Living Apologetics

Slight of Hand

Paul Nelson — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:49:48 GMT

Yes, I intentionally spelled it that way.

The recent wrinkle in the uproar over Federally mandated birth control coverage is not much of a new wrinkle. Though various media sources seem committed to spinning it as a genuine compromise, it is not.

The 'compromise' removes the onus of deliberately handing birth control and abortifacient drugs to employees from religious organizations, and attempts to shift it to the insurance companies. The idea is that it isn't the employer now who is offering this sort of coverage - they are essentially 'out of the loop'. Rather, it's the insurance companies who must proactively seek to offer this coverage to any woman who requests it. For free. No out of pocket expense to the woman.

All of which, is a pretty weak attempt to confuse the issue (hence the misspelling above). The assumption seems to be that if we just tweak the verbiage a bit, religious organizations will be satisfied. What is more likely is a hope that the tweaked verbiage will confuse most people into thinking this is a substantially different arrangement. But it isn't. Here's a good explanation of why.

Here's the thing: The employer, who contracts with the insurance provider, is still bearing the cost of it all. The insurance companies are not suddenly philanthropic organizations dedicated to the Greater Good. If their costs go up to provide coverage, rates go up. Who is paying the insurance rates - at least in part if not in full? The employer.

The 'new' plan basically attempts to pretend that something is happening that isn't happening. It is asking everyone involved in this - the employee, the insurer, and the employer, to pretend something is not true.

The insurance company has to pretend that they are offering something for nothing. And since part of the push for this whole policy is to make birth control and related products available to more women, nobody in their right mind assumes that these things are free already. They cost money. Every month. But now suddenly, the insurance company has to pretend that it doesn't cost money every month. Now it's suddenly free.

The employer has to pretend, when the insurer comes back with a new set of rates for employee coverage, that the increase is just a typical increase, and not an increase that has gone up to pay for the added "free" coverage being provided to women. Both sides in this transaction have to pretend that something is not happening that is really happening: the employer is subsidizing or paying in full for birth control and abortifacient coverage for it's employees. As well as for employees of every other company covered by the insurer, since costs are averaged out across everyone in the insured pool, to one degree or another.

Employees have to pretend that either they're stupid and believe that this is truly a new solution, or they have to pretend that their own religious conscience, or the religious conscience of their church or employer, or the religious conscience's of millions of other people being forced to pay for this coverage - is/are not being violated. By law.

That's a lot of pretending. And I haven't seen many articles that state in clear numbers what is being gained in all of this. How many additional millions of women will be covered who aren't now? What is being gained at the cost of forcing American citizens who vote and pay their taxes to violate their consciences on one of the most divisive issues in our country's history?

Whatever the gain is, I'm pretty positive that it's not worth the cost. I just hope that others recognize that. Soon.

Hey, You, Get Off of My Cloud

Paul Nelson — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:56:14 GMT

I was passed this article from Christianity Today by a parishioner yesterday.

It talks about how the effort to block religious institutions from utilizing public school space (while still allowing other organizations to do so) has taken an interesting tack. In New York City, what is banned is specifically a "religious worship service." Why? In so many words, because it transforms the space around it into sacred space. Literally, a public space is being transformed - for the span of a worship service - into a different kind of building all together.

As I tend to find typical with Christianity Today, it's response to the situation seems somewhat lacking in theological depth. It acknowledges that worship "does change the nature of a place." It then justifies this position by asking whether or not we would be concerned by other religious services occurring in an area that we (or our children, in this case) would be moving about in after the fact.

The implied answer is, 'of course we would'. Even I find myself agreeing at a certain instinctual level. But what of this response? Is it Biblical?

The lectionary readings for the year are currently moving us through sections of 1 Corinthians, where Paul is addressing the issue of other religious activities going on around Christians and how anal they need to be about avoiding them. Are we polluted by exposure to other religious spaces or practices - or in Paul's presenting issue, food that has been dedicated (potentially) to a false god? Paul addresses this in chapters eight and ten, specifically.

His basic argument is that we don't stress out about it, in terms of the reality of what is happening. In other words, if someone else is fooled into thinking that there is another god, and they sacrifice food to that god before offering it for sale or serving it to their guests, it hasn't changed the quality of the food. Food is food. False gods are false gods. It can't hurt us - and by extension, we ought not to be too squeamish about whatever strange ideas those around us like to carry around in their heads or stamp on their prime rib. If my child fervently believes in dragons and wants to draw dragons on everything they own, I don't need to live in fear somehow of those dragons - or real versions of those creatures. We are to have no other gods before God (the first commandment) because there are no other gods before him.

If we think of this in terms of worship space, that means that if the Hindus hold a worship service in a room, the room remains a room. It may smell different. There may be the residue of ashes or incense or bits of food or whatever else was part of that worship service. But the room remains unchanged. Our unease with the room might be visceral, but it is based in a false fear of false gods. The same with a Muslim prayer service, or a Wiccan service, or anything else. Praying to false gods, worshiping false gods, offering sacrifices to false gods accomplishes nothing in terms of physical space.

This is a separate issue from the realm of the demonic, however. And while I believe that the demonic and false gods often intersect, I'm going to - at 7:30am on a Friday - say that there is a qualitative difference between offering worship or sacrifice or prayer to a false god that may at one time have been a demon, and the active effort to worship a demon or Satan himself. There are spiritual aspects at play in the world and we want to be respectful of that. But we also need to trust very firmly in the victory of Jesus Christ over those powers. If a particular space is dedicated to the exclusive use of demon-worship, there may be cause for concern and caution in entering that space.

Why is that?

Because in Scripture, we see the story of overlapping worlds, as it were (and I'm influenced at the moment by N.T. Wright's way of explaining this in his book Simply Christian, which I'm just about finished with). Heaven and earth are neither synonymous nor separated by vast distances, as pantheism/panentheism and deism respectively assert. Rather, heaven and earth are separate, but very close together. The work of God the Father through God the Son results in faith brought by God the Holy Spirit that these worlds are being brought back together, and that at certain times and in certain places, there is overlap, the curtain parts, and the two are effectively one.

