2007 July archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for July, 2007

Marriage, a dying institution (part 2)

Published by Thainamu July 31, 2007 in General. 9 Comments

A few weeks ago Sadie wrote an interesting post on the fact that marriage seems to be on its way out of our western society.

While the fact that marriage is dying can clearly be seen in the statistics, in my little world, surrounded by people who stay married, I had hardly noticed the actual fact that Sadie points out. But recently I did a bit of traveling and was struck by the anecdotal evidence of the truth of it.

I ran into several people who were in what we used to call common law marriages and no one in the immediate context thought there was anything unacceptable whatsoever about the situation. It seemed that the only awkward thing was what to call the other person, since the words “spouse/husband/wife” actually refer to people who are indeed married.

I came to these conclusions: In our current society,

There are some legal reasons to support marriage (eg. inheritance).
There are some emotional reasons to support marriage (eg. stability).
There are some religious reasons to support marriage (eg. obedience to scripture).
But there don’t seem to be many social reasons to support marriage any more.
Further, if there are are any moral reasons to get married, it might be only to make the couple’s parents happy by doing what they think is right.

In other words, outside of the Christian bubble, it has come to the point that it really doesn’t matter if people get married or not. In fact, marriage is almost looked on as an “oh, isn’t that sweet?” situation, reserved for those old fashioned enough to think it makes a difference. I wonder if the time is soon coming where marriage will become one of those badges of Christianity, reserved for those few quaint people left in the west who actually believe the Bible.

Another thing I noticed was the change in the definition of the word “dating.” I don’t know if it has changed entirely, but in many cases it implies that the relationship is a sexual one. So if you say, “She and I dated for a year” the hearer is likely to assume that you were sleeping together.

Book Review: The Externally Focused Church

Published by Jasen Tracy July 30, 2007 in Religion and Christian Books. 3 Comments

Authors: Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson

“If we were to examine church calendars and budgets, we could determine fairly quickly what really matters most to our churches today. Is it what mattered most to Jesus?” - from The Externally Focused Church

The main idea of the book is that many churches are too inwardly focused, and that a change to an external focus is needed. Inward focused churches are those that measure success by attendance and activities in the church. They might offer great teaching and worship, things that are necessary but are not sufficient for a healthy church. Such churches are often excellent at telling the gospel message, but not at showing it.

In contrast, externally focused churches value impact and influence in the community more than attendance, and they would be missed by the community if they left. They focus on deploying people into the community where they can be salt, light, and leaven. Such churches build bridges to the community around them instead of walling themselves off. These churches seek to promote the welfare of the cities the find themselves in; based on the example of the command to the Israelites to seek the good of the pagan cities they were a part of during the exile. (Jeremiah 29:7)

The book talks a lot about service, which is viewed as an essential aspect for an effective church. Service is basically expressed in the “good deeds” verses in the Bible (taking care of windows and orphans, visiting prisoners, seeking justice for the oppressed, etc). Externally focused churches often partner with community charities, schools, and other organizations to better serve people. Inwardly focused churches miss out on this, opting for a “serve us” mentality instead of a service mentality wherein people are only concerned with what they can get out of church themselves.

Jesus seems to have had a special love for those people on the margins of society, and therefore externally focused churches do as well. These groups are often the people we can most serve. Specific groups identified in the book: the poor, children, the aged, widows and single parents, orphans, prisoners, the sick and disabled, and immigrants.

The book talks about three spheres: what God commands and desires, what the Church can provide, and what the community around us want. Service is one thing that is in all three spheres, and thus is an irreplaceable means of reaching our community. Service does not preclude presenting the gospel message; in fact, it makes it possible. This is because the church no longer occupies the privileged position it used to, and as a result of being inwardly focused has forfeited it’s right to be heard in the eyes of the non-Christian population. Service is the way the church can earn it’s right to be heard.

Externally focused churches seek to move beyond this type of “mercy” service to also seek justice (see amongst others Micah 6:8 and Isaiah 58:6). Seeking justice means addressing the issues that created the need for mercy in the first place. For example, in addition to feeding the homeless, externally focused churches also try to fix the problems that have caused so much homelessness.

