Graham and Hawking - Which One Really Understood the Theory of Everything?

Two well known men died in the past few weeks.  Their deaths serve to show the large chasm that exists between Christian and secular thinking.  Billy Graham was a stalwart Christian evangelist who went around the world preaching a simple message of forgiveness through repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ.  I did not know Billy Graham, and I would not claim he was perfect, but by all accounts he was a good man.  He believed in the message of salvation through Christ and wanted as many people as possible to hear this good news.  What is truly odd is that even by worldly consideration, Graham was a decent fellow.  He was true to his wife; was by all accounts a good, if imperfect father; was never entangled in any kind of financial scandal (not even a whiff); and was generally thoughtful and reasonable in his remarks about others.  Of course, he had bad moments, but by worldly standards he measures out pretty well on the scales of goodness versus badness.

Another man died recently: Stephen Hawking.  He was a theoretical physicist - sometimes called a cosmologist.  He wrote numerous articles, was at Cambridge University in England for many years, and, among other things, wrote a book called A Brief History of Time, which is written for lay people to understand some pretty intense physics.  His writing certainly conveyed a sense of humor and an ability to make complicated physics reasonably understandable.  I did not know Stephen Hawking and, again, would not claim he was perfect, but, by all accounts he seemed to be a reasonably decent fellow and by worldly standards he measures out pretty well on the scales of goodness versus badness.

Here's the rub though:  many in the secular media (and some in "Christian" media) had only harsh words about Billy Graham and some even took a sort of good riddance to bad rubbish attitude.  George Will, the iconic conservative columnist, for instance, was rather abrasive in his commentary on Graham.

Yet, thus far, the commentary about Hawking has gushed with praise.  Except for the inevitable complaints by those who don't want his very obvious physical condition to be mentioned, the overall tenor of discussion about Hawking has been kind and generous. 

That is how it should be.

I have nothing against Hawking and feel badly that such a brilliant mind will, barring a deathbed conversion we have not heard about, spend eternity apart from the God who created him.

I do, however, find the media coverage bizarre.  People felt no compunction about roundly criticizing Graham for any foible they could gin up (whether they actually knew him or not - cue George Will).  Yet, Graham himself would have been the first to admit his failings and his frailties.  You will not see anyone in the Christian media tar and feathering Stephen Hawking (nor should they).  I seriously doubt anyone in the secular media will criticize Hawking for any reason.  The irony is inescapable.  It cannot be the case that Hawking was perfect and never committed the kinds of sins common to all people, yet you will not hear anything about his personal shortcomings, whatever they were.

Interestingly enough, though, this is precisely what Jesus predicted for his followers: in Matthew 24:9 Jesus said about his disciples "you will be hated by all nations because of me."

So Billy Graham is treated as despicable because he dared to have clear rules about how he interacted with women; how he handled the finances of his organization; how he handled his dealings with presidents and other leaders; whether he did sometimes sin (yes, per his own admission).  Hawking is treated as some sort of icon because he . . . theorized about black holes and did extremely high level mathematical equations to make predictions about how the universe operates.

 I lament Hawking's loss because he could have been an amazing evangelist for Christ.  It's ironic that he spent so much time looking for his theory of everything when it was right in front of him - God. The very uniformity found in the cosmos, that allowed Hawking's life work to make sense, is one evidence of design that demands a designer.

Hawking had a great mind, and was a good man by worldly standards.  Our eternity, however, isn't judged by worldly standards - it's judged by our repentance of sin and belief that Jesus died on a cross for our sins and was resurrected after three days.  Billy Graham understood that simple truth and is now receiving his reward and gets to be with the answer to the theory of everything every moment for eternity - he is with God.





 

Post Harvey Weinstein - Do Feminists Owe Mike Pence an Apology?

Earlier this year there was a media firestorm about Mike Pence’s “rules” for his engagement with women who are not his wife.  Waaaaaaay back then (a mere, what, six months ago?), feminists crushed him for his “anti-woman” ways.  Soraya Chemaly at the Huffington Post for one:   Mike Pence is why we should stop excusing religious sexism.  In light of the current Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Judge Roy Moore, and numerous politicians in Washington sexual scandals, where are the apologies, the mea culpas, or at least some sort of well, gosh, gee-wiz, maybe just maybe there’s at least some slim possibility that what  Mike Pence has been doing for years actually WORKS!!!!