One such place and time is Christian worship. Christian worship accomplishes something that no other religion can do in it's worship service - it can not simply testify to the truth, it can become embodied of it. Christians in worship don't simply talk about the worship of God with all the saints, we participate in it. The reality we attempt to describe is really real, and therefore our worship does change the nature of a space - at least for a span of time. It becomes a place where heaven and earth are joined. No other religion can accomplish that in their worship or sacrifice, because no other religion describes Truth. They are aiming at other targets (though they don't know that), and so they can never strike the bullseye in worship.

Going back briefly to the issue of demon/Satan worship, I'm wondering if it could be accurate to describe satanic worship services as a place and time where hell and earth intersect. If Christian worship is heaven on earth (or earth in heaven, or whatever the best way to describe it is), then is satanic worship hell on earth, or earth in hell? Possibly. Again, because demonic/Satanic worship is aiming at a truth. A horrible, terrible truth, but a truth all the same. These powers exist and are being rightly worshiped for their own nature (not a false or assumed nature, like a demon impersonating a divine entity).

So, going way back to the article at hand, there is a fundamental difference between Christian worship and any other kind of worship, and that difference is indicative of a transformation of space into a sacred realm. It is a place where heaven and earth are united for the span of worship, and that change is actual, even if it isn't something that can be measured or observed. In the same way, the false worship of another religious tradition in the same space doesn't accomplish the same change. The school district isn't concerned with this distinction - it just wants to prevent worship of any kind. But Christians should be aware of this distinction so that we, as with Paul's readers in Corinth, might be strengthened in our faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

Surprise, Surprise

Paul Nelson — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:17:36 GMT

Or not.

Hopefully nobody is terribly surprised that today Proposition 8 in California was struck down as unConstitutional by the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Proposition 8 was passed in California in November of 2008, six months after the highest California court decreed that same-sex marriage was legitimate. Interesting that much of the rationale for today's overturning of Proposition 8 was that it took away a previously granted right. Never mind how that right had been granted, or how recently. Once granted, to deny it was unConstitutional. That's fascinating. And frightening.

Trying Times - Part II

Paul Nelson — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:01:18 GMT

Below is my sermon for this morning. It is based on the following readings, which will be helpful to read in advance:

Isaiah 40:21-31 (but read the whole chapter, it's gorgeous!)

1 Corinthians 9:16-27

Mark 1:29-39

For many religious people in the United States the last 12 months have not been full of good news.

In an effort to better control the hiring and firing of employees in religious institutions, in 2011, the Department of Justice filed suit in the Supreme Court for the right of the US Government to determine who is and who is not a minister of religion in the United States. If the Government had won the suit, then religious organizations might have had to submit to the government for approval every position of ministry in their organization. Fortunately, the Supreme Court in an amazingly unanimous decision rejected the Department of Justice's position as outrageous and a direct attack on freedom of religion in our nation.

And then last month it was announced that the Department of Health and Human Services would not grant any additional exemptions to religious institutions regarding the implementation of mandatory health insurance that must cover contraceptive drugs – including drugs that are able to kill an embryo in the womb either by design or unintentionally. Even organizations that are part of a religious organization such as the Roman Catholic Church – will still forbids the use of any artificial means of birth control, not just abortifacient means – must offer these very things that they decry as an affront to God to their employees, and in doing so, effectively pay for people in other organizations who choose to avail themselves of these drugs. The government has decided to apply a very narrow definition in terms of determining which religious organizations are exempted, effectively forcing hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds or even thousands of organizations that oppose such practices to choose between their conscience and either the viability of their institutions or their personal freedom.

As the United States becomes more and more a post-Christian nation, despite the vast majority of American's identifying themselves as more or less Christian, challenges to the Constitutional protection of religious liberty will likely continue to arise. More and more efforts to curtail religious freedom in the promise of achieving some vaguer, greater good will be pushed. Religious individuals as well as the churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other houses of worship they associate with will find themselves facing hard choices.

I don't mean to sound alarmist but just because it is possible to be unnecessarily alarmist doesn't mean that it is never appropriate to sound an alarm. More and more, religious liberty is being assailed while it is simultaneously bludgeoned in the media for objecting to being assailed. If we don't begin sounding alarms now, there may come a time in the near future when the alarms have been removed, or when we are no longer free to sound them or respond to them. I know these statements sound ominous, but there are some in this room who know firsthand how ominous things grow out of collections of less ominous actions. I'm also guessing that many of us in this room at one point or another read books like George Orwell's classics 1984 and Animal Farm as warnings against heavy-handed government intrusion in the guise of public good. Having survived the Cold War, it may sound silly to continue worrying about the themes in those books, of how good ideas get turned badly, and how freedom can quickly be forged into chains. Then again, maybe it isn't so silly after all.

I stand in a long tradition of men who raised the alarm to God's people. Who warned and called out about trouble coming down the line. I anticipate that I will continue to stand in a long tradition of men who were largely misunderstood and ignored.

Consider Isaiah. He strove to warn the people of God in the country of Judah and the capital city of Jerusalem of the wrath of God coming against them for their disobedience and their apathatetic spiritual lives. There came a time when it was too late to avert that coming wrath, yet it was still necessary to assure the people of God that just because their God was bringing catastrophe upon them, didn't mean that He didn't love them and have great plans for them collectively. While a great many of God's people suffered and died at the hands of the Babylonians, God had a larger plan He was working out. Many died. Some were spared. None were unaffected. Some of those who were spared returned to see Jerusalem and the Temple rebuilt, and through their offspring came the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. But whether dead of surviving, not a single one of those people was forgotten or unloved by God. The God who calls out the hosts of heaven and leads them out one by one by name is fully strong enough to never lose sight of any one of his people, whether they are blessed with a peaceful and uninterrupted life or not.

Or consider Jesus in the Gospel reading for today. He was sought out by hundreds of people who wanted him to heal their sick and cast out their demons, who were seeking for him to improve their daily lives, their situations. Parents who would give anything to have their child cured or made to walk again. Husbands and fathers who would give anything to receive their sight back so they could provide for their wives and children. Regardless of who Jesus was or wasn't, he was able to give them what they wanted and for that they were willing to throng him with no questions asked. Many were healed. Many undoubtedly didn't get to Jesus before he left, and remained sick and oppressed. None were unaffected by all of this. But Jesus made it clear to his disciples that his plan and calling were far bigger than improving the individual lives of any one area or people group. He had a message to proclaim and everyone needed to hear it because it was the true source of hope and joy for all people, far beyond their physical illnesses and needs. Yet whether people were healed or cured or not, the very nature of Jesus' message – that the Kingdom of God was coming near – indicated that they were loved, known, and not at all forgotten, despite the fact that Jesus left town.