Unfortunately, many of the examples of actual implementation of the ideas in the book were done by large churches and often would not be practical for smaller churches. One example I found interesting was a church that implemented the “5+5″ tithing strategy. They asked their members to give half their tithe to local charitable organizations. They also encouraged their members to spend time volunteering with those organizations to which they had donated money.

The book ends with two appendixes that quote a lot of scripture verses. The first is “Revealing God’s Heart for the Poor, the Needy, Widows, Orphans, and Aliens,” and the second is “Concerning Good Works and Good Deeds.”

I found The Externally Focused Church to be a very interesting book, although I think it dragged a bit towards the end. It is also an interesting illustration of how ideas of service and seeking the good of our surrounding community, traditionally associated with liberal protestants and more recently with the missional/emerging movement, are having an impact in traditional American Evangelicalism.

Part III - Telling the truth—or not.

Published by Thainamu July 27, 2007 in General. 2 Comments

We’ve talked about telling the truth while communicating untruth both intentionally and unintentionally. There are two more technical topics to cover: telling the truth and not telling the truth.

Telling the truth

Telling the truth, when we really want to do so clearly and without question, isn’t all that easy as we have seen in part I. So here are things to do to improve one’s chances of talking so people understand exactly what you meant them to understand.

Clarification. When you are talking, look for clues that your hearer is getting it, and don’t accept mindless nods as a true indicator. Ask them questions to verify.
Paraphrase. Repeat what you said with different words and see if your hearer seems to understand. Even better, if the social situation permits it, ask your hearer to paraphrase what you said back to you–that will truly indicate if they understood.
Correct misunderstandings. None of us communicates perfectly, so we need to expect that there will be misunderstandings at times. It is polite and honest to correct them as you learn of them. When it becomes obvious by the physical or emotional responses of the hearer that they misunderstood your meaning, take the time to try again. Reword your sentence or give an example to make yourself perfectly clear.
Tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” There are many, many times in life when a simple yes or no to a question is misleading and definitely NOT the whole truth. It takes time and patience, but it is often necessary to explain all sides of a situation and any mitigating circumstances. Failing to do so is not entirely telling the truth.

Not Telling the Truth

Sometimes there are situations where we certainly don’t want to lie, but we don’t want to tell the person the truth either. We just plain don’t want to tell them anything. There are some honest ways to avoid answering a question, as long as we don’t mislead the hearer to thinking the wrong thing. The goal here is for the hearer to get no information, as opposed to the wrong information.

Evasion/sidestepping. You ask “How did you get my phone number?” and I answer “A little birdie told me.” In other words, I’m not going to tell you. There are more impolite ways to say this, but I won’t mention them here.
Routine/expected answers. You ask me “How are you?” and I reply, “Fine” when really I’m sick, mad, hungry, late and wish you’d leave me alone. So, yes, I’m not really telling the truth when I say “Fine,” but you weren’t really asking me how I was, either. We were just greeting each other in a culturally appropriate way.
Filling in a job application: list your strengths and weaknesses. Here is an example of a time when the absolute full and complete truth is not really expected. An employer knows you are going to try to put forth your best side, and pretty much expects the strengths to be a little exaggerated and the weaknesses to be a little underreported. While you should not give any incorrect information, it also isn’t necessary to go into obscene detail in describing every last one of your weaknesses in order to feel like you’ve answered the question honestly.
Giving compliments. Saying “That is a pretty dress” is enough. Though perhaps more open, it is not OK to say, “That is a pretty dress, but it would look better on your sister.” Further, it is OK to say: “I like your dress. You look pretty in it” but it is not OK to say “You look pretty in that dress and you’d look even better if you took it off.” Sometimes politeness or propriety requires saying less than “the whole truth.”
Euphemisms. “Excuse me, I’m off to the little girls’ room.” Well, there is no room for little girls anywhere around, but we all know what I meant.
Sarcasm. When sarcasm works properly, both the speaker and the hearer understand that it is sarcasm. For example,

Q. Are you envious that your younger brother is getting married before you?
A. Why would it bother me? Haven’t you heard I’m joining the Sisters of Everlasting Charity and Chastity convent?

The trick with sarcasm is that sometimes the hearer doesn’t realize it is sarcasm and thus understands incorrectly. Or, sometimes the hearer thinks it is sarcasm when it really isn’t, and understands incorrectly. So you have to watch for clues that your hearer actually understands.