Here’s what Soraya Chemaly has had to say about Pence now:  What School Dress Codes have to do with Harvey Weinstein.   Oh wait, no, that’s her explanation of why school dress codes are part of the reason society objectifies women.  What has she said about Pence’s rule . . . . . . . . . . .

Do you hear the crickets chirping?  Is hell freezing over?  White noise? [Insert your own favorite cliché here].  She has said absolutely NOTHING.

Nor will she.  Hopefully you are asking, why won’t she?  Because she’s at least smart enough to realize that if she tries to talk about Pence right now she’ll have to twist herself into a kind of word pretzel that will defy all rationality.

Ms. Chemaly and others like her see the world through a hyper-feminist lens.  Everything, everything, everything (did I mention everything?) revolves around almost all men (with rare exception) doing everything they can to dominate women and keep them down.  Sure, some men have moments where they “get it” but for the  most part men are simply sperm machines who really fulfill no other function.  In Ms. Chemaly’s world almost all men spend their time figuring out ways to keep women oppressed and objectified.  So Ms. Chemaly can, in all seriousness, claim that school dress codes are nothing more than a part of the male domination machine designed to keep girls in their place. 

The broader point here is inescapable.  Ms. Chemaly and those who think like her have fallen into a most bizarre place morally.  Mike Pence is a cad because he goes out of his way to avoid situations which might tempt him or a woman who is with him and is not his wife to see each other in a romantic and/or sexual light.  Seems to me every feminist ought to be on board with guys exercising whatever means are required to keep things on the level.  But this is not good enough for the Ms. Chemaly’s of the world.  No, apparently men must actually put themselves into positions to be tempted then never give into temptation to prove their worth.  So when a guy like Harvey Weinstein takes advantage of his power and obtains sexual favors from women in exchange for movie roles, it’s just proof that men can’t be trusted and are simply power hungry and care only about using or abusing women for their own ends. Both men are wrong and morally bankrupt in Ms. Chemaly’s world.

Here’s the problem: the man Ms. Chemaly (and I presume others like her) seeks doesn’t exist.  She’s living in some fantasy world where biology simply doesn’t matter.  So, I guess (I don’t know) Ms. Chemaly would be okay with a voluptuous teenage girl showing up at school in a halter top and shorts which cover only part of her derriere?  Teenage guys are then, I guess, just supposed to “exercise self-control” and avoid thinking even one sexually charged thought when they see this young woman?  Look – from a biblical standpoint I would urge all young men to get away from such a young woman as quickly as possible in order to avoid temptation – even the temptation of just thinking about her in a sexual way.  But the bizarre rub is that Ms. Chemaly apparently (again, I don’t know) would argue that’s not what young men should do.  I guess she would argue they should feast their eyes on this young woman, all the while simply thinking about . . . I dunno  Baseball?  Apple pie?  Chevrolets?  Even secular thinkers get that biology just doesn’t work that way.

The bible tells us to “flee” from sexual immorality.  Paul told early Christians it was better to get married than to burn in sexual lust because he knew the result would be immoral behavior (consensual or otherwise). 

So Mike Pence is “fleeing” because it’s a solid answer to the problem of lust.  It’s an actual recognition that women deserve better treatment than to be seen as sexual objects.  It doesn’t mean that every woman Mike Pence sees is somehow mere eye candy.  What it does mean is he holds women in sufficient regard, including most especially his wife, that he doesn’t want to put anyone in an uncomfortable or compromising position. 

Harvey Weinstein, on the other hand, has no such scruples and gave into his biological “burning.”  He deserves the scorn he is receiving.  It is worth noting that some of Weinstein’s victims engaged in quid pro quo consensual acts.  This does not justify Weinstein’s conduct, but, yes, it does call into question the morality of the women who engaged in such acts.  I get there was pressure to say yes, but at some level isn’t this just the reverse of the very kind of argumentation Ms. Chemaly makes about how men should just “control themselves?”  Shouldn’t women just say no at that point and walk away?  Or is it morally acceptable to voluntarily give into sexual predation to get the job, then complain about voluntarily giving into sexual predation to get the job?  This kind of thing doesn’t happen in the Mike Pence scenario. Hmmm.