These are important things to bear in mind as the people of God today try to make sense of what has been and is and will be going on in our nation. And while there are plenty of differences between American Christians and God's chosen people Israel in the Old Testament, there are a lot of similarities as well.

The people of God continue to have the Word of God made available to them. You and I benefit today from the prophecies and promises of Isaiah over 2500 years ago. We must learn from them and prepare ourselves, not with the goal of avoiding catastrophe, but with the goal of understanding how to endure it. In studying the Word of God, we can be assured that whatever does or doesn't happen to the United States of America and our religious or other liberties as citizens, God's love for us never changes. The fact that we may be suffering more and more in the future is not an indication that God has forgotten us, that he has grown too weak to destroy the changes pressed upon his people, or that any one of us isn't a dearly beloved creation whom he not only knows by name, he knows more intimately than we know ourselves.

Our God is working out a plan to reconcile his creation, to undo the sin of the Garden of Eden and return creation to it's perfect and good state. It's a plan He has been working to completion since before creation itself. It is not God's Plan B when we surprised him by eating the forbidden fruit in the garden. It is not the next-best-idea that He had to throw together after Noah and his family turned out to be every bit as sinful and human as all the people who had died in the rains of the flood. God is not surprised or caught off guard. He is not weak and tired and needing of rest, waking up to find creation in calamity. This is the God who gives us strength when we are weak and tired and afraid. The God who never sleeps and will never rest until every possible person is reconciled with him through Jesus Christ. This is the God and the plan that brought the Son of God to earth as a baby and saw him nailed to a tree as an adult. This is the God and the plan that brought the the Son of God not just to a crowded manger, but out of an empty tomb.

And this God and this plan is so vast and huge that as a source of perspective, it's like us looking down on a bunch of ants or grasshoppers. Seeing in the single sweep of our eye vast complexes of industry and effort. Able to take in at a glance the efforts of multiple multiple lifetimes. It doesn't mean that we aren't important, it simply demonstrates the majesty and power and glory of our God. If there's anything we need in our current uncertain times, it's a sense of perspective. Not just of the possible problems and challenges we need to be aware of and respond to, but of the immense grandeur and power and holiness and competence of the God we gather here to worship this morning. The same God who toppled the Pharaoh to set his people free 4000 years ago. The same God who raised up Assyria and Babylon and Persia to teach his people a lesson and then restore them to their homeland. He brings princes to naught, and reduces the rulers of the world to nothing.

From our perspective, our individual lives and our individual challenges and fears are so immense we assume that if God is not immediately and directly remedying them to our satisfaction, he must not be there. Must not be working. Must be asleep. Must not care. Isaiah reminds us otherwise. Mark reminds us otherwise. Paul reminds us otherwise. It's not about us and what we want. We have a job to do. We each have particular vocations as individuals and families. But as the Church, as the Body of Christ we have a vocation as well, one that calls on us constantly to set our preferences and desires aside in order to engage those around us in meaningful ways, so that we might share the Gospel.

This is what we as the people of God at this point in our country's history need to keep clear. Our job is to share the Gospel. That is at least half of why the Church exists, and why Emanuel as a congregation exists. We can be aided in this effort by a government that appreciates our efforts and underscores the benefits that the Gospel brings to our community, or not. We can be actively worked against by a government that no longer finds convenient the truths that we are saved by, or not. We can have our independence attacked or enforced, our beliefs mocked or revered, but our goal remains the same – sharing the Gospel with the community around us. Bearing continued witness in good times and in hard times, in freedom and in chains that our God is an awesome God who is continuing to work out his plan for the reconciliation of all creation. And there is no nation on earth, no legislator or president or judge or pope or any earthly authority that can thwart it. The particular benefits or challenges under which we labor at any particular point in history may vary deeply. Millions suffer and die daily. Millions of others are blessed with apparent peace and prosperity. Nobody is unaffected. All are upheld by the God who calls the stars out by name, and who bids his children to come and dine at His table and receive his Son as assurance that we are not forgotten or abandoned, even if we are forgotten and abandoned by everyone around us in our nation.

We are called as Americans to be attentive and alert to any infringement on our Constitutional protections, knowing from history that encroachment in one area can eventually lead to overrunning all of them. Hopefully each family received this morning a copy of a letter from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod's President, stating the position of the LCMS on the healthcare decision.

The LCMS is not an overly or publicly political church body. Unlike other denominations that issue political statements and mobilize their people on behalf of a myriad of social and political issues, the LCMS is often criticized for being silent overall. With the exception of abortion there are few things we could be called strident about in the political and social realm. But as an organization in this nation and the world, we must be discerning and vigilant on key issues that might directly impact the ability to share the Gospel, to be the Church of Jesus Christ. Our State has given us this right, it is ours to use. Or lose. Or perhaps both. The issue is not reproductive rights or abortion or socialized medicine or any of the other red herrings that have been and will continue to be trumpeted from various quarters. The issue is a threat to our Constitutionally protected but not exhasutively defined rights to enjoy religious liberty. Not just freedom of worship, but freedom to live out our faith in every aspect of our lives, including whether or not to directly provide, or indirectly support and make available to others treatments, drugs, and medical services that impinge upon the sanctity of God-created human life and God-given human sexuality. As Americans, both privately and collectively, we must be vigilant and speak out, or there may be a time when we are unable to.

At the same time we are called as Christians to recognize that even as we are alert and vigilant, as we petition and lobby and vote, encroachments are not evidence of a God who is not there, or who sleeps, or who is weak, or who has forgotten us. Encroachments are always the result of being broken and flawed people, marred by sin so that even our best efforts and intentions can be misguided or misused and abused. As such, we place our faith and hope ultimately not in the state of our personal lives, the state of our congregation, or the state of the union. Our hope is in the Incarnate Son of God, the crucified, died and was buried and on the third day rose again Jesus the Christ. And in nothing and no one else. We trust that our God watches over us even in the midst of suffering and setbacks, and that one day, we will stand together in glory to look back over the vast tapestry of human history. We'll be able to pick out the thread of our lives, in all their glory and beauty and frustration and futility and painfulness, and see how they were woven together into an immense masterpiece that gives all honor and praise and glory to the God who created us, redeemed us, and reclaimed us.