Conclusion

It isn’t easy to talk in such a way that the hearer understands the exactly and precisely the truth you wanted to say. That’s why we have to pay attention to the way we talk and pay attention to how our listeners respond to pick up on on well they do understand.

With these technicalities out of the way, someone should write about the philosophic aspects of telling the truth: Is it ever OK to lie? Is it ever OK not to tell the whole truth? Is there such a thing as a little white lie? How often do people in general lie to us? etc.

Book review: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein

Published by Kenneth Martens July 26, 2007 in General, Politics and Book Reviews. 0 Comments

View this book at Amazon.com
View this book at Barnes & Noble

Carl Bernstein has a new book about Hillary Clinton. He was on The O’Reilly Factor a few weeks ago, to talk about what he learned in the seven years of investigating for the book. In the brief segment, he managed to contradict himself every time he opened his mouth.

O’Reilly: Did [Hillary Clinton] break the law?
Bernstein: Yes.
O’Reilly: OK. Good, I like this. How did she break the law?
Bernstein: She broke the law if, indeed, she perjured herself.
O’Reilly: Well, you just said she did break the law.
Bernstein: No. The special prosecutor determined that she did not. So he did not file the charge.
O’Reilly: So you think she did. But the special prosecutor, Ken Starr, said no.
Bernstein: That is co — you know what? Let me be really straightforward. I don’t think she broke the law. I think there was a time that she did not tell the truth.

So what’s the real story? To find out, I read A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is a meticulously researched, detailed biography. (There are 70 pages of end notes and references.) It gives insight into who Hillary Clinton is, what motivates her, what her goals are, and why she is so secretive.

The Journey
Bernstein’s favorite metaphor is the journey. Hillary’s life is a journey. She can’t be pigeon-holed as a radical liberal, or a socialized health care nutjob. She can only be understood in the context of her personal journey. My understanding of Hillary Clinton was fairly limited. I could identify her as the proponent of the Clintons’ failed attempt at socialized health care. Other than that, all I had was a vague feeling that she was too liberal. So when I heard Bill O’Reilly praising Bernstein’s book as well-researched, I went right out and bought it.

Hillary Rodham, Republican
Most surprising to me is that she began her journey as a Republican. This is probably due to her family upbringing. Her father was a staunch Republican who considered Democrats no better than Communists. By college, though, Hillary realized her views were no longer Republican.

Hillary Rodham, advocate for children
I assumed Hillary Clinton used her husband’s career to gain her own entry into politics. I was wrong. Before she met Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham had already established her reputation nationally, as an advocate for family and children’s rights. Her friends thought she could eventually be elected a US Senator. When she married Bill Clinton, she gave up her Washington career to move to Arkansas, where the public demanded she play a traditional role as the governor’s wife.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham, public servants
A theme that runs throughout A Woman in Charge is that of Bill and Hillary’s deep desire to help the public. Both want to change the world for the better. Hillary Rodham went into law to change the world, one case at a time; Bill Clinton went into politics, to enact wholesale change. Both are genuinely seeking to help the most vulnerable. Theirs is not a quest for power for its own sake. Power is a means to an end. The goal is to do as much good as possible.

Bill Clinton, candidate
Bill Clinton always had his eye on the Presidency. It was where he could do the most good. He considered running in 1988, but decided against it. One issue was the amount of time it would take away from his family life–both he and Hillary were determined to be good parents. The real reason, though, was that at that time, his problems with women would have sunk his campaign.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, co-President
During the first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary wielded as much power as he did. All the major mistakes of his presidency during this time can be traced to Hillary. Hillary–feeling self-righteous as always, and that God was on her side–was unwilling or unable to listen to critics. She drove the health care agenda into the ground by

Actively mistreating the press
Formulating the plan in secret
Deliberately not seeking the support of Republicans
Refusing to compromise.

Bill Clinton could see she was headed for failure, but he couldn’t overrule Hillary. He owed her. During the campaign, she had supported him steadfastly against (legitimate) accusations of womanizing. Only after Hillary’s health care initiative was soundly defeated, and the Republicans took control of Congress, did Hillary remove herself from a day-to-day policy-making role in the White House. Bill Clinton’s presidency was more effective after her exit.