In an ideal world none of this would be an issue. But we do not live in an ideal world and, here’s the problem for Ms. Chemaly and her hyper feminist true believers: we will not live in such a world until Jesus returns.  In the meantime, sin rules the day and the best we can do is find ways to work around it.  Ways that work.  Maybe the way Mike Pence does it?

Am I Racist to Pray for Racists?

My wife and I have been talking about the fallout from the Charlottesville mess.  We both agree the white supremacists are morally wrong.  We are both concerned about our inability to talk about anything as a nation.

It’s so easy to pick on racists because it’s such an obvious and unpleasant sin to be racist.  But Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.  Matthew 5:44 – 45.  Since I obviously haven’t read every tweet or every blog post or every commentary, maybe some Southern Baptist leader has mentioned this.  I have not seen it.  All I’ve seen is condemnation of racist attitudes.  I get this is a sore spot for Southern Baptists and such attitudes are rightly condemned as unbiblical.  But have we forgotten the words of Jesus?

We don’t pray for these people because they’re so easy to condemn.  We don’t pray for them because we don’t want to be accused of racism.  We don’t pray for them because their sins are “worse” than others somehow.  We don’t pray for them because we don’t want God to put any of them in our path so that we’ll have to interact with them.

Paul wrote in Romans 3:10 that there are none who are righteous, no not one.  None righteous includes me and it includes you.  Our righteousness is found only in Christ, right?  Not in right thinking, not in right works, not in right political views, not in right “confession” but in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross and that alone.  At least that’s what I’ve been taught at seminary the past (too many!) years.

So I implore the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention – can we please start talking about praying for these lost souls?  Can we stop acting as if they’re beyond the saving power of God’s grace?  Shouldn’t someone (I guess maybe by saying it I’m volunteering?) start some kind of resource for Nazis, KKK members, White Supremacists to learn the truth of the Gospel message so they, too, can be saved? 

Let’s face it folks ­– it’s appropriate to be against racism, but boy is it easy.  It’s something we can all agree on, even when we don’t agree on other very important issues.  I disagree with people from the Church of Christ who think God is speaking today in such a way that homosexuality has become acceptable to Him; but we can agree racism is wrong. 

We have to be very, very careful that the gospel message doesn’t become something only for non-racists.  I have heard Dr. Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary say the gospel should be preached “promiscuously.”  Seems to me that includes racists hearing the gospel.  What else is going to change them?

Part of the reason, I think, we as a country are having such a hard time talking about this matter is because we, including most Christians, see racism as a social evil to be combatted by education and by political action.  Racism is a matter of the heart, not of the mind, and can’t be changed by making it against the law.  Rape and murder are against the law, but keep happening on a regular basis.  Why?  Because rapists and murderers, at least to some extent, see their victims as things, not as fellow travelers through this sin infested life.  Education won’t solve racism because we’ve been treated to years and years and years of “free” public education without seeing racism dry up and go away.  Having knowledge doesn’t equate to empathizing or sympathizing with your fellow human being.  In fact, one might well argue that our morally sterile educational system is part of the reason we are seeing a rise in those who are very publically racist. 

My dad brought me up to understand that you judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.  He was clearly borrowing from Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  According to Galatians 3:28 there is “neither Jew nor Greek” in Christ.  The description of worship in heaven that we get in Revelation talks about every tribe, every nation, every tongue glorifying God.  We clearly won’t find racism in heaven.  Racism, as I have said on this blog and elsewhere is wrong.  Done.

Yet, there will be former KKK members, former Nazis and former white supremacists in heaven because the gospel is the power to change hearts.  It is the only way to do so.

A while back I suggested the only way we could seriously dent Muslim terrorism was by trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.  The same is true for the deluded fools who think racism is acceptable.

I am going to commit to praying every day for the next forty days that God will show me how best to witness to racists like the ones who gathered in Charlottesville last week.  I’ll finish up on September 30 and let’s see where God might lead.

Will you join me in prayer for these poor souls who need Christ?

Or does it make me a racist to pray for them?  Be very, very careful how you answer that question if you say you’re a Christian.

Iceland's "Enlightened" Method for Reducing Down's Syndrome

Rather than get caught up in the storm that erupted after the Charlottesville incident, I want to focus on something equally as malignant, but which receives blessing after blessing from people around the so-called “civilized” world.