It is toward this end that we press eagerly and intentionally. To be the Church of Jesus Christ, here we must stand, and we can do no other. Amen.

And may the peace of God, which passes all human understanding, keep our hearts and minds through faith in Christ Jesus until life everlasting, Amen.

Trying Times - Part I

Paul Nelson — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:55:00 GMT

About two weeks ago I blogged on the Department of Health and Human Services decision to force religious institutions (not necessarily congregations or churches, per se - but that remains to be seen as well) to provide health care to their employees that includes (free of charge, with no co-pay), contraceptive and potentially abortifacient prescription drugs. The loudest response to this intrusion has come from the Roman Catholic Church, including it's American bishops. Their schools and hospitals and other sponsored organizations have been denied exemption to this ruling. The religious organization that is perhaps most visible and most vocal in it's rejection of both contraceptive drugs and abortifacient drugs is now being required to provide access for free to these drugs to its employees. In doing so, of course, even if it's employees don't take advantage of these benefits, the premiums paid by the organizations are being used to leverage the costs of those that do. The Roman Catholic Church - and every other organization in the United States secular or religious - becomes an active sponsor of birth control and abortion.

This link will take you to a letter released by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod's President, stating the LCMS position on this matter. I encourage you to go and read it. I post this for two reasons. Many of my readers are members of or familiar with the LCMS. Many others are religious but from other traditions. I post this in the interest of making people aware of what their (or another) church body is saying on the issue. I also post this because the LCMS is not an overly public political entity. We don't enter the arena of politics often or lightly - in contrast to many other denominations. When we do so, (such as our very continued and public stance against abortion), it's worth taking note of.

Building Doubt

Paul Nelson — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:44:33 GMT

Skepticism is all the rage. Trust nothing. Doubt everything. Don't take anything anybody tells you for truth. Verify everything independently. Be an independent thinker. Don't be a sheep.

Skepticism is sexy. It provides that slight tinge of self-satisfied aloofness. You go ahead and believe that if you want. I'll be along in a little bit after I've looked at it a little more thoroughly. Or not. It provides one with instant authority, instant gravitas. I'm not presuming that these base motivations are behind all skeptics. I know many very respectable skeptics.

I admit to a healthy skeptical streak myself. Perhaps it's an unhealthy one. Either way it's there, inculcated imperceptibly by both my culture and my faith. Ironic, isn't it? That faith calls one to put one's trust in the truthfulness of its object, but engenders skepticism at the same time, whispering all the time that all the other objects out there that claim to be truthful aren't. Not fully or completely. Doubt and skepticism is always couched in terms of something else, something that we are doubtful or skeptical of. Because all of us believe in something. None of us are complete skeptics about anything. The most dubious and noncommital of us is committed to the idea that we can't trust anything or anyone completely.

Doubt and skepticism - much like faith - has to be fed. It is difficult to be passively doubtful, passively skeptical. Not in any sort of meaningful, helpful way. Doubting is an action. Skepticism is not just an attitude, but a means of being. We can't remain effectively dubious of something if we don't give that dubiousness something to chew on, something to validate it. If there's no validation for our skepticism, we slide quickly towards either ignorance (which is truthfully where more people than not probably are, on the skepticism scale) or belief.

I can appreciate and respect an honest skeptic. Someone who is active in investigating the source of their doubt. But I've begun to realize that skepticism is not a neutral stance. Speaking in terms of faith and the Bible, being skeptical about truth claims made by the Bible is not a neutral stance. It's not an objective stance, though it is often portrayed that way. Being an effective doubter, a sincere skeptic, requires building that attitude and way of thinking. And if you are actively seeking to bolster your opinion against something, you are not neutral.

And if you're going to go to that sort of effort, it seems to make sense to recognize that an equal amount of effort could be made in the other direction. Taking the position that such-and-such-isn't-very-likely requires no more effort than saying there's no-reason-such-and-such-couldn't-be-true. It's not as sexy, but it's equally true. If someone can actively build support towards the former, it's quite possible they could actively build support towards the latter without compromising their integrity or intellectual honesty. Depends entirely on what exactly we're talking about.

But it's a good thing for everyone involved in the conversation to recognize. At least, I think it is.

A Good Hypothesis...

Paul Nelson — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:05:15 GMT

...on the fractured nature of not just our economy but of our culture. This essay is worth a read and worth thinking about.

Patriotism

Paul Nelson — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:51:20 GMT

As I've mentioned before here, I'm privileged to lead chapel on occasion for the Christian school that leases property from our congregation. I always enjoy this opportunity, even though I always feel rather ill-equipped for it. My students are typically much larger and somewhat older at the very least. Despite being a father, I'm never sure if I'll be able to communicate effectively to the 5-10 year olds early on a Wednesday morning.

The theme for the school's chapels this year is Christian character traits. I had to cancel my scheduled chapel time last week because of my wife's jury duty, but I was able to fill in a blank spot they had for this week. The character trait to be discussed? Patriotism.

I struggled with this at first. Initially it seems somewhat counter-Biblical to emphasize allegiance to a temporal authority as a Christian character trait. I debated a variety of directions I could go with it. But these are young kids, and it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to try and drive a nuanced sermon on how to determine when you should or shouldn't obey the law. Right now they participate in uncivil disobedience fairly regularly. When they're older, I'm sure someone will explain civil disobedience to them.

Can a Christian be encouraged to be a patriot? Is it right to emphasize our allegiance to our country when we know that we are ultimately (and firstly) citizens of the kingdom of heaven? It was definitely a good exercise for me to think this through in very, very simple terms. I came up with a simple three-fold lesson.