Hillary Clinton, obfuscater
Hillary Clinton has a problem with the truth. As Bernstein presents it, Hillary does not trust the public to understand the truth in context. She would rather present her own version of the truth–not because she has anything dirty to hide, but because she’s afraid that the press will spin it and the public will come away with the wrong impression. Years of relentless persecution by the press and by the Republicans have cemented Hillary’s attitude.

Bill Clinton, amnesiac
Bill Clinton has a remarkable ability to make himself genuinely forget about incidents he’d rather not remember. Actions he wishes he hadn’t taken are pushed out of his conscious mind. The examples Bernstein provides are all related to Bill Clinton’s womanizing.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, blameless
The biggest failing of A Woman in Charge is that it tends to paint the Clintons as blameless. For example: Bernstein mentions some boxes of documents that the Clintons were able to keep sealed. Bernstein quotes several people as saying that if those documents had been released during the Whitewater investigation, Bill Clinton would have been forced to resign. Then Bernstein concludes the documents held nothing incriminating, and that the Clintons kept them sealed for no good reason. Really? It may be true, but that conclusion doesn’t seem warranted by the facts that Bernstein presents.

Carl Bernstein, cheerleader
Bernstein’s support for Hillary Clinton’s policies is evident throughout the text. Her most spectacular policy failure was socialized health care. Bernstein painstakingly details how the Clintons managed to sink the health care initiative. Hillary’s irrational secrecy; their disdain for Washington traditions, their mistreatment of the press, and Hillary’s inability to compromise. Certainly these all played a part. But Bernstein never even entertains the idea that America didn’t want or need socialized health care.

Hillary Clinton, Senator
Bernstein offers no real details on Hillary’s Senate career. He offers some speculation: Hillary has learned from her mistakes. She has genuinely reformed, and is eager to make up for her earlier mistakes by reaching out the powerful people in Washington. Her moderate record reflects her real beliefs, which are influenced by her conservative Methodist upbringing.

Bah! A more rational explanation is that Hillary is rehabilitating her image and biding her time so she can be elected President. Her moderate voting record is less indicative of her true political persuasion than of a calculated attempt to avoid controversy so she can spring wholesale change when she becomes President. She’s always considered herself on a righteous mission to fix the world, and is willing to stretch the truth and lie to achieve that goal. Bernstein examines that aspect of her character in detail, but seems oblivious that this might also apply to her Senate career.

Hillary Clinton, ?

O’Reilly: I have to tell you, I still don’t know what to make of the woman even after — even after reading the book. That’s how complicated this woman is.
Bernstein: That’s terrific.

The New Draft

Published by Colin July 25, 2007 in Politics. 15 Comments

In the CNN/YouTube Democratice Debate the other night, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd were doing their best to one-up each other on universalizing a service that America is one of the last countries to mandate. No, this is not yet another health care article. The service: labor.

I don’t mean to sound alarmist here, that work camps and total command of the labor market are around the corner. But the first steps were loudly applauded at the debate. It was fitting that the subject was brought up in a question about the military draft. Dodd started the contest:

I’m an advocate of universal nation service, not by mandating it, but one of the things I’m missing in our country is the shared experience… I want to see every American given the opportunity to serve their country in some way. I think we need to do more of that in the United States today. Elections ought to be more than just about a series of issues, but the shared experiences of service. It’s so important that every American have that opportunity. It’s something I strongly advocate and would advocate as president.

Dodd says he isn’t going to mandate it – just make it available – as if charities and various service organizations are desperate for more volunteers right now. No, the government clearly needs to spend a decent chunk of change to make a new “public service” program.

However, it will be mandated - 100 hours per person before they graduate high school. Again, not labor-camp material - but it is labor camp principle.

Clinton, not to be undone in collectivist rhetoric, let slip the fact that she would go the extra mile with such a plan:

I agree completely with Chris. We’ve got to look for more ways for universal national service. I’ve introduced legislation for a public service academy that would be patterned on great institutions like The Citadel and our military academies. Because we’ve got to get young people back into public service. And the other night we had a provision in our bill that we passed to have people who go into public service have their student loans deferred and even forgiven. We need to do more to support public service.

I bet most people didn’t know that this issue is already being legislated right now. I sure didn’t. I find it fascinating that no politician would support the draft (although they’ve never taken it off the books) yet several seem to still support the premise behind it – that government has a right to your labor, time and productive effort. That somehow, each individual owes it to their country to give these things without question – with the sole reason being platitudes about “shared experience” or sacrifice as a virtue.