Recently, reports have come out of Iceland that it has all but eliminated Downs Syndrome from its shores.  If you aren’t careful to read past headlines, you might assume Icelandic doctors, researchers, and scientists have come up with a miraculous way to insure babies don’t develop the extra chromosome which causes Downs. 

Not so fast.

Iceland is seeing less and less of children with Downs because its citizens are deciding to abort babies who test positive for Downs while in the womb.  This should outrage and disgust anyone with a conscience for at least three reasons.  First, no testing is always correct, which means some of these children wouldn’t have Downs Syndrome and are still being aborted because prospective parents would rather kill off an “acceptable” child than take the chance of an “unacceptable” child.  What kind of human being feels that way about their flesh and blood?  Second, and more disturbing, it’s a short leap from aborting Downs Syndrome children to aborting children for things like red hair.  In other words, there is a scary, Hitlerian, master race overtone here.  Third, and most disturbing, there is an arrogance here that human beings have some kind of control of the world.

When are we going to recognize that our “control” is an illusion?  The world operates all around us whether we wake up in the morning , whether we get in our cars and go to work, whether we sing, pray, read, watch television, blog, play sports, exercise, take medicine or do anything.  The writer of Ecclesiastes understood this principle very well when writing “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.”  Ecclesiastes 3:1.  More:  “Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to men of skill but time and chance happen to them all.”   Ecclesiastes 9:11. 

Icelanders may think they’re doing humanity some sort of service by eliminating Downs Syndrome babies but what they’re really doing is trying to control the uncontrollable.  God retains rights over his planet.  He will do as he will and no one in Iceland can stop it.   If God wants more Downs Syndrome babies, he’ll find other people to have them and love them.

The irony is of course that when people engage in this sort of behavior it’s always done in the name of decency and kindness.  Hmm.  Decency and kindness to whom?  The child who was just killed?  I read an article about this in which one Icelandic woman referred to these precious souls as “things.”  Her word, not mine.  Really?  What then does that make this woman other than a larger, born, thing?  Is that how she perceives herself and others?  I doubt it.  Do people in Iceland tell their kids “hey, you know I would have disposed of you if you had Downs Syndrome, but you got lucky and hit the chromosome jackpot.  There’s nothing special about you except that you fit the bill I was looking for.  You just happened to be a non-Downs Syndrome thing."  You know they don’t say that.

More importantly, are children mere commodities?  Is that really where we are?  In the US we have Planned Non-Parenthood selling off baby parts and decrying any effort to end abortion.  They claim what they are doing is a moral good.  In any other context, the killing of human beings would be seen as the apex of moral evil.  If I said, hey Hitler was okay to gas millions of Jews, because, after all, people are just commodities, just “things,” I would rightly be met with disgust.  For crying out loud, you can’t even get some animal rights activists to recognize the need for culling herds of deer that live within predator free metropolitan areas  - these deer are going to die from starvation or disease or being hit by cars, but let’s not kill any of them because SAY IT WITH ME NOW – YOU KNOW THE WORDS – it’s cruel.  If we care  more about deer than human babies, we know there’s a serious problem.

But killing babies who might have Downs Syndrome – that’s called eradicating Downs Syndrome in Iceland.  It sounds sensible, moral, justifiable.  In the most bizarre fashion, it’s not seen as cruel at all.  It’s enlightened.

Let’s change the scenario and think about how people would react to abortion for a different reason.  Suppose scientists finally find the elusive “gay” gene.  Suppose parents start aborting children because they don’t want gay children.  We all know precisely how that would be treated by the “enlightened.”   Of course, never mind that logically and rationally there is no difference between a parent aborting a Downs Syndrome child and a gay child.  In fact, as we launch ourselves down this path, upon what grounds could anyone argue that aborting a “thing” has any moral significance?  Either this “thing” is a human being deserving of protection or it’s not.  If it’s not, then there is no moral distinction between “things” just like there’s no moral distinction between a cardboard box and cement block.

This lets me circle right back to Hitler.  When we start treating the most vulnerable among us – children in the womb – as commodities, are we not treating them precisely as Hitler treated the Jews?  Does that not then, make us equally culpable?

Icelanders may be eradicating Downs Syndrome, but make no mistake, they’re simply doing what Hitler did.  The only difference is the age of the victims.