1. We as Christians should be patriotic because countries and nations are something that God has given to the world. I used as my basis for this Genesis 11 and the tower of Babel. At the end, after the languages are confused, the people are dismissed across the earth. I see this as the beginning of nations. People gathered together culturally and linguistically, and separated geographically. I believe that nations and the divisiveness that comes with them is a post-Fall issue. I don't think God's original perfect design included this sort of arrangement because God was in direct relationship with his creation. The intermediary entities of nations and governments probably weren't going to be necessary. But after the Fall, we (as Lutherans) would say that God governs directly in the Church and his Kingdom, but indirectly in the 'secular' world through governments.

2. We are good Christian citizens of our country - patriotic - in two ways. The first way is that we pray for our leaders. All of our leaders. All of the time. We pray for their protection and for wisdom and strength to do their jobs well. Base text for this is 1Timothy 2:1-2. We don't just pray for the leaders we agree with or like, we pray for everyone in office and authority by virtue of the fact that they are in authority. We don't have to agree with what they do, and we are duty-bound to keep them in line to the extent that we can or are allowed to. In our country we are free to vote against them and even recall them. But we are not given the option of not praying for them.

3. We are also patriotic and good Christian citizens when we carry out our civic duties. In our country, that means exercising the right to vote when we turn 18, serving on jury duty, and paying taxes. Those are the essential requirements of all citizens, and we are patriotic and demonstrating love for our country when we fulfill these duties to the best of our ability.

It was good for me to think through this issue more. There are complex issues at play, to be sure. But for young children, I think (hope?) that these are basic ways of thinking about our role as citizens. It's good - to love your country. Most people in most nations love their country, even if they hate their government. As Christians we love our countries hopefully with eyes wide open - recognizing that regardless of how good or bad our leaders may be, they are to a greater or lesser degree fulfilling a role that God has carved out for them in this world.

So, that was chapel for this morning. Other ways you would have approached it? Things you would have added?

Leavin' On a Jet Plane

Paul Nelson — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:09 GMT

So, here's the scoop.

I'm leading (I use that term loosely!) a group of folks on a trip to Israel. The dates are November 6-15, 2012. We will spend seven days in Israel, plus a day on either end for travel. Cost is $3800/person including airfare from LAX. A detailed itinerary can be viewed here. It is also possible to arrange a land-only fare and negotiate your own airfare from elsewhere in the country. The tour facilitator, Linda, will work with people interested in this option so that we all arrive in Tel Aviv at roughly the same time.

The cost is almost completely inclusive. The only things that are not covered in the cost are lunches and gifts/other incidentals that you might wish to purchase. All entrance fees, gratuities, hotels, breakfasts and dinners are included. While the minimum gratuity for the driver of the private charter bus and our Israeli Christian guide are also included, there will be a hat passed at the end of the trip for donations over and above the minimum gratuities.

Anyone of almost any age is welcome to come. This tour company has experience at working with folks who may not be the fastest movers, and can provide walker assistance and wheelchair assistance for anyone who needs it.

Please pass the word. Even if this isn't something that you're interested in or able to do, others might be interested. I'm hopeful that Rev. Bob Hiller will be joining us on this, essentially doubling the fun and quadrupling the intellectual/theological level. We're hoping for a group of 15-20 people - maybe one of them is you!

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to provide more information.

Oh Frabjous Joy!

Paul Nelson — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:44:40 GMT

Or something close to that. Monty Python has been a source of joy and irreverent humor for me for many years, so the thought of a near-reunion film venture is very exciting.

That is all.

Blame it On the Far Side

Paul Nelson — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:43:26 GMT

The other evening one of those parenting moments comes along that everyone knows will happen, but very few get the opportunity to choose when, or to prepare adequately for beforehand.

I was engaged in a fierce Nerf-gun war with my three kids. They were furiously reloading at the end of the hallway as I awaited their heads peeking around the corner for me to take a shot at. No, they weren't wearing eye-protection or helmets. That's the kind of dad I am.

I heard my oldest son (aged nine and a half) say something, but I wasn't sure I heard him right. So I asked him what he said. He repeated it, and I still wasn't sure I heard him clearly. I asked him one more time, and he obliged.

"Damn!"

That's what I thought he had said the first time, but it caught me by surprise. He said it very matter of factly, and appeared to be using it in it's usual context of expressing some level of frustration. I asked him where he had learned that word.

"From reading The Far Side."

My oldest son has - for years - been obsessed with my collections of The Far Side and Bloom County comic strips. I grew up on them and still love them deeply. Like his father, my son has committed vast swaths of both of these comic strips to memory, and loves to bring out choice quotes at some of the darndest times.

So, I gathered the troops. It was clear that he didn't understand that it was an inappropriate word, so I wasn't angry at him. I explained how there are two forms of the word damn/dam. They understood what the polite form of the word meant, as we had just driven across one a few weeks earlier. They wanted to know why the other form was bad, and what it meant. So, I explained the theological underpinnings of the word as best I could and enjoined them not to use it. They seemed to accept this pretty easily.

At least I haven't heard them using the word since.

Can't wait to see what the next word is we have to explain!

What a Tangled Web We Weave

Paul Nelson — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:08:59 GMT

I thought this was a thought provoking blog post. Sometimes the devil you know isn't very comforting. I like how the blog focuses not on the legalistic issue of divorce, but on how Gingrich appears to be dealing with it.

I keep wondering to myself, in the midst of all the political ridiculousness that everyone claims to be upset about, why we continue to argue about which of the proposed candidates for which of the existing parties we're going to support. Are we truly that lazy that we're going to let the entrenched powers of self-interest continue to destroy our country? Is there truly nothing better to do than settle for the status quo, and make our peace with the frankly disheartening quality of our potential leaders?

I'll admit to not even knowing where to start, but unless a whole lot of people make some starts on this, it seems quite clear that nothing is going to change.

At least not for the better.

So What Are You In For?

Paul Nelson — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:07:45 GMT

Spanking your child?

That seems like a tough situation all the way around.

Yet revisions to an existing Mississippi law against child abuse would make striking a child punishable by no less than 10 years in prison, and up to a life sentence. While the revisions maintain the stipulation that "reasonable discipline" can be a defense against a charge of child abuse, they don't define what "reasonable discipline" is or isn't, leading one to wonder how judges will define it.