Another crazy lady in her own way, Ayn Rand, while foaming at the mouth over things such as this, nailed the essence of this kind of program on the head:

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man.

While obviously we aren’t talking about involuntary servitude in the terms that we usually think of it – the principle is still the same here. That the government may soon demand some portion of each citizen’s time without a realistic option to quit or defer. Remember, that this question was not asked but the candidates felt safe enough on the subject to volunteer this information. It received some of the loudest applause of the night when statements against a military draft (as opposed to a labor draft) were also applauded. In other words, Americans are still to naive about the principles this country was founded on to discern one form of involuntary servitude for another.

British Supernanny(state) might just come to America to help save you from yourself.

Published by Ornot the Majestic July 24, 2007 in Politics and Current Events. 5 Comments

*For some reference, see what I wrote several weeks ago about the current push for healthcare reform in the U.S.*

Supernanny

“My dearest Britains, put down your quaking cuppa and let me wipe the tears of fear from your eyes. Here, take this spoonful of sugar, for this medicine may be a little bitter, but it’s good for you. I know better than you, don’t you see? Now now, stop your crying! Don’t you worry a tit, Supernanny(state) is here to save you from the worst enemy you have ever faced. A demon who lurks in the shadows and preys, ever so slowly, on your individual. This demon lurks within you and must be excised for the good of the state…and you. Don’t you understand? It is you you should be fearing! Suppernanny(state) is here to save you from yourself! It is for your own good, and all we care about is your well being and your life!!

Also, you’re bloody expensive.”

Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes……The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

While I hate to seem the heartless miser, but with a population of 60 million and an obesity rate of nearly one quarter of that number, it’s hard to think that such an increase of tax is purely philanthropic. Rising costs of N.H.S. (National Health Service, Britain’s publicly funded health provider with a 2007-2008 budget of 104 billion pounds sterling) has already forced them to start rationing care, including denying hip replacements to those considered to be “obese”.

Is anyone surprised? I’m not.

In fact, this is to be expected. Private businesses know that to in order to control costs, you have to either a) increase your influx of capital, b) reduce your outflow and/or c) do both. Why should a government run system be any different? If obesity is a burden on the system, it is only natural that they must then pay more for what they will most likely take (the same principle that American insurance companies use for high risk individuals, but are so chastised for by the Michael Moore’s of this nation. Oh the irony.). What is the final cost? Well, your choice, of course. Like all good socialist programs, it’s a slow ex-sanguination by the hands of the very people who begged to be saved from themselves.

Yet, this is Britain. It’s across the pond, and the Prime Minister isn’t exactly a US President, right? Think again. Considering the recent bans on trans-fats in both New York City and Seattle, the plague of smoking bans across US states, it seems Americans want the same “salvation” in the loving arms of Supernanny(state). Even more alarming, with a population of nearly five times that of the U.K., and projected obesity rates of 75% by 2015, perhaps we should consider what we are giving up while we are pushing so hard to give in.

Don’t worry, that “free” health care is going to cost you.

The Church Building: Blessing Or Curse?

Published by Bryan July 23, 2007 in Religion. 22 Comments

Over this past weekend some friends of mine organized a tour of 5 historic churches in and around Winnipeg, Canada. Winnipeg may not have the large cathedrals of Europe, but it does have some interesting churches for sure. The tour was great, and although I do like the look of old stain glass windows, stone and large organs I have been thinking about the need of a church building lately.

I have been with the church I currently attend from it’s beginning. At first we met in a private residence, then in a school theater and now in a church we own for about 3-4 years. We started out with around 20-30 members and now, 7 years later, we are at 30-40 members.

I think the process we went through to get to our church is fairly typical of most new churches. It is actually pretty much expected; you start off small in a house and as soon as you can you buy a building. The more that I think about this idea however, the more I am coming to dislike it.

Two major arguments that I can remember were put forward when my church was discussing buying a building:

1. Our currently arrangements are working out right now, but since we don’t own the building we don’t have a lot of control and if we want to do more we will need our own space.

2. If we buy a building it will show the community that we are a serious church and here to stay.

Looking back on it I’m not sure which of these arguments is worse.

