.  After some deliberation they "called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus."  (Acts 4:18)  

Today, many in our country hate the name of Jesus as much as the Jewish religious leaders of the first century did.  His name is so powerful that it cannot be ignored by the world, it must be opposed.  The name of Jesus demands a response as Jesus does not allow HImself to be placed alongside other gods.  The name of Jesus reminds us of Jesus' exclusive claims regarding His Lordship and His salvation.  For us Christians, "Jesus" is the most precious of names.  

We know that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man .  (1 Timothy 2:5)  We know that Jesus Himself instructed us to pray to God the Father in Jesus' name.  (John 14:13, 14; 15:16; 16:23).  We give thanks to God in Jesus name (Ephesians 5:20).  We know that  God has highly exalted His Son and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  (Phil 2:9-11)  How wonderful is His name!!  His is a name we trust.  His is a name we reverence.  His is a name we adore.  

Friends, let us never back away from using Jesus' name in our teaching, our talking and our praying.  Yes, this name will offend many.  Yes, we may feel odd in speaking this name to people who reject Him.  But God gave His Son this name at His incarnation for us to use to exalt Him, to worship Him and proclaim Him.  Our world still needs saving and only one name under heaven can bring God's salvation.  

How sweet the Name of Jesus sounds
In a believer’s ear!
It soothes his sorrows, heals his wounds,
And drives away his fear.

It makes the wounded spirit whole,
And calms the troubled breast;
’Tis manna to the hungry soul,
And to the weary, rest.

Dear Name, the Rock on which I build,
My Shield and Hiding Place,
My never failing treasury, filled
With boundless stores of grace!

 --John Newton

Theism, Quantum Physics, and the Multiverse

In a recent article on Big Questions Online (HT: The Gospel Coalition, see here), Stephen M. Barr asks whether thinking through the logical implications of quantum physics makes it easier to believe in God. In the next few paragraphs, I try to explain his argument as best I can. If you’re confused by my explanation, just skip down to the conclusion section of the article (for the original article, see here).

Anyway, here’s the gist of his argument…I think:

1. Materialism believes that “all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions.” Even our mind and thoughts are simply the products of physical processes.

2. Many people believe that “materialism” is synonymous with “scientific.”

3. Quantum mechanics depends upon probabilities, not certainties. We can never be certain, for instance, where a given particle is. We can only estimate the probability of its location is. This probability is represented by a wavefunction of the system. You can never describe with certainty what is going on within a system; you can only describe its probable state.

4. But things get weird when the system is “opened.” Everything changes when someone makes an observation into the system. The wavefunction collapses and an event reaches 0% or 100% probability. That is, we know that a particle is or isn’t at a given spot.

Now, if that doesn’t make sense, watch this video. I think it will sufficiently freak you out and help you see how crazy quantum physics is and how important the observer is:

5. Here’s where things get even more tricky. If there are only physical entities, minds are only the result of physical properties. What then? “Then the quantum probabilities remain in limbo, not 0 and not 100% (in general) but hovering somewhere in between.” In other words, observing a system shouldn't affect it like it does.

6. One way out of this conundrum for the materialist is the “Many Worlds Interpretation” (MWI). This holds that all possible outcomes in an event continue to exist.

In MWI, reality is divided into many branches corresponding to all the possible outcomes of all physical situations. 

If a probability was 70% before a measurement, it doesn’t jump to 0 or 100%; it stays 70% after the measurement, because in 70% of the branches there’s one result and in 30% there’s the other result! For example, in some branches of reality a particular nucleus has decayed --- and “you” observe that it has, while in other branches it has not decayed --- and “you” observe that it has not. (There are versions of “you” in every branch.) In the Many Worlds picture, you exist in a virtually infinite number of versions: in some branches of reality you are reading this article, in others you are asleep in bed, in others you have never been born. Even proponents of the Many Worlds idea admit that it sounds crazy and strains credulity.

The Conclusion

Douthat reaches the following conclusion:

If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe), and if materialism is right, one is forced to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that is awfully heavy baggage for materialism to carry.

I agree with Douthat here. Materialists are so adamant in leaving God out of the equation, they will turn to the rather fanciful notion of multiple universes, or a multiverse, explanation of reality. I find this interesting because it is a similar conclusion described by Paul Davies in his book Cosmic Jackpot. In order to explain why this universe is so aptly designed for life, Davies notes that many appeal to the idea of a multi-verse. Because there are an infinite number of universes, of course it makes sense that one might look like our own.

Advocating for an infinite number of universes to explain quantum physics and the design of the universe seems to be a rather elaborate attempt to deny the existence of God. At some point Ockham’s razor comes into play.

I don’t believe that Quantum theory is inarguable evidence for Christian theism, but it does point to several things: (1) the materialistic worldview is incomplete, (2) the world around us is weirder than we know, and (3) there is a reality about us that is not merely physical in nature.