I received an alert about this through a legal association that we belong to as part of home schooling our kids. The Home School Legal Defense Association is an organization that home school families can join in order to have prompt legal service should there ever be a question or challenge to their home schooling rights. It sounds kind of drastic, but there are times when either through ignorance or an intentional desire to curtail home schooling activities, school districts and related officials take steps that they aren't legally entitled to.

So, to research this, I first read the original alert from the HSLDA.

Using the information on the Bill number, I was able to Google the law as it exists and has existed since 1972.

I also Googled the specific revisions that are being proposed to this existing law.

I also Googled the legal definitions for particular terms that are also included in Mississippi law.

Why am I sharing all of this?

Because I prefer to try and see for myself what is being reported to me by third parties. We have grown accustomed to multiple layers of people and institutions that tell us what is happening, and we have gotten out of the habit of looking at what is happening for ourselves. Note that the original alert doesn't include any links directly to the legislation. I find that annoying.

What do I learn from the research?

As the alert indicates, there are no definitions for the key terms either in the existing legislation or the proposed revisions. The proposed revisions are more specific in enumerating types of abuse (choking, for example). It makes me wonder if there are particular cases in recent history that exploited a lack of specificity in the law, for which these revisions are proposed.

I notice that the existing law limits the maximum sentence to 20 years, while the proposed revisions allow for a life imprisonment sentence. The proposed revisions also mandate a minimum sentence of 10 years. That seems kind of crazy to me. Granted, if someone is willfully abusing a child, they deserve to be punished. But mandating a 10 year jail sentence? Why? And why allow for a life sentence?

After reading through it all, I'm not sure what the overall point of the changes are. The revisions are just as vague as the existing law. Changing the sentencing parameters certainly puts some teeth into the law, but it seems to me that if there was a clear case of child abuse, the existing law has enough teeth in it as it is. If a judge can already sentence someone up to 20 years in prison, why insist that she must sentence the person to at least 10?

HSLDA sees this as a risk to parents disciplining their children, but the existing law is equally vague enough to provide the same type of risk. The stakes are higher now - which is a reflection of the growing assumption in our culture that almost any crime deserves jail time and plenty of it. Resulting, of course, in jails and prisons that are overcrowded already. It's a curious and disturbing cycle.

What Is At Stake?

Paul Nelson — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:27:52 GMT

The American Catholic world is all afire with the recent announcement that appeals to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to allow for broader, religious-based exemptions to mandatory contraceptive coverage in national health care guidelines have been denied. This means that religious organizations must offer free contraceptive coverage to their employees, even if the religious organization opposes the use of contraceptives. Not only this, but the coverage must provide for contraception at no cost to the individual - no co-pay or other form of cost sharing. If an employee wants birth control, they can receive it with no additional out of pocket expense. HHS allows exemptions to required contraceptive coverage only for churches and primary religious institutions, but is denying the exemption to religious schools, hospitals, and other organizations associated with a religious body but not primarily engaged in religious activities. The only concession appears to be a one-year period during which such religious organizations are to determine how best they can comply with the mandated coverage.

The Washington Post covers the decision by highlighting the additional year that religious institutions are being given to comply with the ruling. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is quoted as asserting "This...strikes a balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services." I'm pretty sure that delaying a decision for 12 months is not really a compromise. It's a very, very small effort to appear diplomatic and willing to compromise when in fact no compromise is being given. And how one can defend voluntary contraceptive usage as an "important preventive" service eludes me. Requiring no cost to the insured is a more expensive options for employers, adding insult to injury.

This article by a British online news service highlights the utilitarian aspects of the decision - it will save money. The article asserts (no quote) that the decision will help reduce or eliminate "future costs" associated with "treating illness." I'm wondering what illnesses free contraception prevents? Certainly not STDs. Is the article asserting that pregnancy is an "illness"? Curious. A quote from Planned Parenthood asserts that "millions of women" will derive an immediate economic benefit from this decision. What is that figure based on? I'd be curious to see data on the estimated number of women employed by (primarily) Catholic organizations that would seek to be exempted from providing this particular type of coverage. Are there millions of them? And are all of them currently utilizing birth control that they have to pay for? And why should contraceptives be mandated as free when almost all other prescriptions carry at least a nominal co-pay? Curious.

I'm not Catholic, but I strongly empathize with the position of Catholic organizations. So should you. Why? Because the government is forcing institutions and individuals to purchase a product that directly violates their religious conscience. Whether you agree with the Catholic position on birth control or not is a secondary issue. What are the implications when the government takes it upon itself to determine not simply what people must have, but must have whether they want it or use it or find it morally offensive?

Were this an isolated issue, it would be chilling enough. But when it is coupled with other recent, unsuccessful attempts for the government (Department of Justice) to gain the ability to define who is a minister in a religious institution and who is not, the picture gets more disturbing.

And for what purpose? What does the government gain by insisting that there can be no compromise on this matter? People are free to find employment where they wish. Nobody is forcing someone to work for a religious organization where they will be denied a particular form of coverage. How many people are actually affected by this, compared with the large and disturbing implications this sort of decision lays bare?

Perhaps I'm missing a fundamental argument about why this isn't a big deal, why this isn't a blow to religious freedoms in our country. And if so, I hope someone will point it out to me and I'll be happy to write a full-blown retraction/amendment to this post. But I haven't come across such an argument yet. Perhaps there isn't one?

Quantifying Everything?

Paul Nelson — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:11:57 GMT

Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. But is there such a thing as examining things too much?

I like to cook. My wife and I like to cook. Enjoying cooking means a combination of following directions that other people have worked out and figuring stuff out on our own. Duplicate, create, modify, explore - the possibilities are endless, even if we don't routinely wander down terribly unfamiliar paths in the kitchen.

As you cook you learn that some things work and some things don't. Some combinations are amazing, others are atrocious. Are there reasons for this? I'm sure there are. Do I need to know them? No, not particularly. While a certain level of exploration and understanding are helpful, too much reduces the process to a mechanical state - or at least it has the potential for that.

All to say, I'm not necessarily fascinated by the research referenced in this article. Consulting a periodic table (or a periodic table of meat) doesn't interest me. Part of the fun of cooking is knowing that it could all go wrong. Part of the excitement - whether innovating or following someone else's precise instructions - is when it turns out great despite our better hunches. Life is not made demonstrably better necessarily because of a more precise understanding of some aspects of it.