Although a church may face a situation where their current arrangements for building use are no longer workable to jump to the conclusion that they need their own building, is well a bit of a jump. Has any other options actually be considered? Can a better space be rented? Is the “more” you want to do actually not feasible or is it just a bit harder? Is there another opportunity besides the “more” that your current building allows instead?

Although buying a building does keep your worship service in the community for the long run, how much bigger of a statement would it be if most of the people attending the church moves themselves and their families into the community? Although the community may expect a church to meet in a church building, should that prevent us from attempting to do something different?

The more and more I think back on my own churches decision to buy the building I can see that it was done simply becasue that is how the members were brought up; church=church building. Each church, that is a real church, will eventually end up in a building. It’s sad, but I am convinced that we’ve been programmed into accepting the belief that a church needs a church building to be successful.

It seems that once a church buys a building they can often become stuck in a certain mentality where, becasue we have the building, the way church is done takes on a certain character. The ministry is focused around the building (which is used on Sundays, and maybe during a prayer service during the week), and almost becomes less creative. It’s almost as if before you have a church building the church is open to new ways of doing things out of necessity. Being creative is encourage. Once the building is purchased you look to how other churches with buildings do things and you follow them as close as you can.

Perhaps I seem to be a bit to hard on churches with buildings here. I don’t mean to be. There are churches that have buildings that put them to good use. They open them up to the community, use them as drop in centers, perform concerts in them, host speakers and such. Those are great things to do. What I’m being critical of here is the church who believes that to legitimate themselves they need a building and then go about using that building a few hours each week. It’s a waste. If your using your church only for Sunday mornings and mid week prayer you likely could be doing that within a house or rented facility far cheaper.

What I would like to see churches that decided to buy a building do, is use the building throughout the week. I listed a few things earlier that you could do with it, but there are a lot more. What needs are there in the community you live in? Could the space be used to touter kids after school? If it’s in an area with a lot of businesses could it be opened up for prayer at lunch? Are there volunteer organizations that need space during the week? I don’t think that every church needs a building, I think actually far less do then have them, but it troubles me that many of those that do have them are not really using them.

Do Churches Really Expect People to Change?

Published by Jasen Tracy July 23, 2007 in Religion. 1 Comment

This excellent article (and other things) has gotten me thinking. How much do churches really expect their people to change? How high of a priority do churches make it that their people grow in Christ-likeness? Is the church willing to confront their people who show no sign of growth? Do we even know people well enough to be able to do so?

I also wonder how much the “you get what you measure” principal applies to this. The major things that churches measure are attendance and money, and this tends to lead churches to put more effort into increasing those things. Other common things to measure are conversions and/or baptisms. That’s fine, but one hopes that this doesn’t lead to the type of “conversions” where people just say the sinner’s prayer and never exhibit any fruit of the Spirit.

What other things might churches measure? Is it even possible to tell if people are growing in their faith? The early Methodists in their class meetings certainly thought they could. Can today’s churches tell anything about their people other than how many of them sat in an audience Sunday morning and how much money the congregation gave?

God is Selfish (and that’s ok)

Published by Colin July 20, 2007 in Religion. 2 Comments

Selflessness has been a constant mantra in the church - especially in modern times. It is held by many Christians that the greatest and noblest virtue is self-sacrifice - after all, was this not demonstrated by Jesus’ death on the cross? Is that not the crux of much of the New Testament and the message carried throughout the Old?

Let’s take a closer look at our terms in this examination. Selfishness, as it is defined in modern dictionaries, is indeed a very negative trait because most dictionaries make selfishness at the expense of others. Yet we see that this is not the case. For example, John Stossel talks about the “double thank you” when you buy a hamburger. A hungry man selfishly desires some food; a profit-seeking business selfishly desires money - rather than beat each other up for what the other has, they trade and both are better off by the result - both are grateful. This is how selfishness is a driving force behind cooperation, consent, free-will and even morality. So selfishness does not require exploitation, rather, selfishness is an expression of will. There is no victim in virtuous selfishness.

We know that God has such a will. It is the praise given in Revelation 4:11:

You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.

Paul speaks of it at the beginning of Colossians (1:16):

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Ultimately everything was created, not for humanity or out of some blind sense of sacrifice, but for God himself. It is the supreme, holy and sovereign will of God that everything is as it is. God is without need - he is perfect and complete. He is the essence of the self and thus his will is in perfect selfishness.

Jesus’ death and resurrection, the central aspect to Christianity, must be realized as the will of God - that is what makes it so amazing. It is God’s will that Jesus died for our sins. The love of God is so selfish, so complete, that Jesus would even die for it - not as an affirmation of selflessness, but as the most noble expression of his will.

God is so consistent, so thorough, that he would give more than any of us ever could to save us from our the poor choices made in our free-will. Thus, God does not give out of self-sacrifice because he is not made worse off overall. Just like the man who buys a hamburger, he loses something (the death of Christ on the Cross) but he gains something better than he had to give - reconciliation with his creation.

Paul wrote with such clarity on this subject as he continues in Colossians (1:19-21):

For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled…

When Jesus chose the will of the father - he was not sacrificing himself, but aligning with the perfect will of God. That phrase, “not my will but yours be done” was an acknowledgment by Jesus of his purpose for coming. It was a recognition of the tremendous cost that the will of the Father required in order to reconcile men to God.

This subject is made unnecessarily difficult to discuss because the term “selfish” has come to gain such a terrible definition in both society and the church. Quite a number of teachings and sermons focus on this word as the enemy, or the essence of pride. But selfishness is only pride when it becomes rebellion against the will of God. Selfishness is actually a requirement of salvation because we must make the same decision Jesus did - to accept the will of the Father as better than our state of rebellion. We must chose it, selfishly.

However, some readers will not make it past the term to see the meaning. That is unfortunate because understanding true selfishness gives the love of God and the power of the gospel full meaning. Knowing that God’s will is so loving towards unregenerate humanity is truly amazing.

Canada’s Involvement in the Afghan Mission

Published by gurr8 July 19, 2007 in Politics and Current Events. 143 Comments

With the growing public sentiment (fueled by the Canadian media) against the war in Afghanistan coupled with the prospect of continuing rule by minority government, it seems unlikely that Canadian Forces will continue operations in the Afghan arena beyond the 2009 commitment.

Over the past year, it has become apparent that the Canadian media has taken up the war in Afghanistan as its personal cause (that is, when it isn’t spending all its time talking about climate change). It is impossible for one to go hardly a day without hearing a media outlet (be it a newspaper, radio show, or television newscast) compare the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq. This is an effective technique for turning sentiment against the war in Afghanistan: the war in Iraq has never been popular with the Canadian public. Many reasons could be proffered for why the public has such a hatred of the war in Iraq, but it should suffice that after seeing through the non-sense produced by the Bush administration in the lead-up to the invasion, great offense was taken at America’s attempt to bully and insult its closest allies into joining the Iraq foray. While holding a position against the Afghan war is a respectable position (though the author may disagree), there are several reasons why one can – and should – be against the war in Iraq and support the Afghan mission.

While one may be able to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was hasty, it was supported by the international community and supported with diverse armed forces.
The Afghan community as a whole supports the mission to destroy the Taliban and is glad to be free from their government.
The Afghan mission is not at the point of hopelessness.

Simply comparing the Afghan mission to Iraq is hardly a compelling argument, yet it appears to be working. Support for the operation has dropped from an already low 55% (March 2006) to 40% (May 2007) [PDF].

Canada is currently ruled by a Conservative minority government. In fact, it is the smallest minority government in Canadian history. According to polling, no single party is sitting in a position to form a majority (or even a strong minority) government if an election were called immediately. As such, it is highly unlikely that Canada will see a federal election at all in the foreseeable future and even if an election were called, it appears from the polling that the makeup of the government would change very little. There are currently four parties holding the balance of power: the Conservatives, the Liberals (the Official Opposition), the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois. Only the Conservatives are in favour of continuing to support the Afghan Compact with military force. While the Bloc are representing their constituents (Quebecers are strongly opposed to the mission), the Liberals and NDP appear to be using the controversy as a political bat with which to beat the Conservatives. This political opportunism is worst with the Liberals, who were the ones who put Canada into the mission in the first place and now act as if they never had anything to do with the decision.

The long and short of it is this: regardless of the merits of the mission, Stephane Dion is right: no consensus will ever be reached to extend Canada’s involvement beyond the 2009 commitment. In the author’s view, this is a terrible thing for the people of Afghanistan.

Zeal For Truth