There's an App For That - Posthumously

Paul Nelson — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:24:40 GMT

As people spend more of their lives online through virtual communities such as Facebook, increasingly there is a concern about how to treat these digital extensions of ourselves once we die.

A new app has one way of addressing the situation.

If I Die is a free app that you can download and install on Facebook. It allows you to create one or multiple text and media messages that are posted to your account should you die. How does the app know you've died? You designate three people to act as custodians. If they provide validation of your death, the app posts your creations based on a timetable of your creation.

It's interesting, but perhaps a bit more dangerous than people might suspect. I'm sure that someone without any intention of dying in the near future might indeed decide to record a terrible secret or a final insult. But some things are best left unsaid, and what is done in jest without serious intention to utilize, might in fact be utilized to devastating effect.

It's an interesting idea, but one I think I'll pass on. At least for now.

Pay (Yourself) to Play

Paul Nelson — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:06:48 GMT

A quick reference to a practice that at least in theory makes a lot of sense. If people play the lottery on the off (really, really, really, really, really, really off) chance of striking it rich, perhaps people would be inclined to put money into savings for the chance to win prizes. Even if they don't win, they still have the money they put into savings. An earlier article on the same idea can be found here.

The idea seems to be catching on.

I'm all for helping people learn to save. Americans don't save very much compared to many other less affluent populations. Programs like this make sense at a certain level. But they leave questions unanswered as well.

First off, the prizes are paid for by taking a percentage of the interest that would be paid on the savings deposits and, instead of paying it to the savers, pays for the prizes with it. While that initially seems like a sketchy thing - particularly when financial institutions are paying only the tiniest of fractions of interest on savings of any kind - it may not be too bad.

In the several initial runs of prize linked savings programs in the US, the average amount of money placed in savings deposits was around $750. This amount nearly doubled when the number of participating financial institutions tripled.

Still, even on savings of $1600, the interest that would be paid on it is negligible - painfully laughable, actually. Which means that to fund this sort of program, larger savers - people who have tens of thousands of dollars or more in savings - will be the ones who pay the majority portion of the cost of prizes. And this is without the possibility of financial institutions utilizing advertising promotions in exchange for free donations of prizes from merchandisers and manufacturers.

A larger concern I have is that people who save more money are more likely to win prizes. If participants receive an 'entry' or 'ticket' for the raffle for every $25 they deposit, it seems as though people with more liquid assets could simply troll around, setting up automatic deposits for $25 every day - or every hour! - and skew the odds considerably in their favor. The less well-off participant who can only contribute $25 a week or a month has smaller odds of winning.

I suppose this is true in 'real' lotteries as well, but it would seem that the statistical odds of picking six or more exact numbers negates the advantage of more attempts. In other words, if the odds against picking the exact right numbers are millions and millions to one, the fact that I make 100 attempts at it rather than just one probably doesn't affect my odds all that much.

Still, even if you don't win the prize, you have the money you've deposited into savings, and that's much better than playing the lottery. And if the amount of interest you sacrifice is negligible, it isn't really costing you anything at all for the chance to win. You're effectively changing your savings habits at no cost (other than cash flow) with a slight chance of winning a nice prize. Seems like a win-win. Would you pay to play?

The Customer Is Always the Customer

Paul Nelson — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:54:08 GMT

Only more so, perhaps.

The idea behind restaurants as I see it is that you go to eat food. That's oversimplification, of course. You go to eat food, but it's also an experiential issue. We like some restaurants more than others, even if the food is comparable. But the tradition seems to be that regardless of how well we identify with a restaurant, we are in fact identifying with a restaurant. Where we choose to eat and spend our money is an indication of who we are, but it's also true that restaurants have a particular personality, and that we choose that personality because of any number of reasons that are more personal to us.

But what if what the restaurant offered was not a personality and experience that we could choose to identify with or not, but rather a customized experience? What if a restaurant could personalize itself to various different patrons. The same food would be served, in the same building, but the point of contact in the server would be customized? What if the restaurant identified with us, rather than the traditional other way around?

It's a common joke about how many aspiring actors and actresses there are in Los Angeles waiting tables, ready at a moment's notice to slip a script under a producer's salad plate or break into a bit of improvisation. But what if that was their job, rather than a necessary side talent? What if the servers were hired not just for their ability to take orders, deliver food to tables, and look after customers well, but because they could alter their persona from table to table?

Taking mom & dad from Boise out to dinner? Ask for the server to be extra folksy or down to earth. Want to impress your date? Ask the server to pretend they know you as a talented writer or actor, or to demonstrate awe at your table manners or knowledge of early Peruvian salads. Given the miracle of high-speed access to almost any information, what couldn't a talented server/performer pull off in terms of a convincing role?

It would be an amazing feat of acting, to be sure. But it would also be a further interesting comment on our culture. If we grow too accustomed to everything being personalized for our tastes, what won't we expect to be personalized for our tastes?

Granted, this is just speculation and dreaming at this point in time (and not an original dream by me, even, but I've lost the link to a blurb somebody else wrote on the idea). But it's not a far stretch to think that we'll see this sort of thing popping up all over the place sometime soon. iEat? iDine? iStrant? Hmmm...anyone have some investment capital?

Scaring Ourselves Silly

Paul Nelson — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:52:05 GMT

Folks that know us will probably attest to my wife and I being relatively normal people. Not given to a great deal of public flair, rather ill-at-ease in the spotlight. Conservative. Boring.

But upon occasion, we have been known to do some outlandish things. Well, at least on one occasion. We bought a home - on the other side of the country - with two other couples that, it turns out, we didn't know nearly as well as we thought we did after eight months of weekly planning & praying together. And we lived with them (and some other folks) for two years.

So we're not completely foreign to doing strange things. But some ideas are scary enough to make us start backpeddling pretty quickly.

The other night we were talking about something or other regarding suffering and how we are called by our faith to deal with suffering in the same posture that we deal with blessings and comfort - in praise of our God. I preach and teach this regularly. I believe it with all my heart. I don't profess that it is easy, only that it is what Christians are called to. We don't begin doubting or railing against God when things are hard. God is God, we are not.

But it struck me - as it often does - that it's easy to preach and teach this in the midst of comfort. As we sit on the floor of a comfortable home, surrounded by comfortable furnishings and luxuries like shelves full of books, computers, a full fridge and pantry talking about how we ought to praise God even in the midst of suffering seems rather ironic. And I have no doubt that for those who are actually suffering, having someone who is not suffering tell you how you ought to deal with it can be galling. Not that it should be, but it could be.

I started wondering about what could be learned by voluntary suffering. To whit, what if we made a decision together that we would try to live on some drastically reduced level of income - 50%, let's say - of what our current income is. Not that I'd quit my jobs or anything like that, but rather that we'd put half of my salaries in the bank (this was my idea) and not touch it.

We'd give up the nice house we're renting and find something much smaller for our family of five - and much cheaper. We'd give up as necessary the luxury of eating healthy - quit buying organic milk, deal with the necessity of finding the least expensive food sources since we'd have half the budget for food that we do now. Put the majority of our belongings in storage. Spend a year living in a situation that is not what we're accustomed to nor what we want or like.

Just like we'd have to in the event of some great misfortune. Just like many people have to do.

And then I quit wondering silently and wondered this aloud to my wife. Much to my horror, she didn't hit me. She started asking questions. Started thinking logistically about it. Started tweaking my idea to make it even more radical. We wouldn't put the other percentage of my salary in the bank to be waiting for us at the year's end like some fantastic windfall. We'd give it away.

Now I was getting really scared.

I reminded her that she'd have to be the one to deal with the smaller space the most - since she's at home teaching the kids all day while I'd still get to go off to work. That didn't seem to phase her too much. I reminded her that we wouldn't be able to continue all of our explorations into more holistic and healthy eating. That freaked her out.

Voluntarily suffering is by no means equivalent to actual unavoidable suffering. But voluntary suffering does build an empathy of a sort. What does one learn about oneself in the process of entering into something that one knows is going to be hard and painful and unpleasant?

We learned a lot about ourselves in our communal living experiment. Granted, we didn't go into it thinking that it would be hard and painful and unpleasant. We were, for better or worse, incredibly naive. But learn we did. Cope we had to. Much as we'd have to in radically altering our lifestyle for a predetermined length of time.

I don't know that I have the strength to pursue this whacky idea. To put - in various ways - my family at risk rather than doing the instinctual thing of providing them with the best that I can. But it's a fascinating experiment in figuring out what sorts of fears I have. What sorts of things we'd have the hardest time giving up, that we'd miss the most. And in the process, understanding one aspect of suffering, even if nowhere in the same league as actual, involuntary suffering.

But I'll keep you posted if we decide to do something goofy.

Roberta

Paul Nelson — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:08:40 GMT

"Excuse me, but I have to get to school. Can you give me a ride?"

I looked up from locking my car as I prepared to enter my office Saturday morning. A silver-haired lady with a slight stoop in her step and bend in her back was calling to me from the sidewalk and over the dull metal of her walker. I headed over to her. It was a pretty common sight to see walkers of all shapes and ages passing by on the sidewalk outside the church. There's a retirement community next door to us, and I assumed that this was another resident out for an early morning stroll.

"I missed my bus and I have to get to school or I'll be late. Can you give me a ride?"

Something didn't seem quite right, but I brushed it off. I had a meeting that was about to start, and I couldn't give her a ride. She smiled sweetly and thanked me as she shrugged and pointed her walker into the rising sun and continued down the sidewalk. I headed back to the office, somewhat relieved that I had been able to avoid the entanglements of this situation without any unnecessary fuss. But in the span of time it took me to unlock the outer door to the office and then my own office door, I was convinced that I had to go back out. I was supposed to go talk with her some more.

I jogged back across the moist morning lawn and caught her at the curb of the side street next to our church, looking around somewhat confusedly. I noticed for the first time that on the other side of that side street, the sidewalk doesn't continue. Nothing after but weeds and the bike lane and a fairly busy street. Perhaps in noticing the same thing, she had decided to pause and figure out what to do.

I asked some questions, gently probing. Where was her school? What was the name of it? She couldn't answer. It was down that ways a little bit, but not too far. She seemed momentarily puzzled by her own inability to answer my questions. I apologized again for not being able to give her a ride, but offered to find someone who might be able to. She confirmed she lived at the retirement village, and I offered to walk back and help her find someone.

Turns out it was no less than the first day of school, the day for making a good first impression she stated with a great deal of experience. She didn't want the teacher to be mad at her for being late. Several times she paused in her walking, making as if to turn around and walk on towards her school, certain that nobody where she lived would be willing to give her a ride. I encouraged gently. She relented. We continued. She asked what day it was, and seemed surprised it was Saturday. It was odd to have class on Saturday, but she hated to be late.

The office wasn't open yet, but we found a community room where a fire was going in a fireplace and there was coffee and mini-muffins waiting at a table. She was more uncertain now, more desirous of just going back on her own way. I inquired with a young man who said the office opened at 9am. I persuaded her we should sit by the fire with coffee and muffins to wait. She shared a little about her life, how she had lived in North Carolina and New York City. How she had studied drama, and one time only just barely made it into a special acting class as the second to last seat was snatched by another student.

I found the young man again and asked if there was someone he could call for help, then went back to sit with her. The fire was warm and she was enjoying chatting about her past. There was a daughter who had died, and that was so difficult for her. But she had another child, somewhere. And something had happened to her husband at some point as well, but she couldn't quite put her finger on what it was. She had a second cup of coffee, waiting for the memories to sort themselves out in her mind.

Two women arrived a few minutes later. It was obvious she knew them, and that the knowledge wasn't entirely happy for her. They were apparently staff in the building she lived in. I explained that she had been trying to get to school, and they nodded in understanding. I indicated that I had found her walking down the sidewalk a couple of blocks away and their eyes widened a bit as they sat and talked with us.

I left her with my card, and she said she had come to the church once or twice in the past. But perhaps it was another church. I walked back to my office, thankful for having listened to the insistent voice that told me that I needed to go back and be with this woman. Thankful that there was a warm fire waiting for her and people who knew her and looked after her. And thankful as well as hopeful that she won't have to worry about being late for class.