Don’t you love it when people ask you questions you don’t know the answer to? I’m sure most of us here in this room have been asked at least one question in our lifetime that we have found ourselves hemming and hawing over–trying desperately to come up with something that shows we have at least a modicum of intelligence.
Those of us who are parents know this feeling all too well. Our kids seem to ask incessant questions. First it begins with the dreaded "Why?" and then it moves into a bit more difficult areas. I mean, when your kid asks you, "Why is the sky blue?" You can’t simply retort, "Because I said so." That doesn’t make much sense to kids. So, we adults are left with trying to come up with reasons and explanations, and if we don’t know the answer, sometimes we make it up.
That’s one of the reasons I like the comic strip "Calvin and Hobbs." Some of you may remember this comic strip from years ago. I grew up reading it in the Corpus Christi Caller Times, and I always looked forward to see what kind of stunts the little guy in the strip was going to pull off. Sometimes, Calvin would ask his dad a question, and you have two such instances in the insert in your bulletin today.
Please take a moment to look at the first comic strip with Calvin asking, "Why does the sun set?"
Dad looks at him and says, "It’s because hot air rises. The sun’s hot in the middle of the day so it rises in the sky. In the evening then, it cools down and sets."
Calvin asks, "Why does it go from East to West?"
Dad replies, "Solar wind."
Mom chimes in, "DEAR!"
For a kid, this explanation works, and he or she understands it. Never mind that it’s a complete lie. For the time being, the kid is satisfied and has an answer, and the adult is satisfied because the kid has stopped asking at least one question.
But is that such a good idea? Is handling tough questions, or questions we don’t have answers too in this manner the right thing to do? I’m not so sure.
You can believe me if you choose, but I’m someone who deals with a lot of tough questions. The questions I get from people are not quite as simple as why is the sky blue or why does the sun set. I know the scientific explanations of these things, and I think I can explain them to my kids in a way they can understand. If only these were the questions I was asked. Instead, I get asked things like, "Why did my loved one have to suffer and die from cancer?" I get asked, "Why did our child die in utero? Why can’t we be blessed with children?" I get asked, "Why isn’t God letting it rain?" I get asked, "How come the church doesn’t follow the Bible?" I get asked, "Why doesn’t God just give irrefutable evidence that He exists?" I get asked, "I know we are saved by grace, but isn’t there something we still have to do in our Christian faith? Aren’t works a part of our lives? And aren’t we judged by those works?" And I get asked, "How does this Trinity thing work? How can God be both one in three and three in one?"
The temptation is to come up with answers. The temptation is to come across definitive and authoritative. The temptation is to make something up and hope that no one will check your references and see that you really haven’t figured it out. The temptation is to come up with a well used, well worn cliche which satisfies for the time but leads to frustrating questions later on.
And that can be a really tough thing to deal with later, for if the answers you provide come under scrutiny, your trust level can be called into question. For instance, what is going to happen to Calvin’s trust of his father when he eventually finds out the earth revolves around the sun and while revolving the earth spins? What is going to happen when he finds out this is the reason the sun rises and sets and moves from East to West? What is Calvin going to do when he finds out his dad made stuff up? Will he be able to take his dad seriously? Will he have trust in his father as time passes?
The same questions can be asked of me or any other person of faith when wrestling with those big questions I asked earlier. Let’s just take one example. How do you deal with parents who have lost a child–either still born, a terminated pregnancy, or miscarriage, or premature death? Do you try to give a perfect explanation? Do you try to tell the parents, "It’s God’s will."? That’s one of those cliche answers. Not sure it satisfies a grieving parent’s heart in the least. In fact, if someone told me that one of my children died because it was God’s will, I wouldn’t think to highly of a God who wanted to take my child away from me. Same goes for those other sayings like, "God needed the kid more than you. Or God needed another angel in heaven?" Really, God needed this child more than me? I thought God had legions of angels, why did He need one more? Can you see how such answers can lead not only to some even more difficult questions, but they can also lead to making people angry with God when they need God’s embrace and comfort more than ever?
So what do we do with those big questions? How do we even go about trying to answer them? What if...just what if...we recognized we are limited from the get go? What if...just what if...we admitted we didn’t have all the answers?
Take a moment to look at that second comic strip from "Calvin and Hobbs" that’s in your bulletin this morning. Perhaps we can get a little bit of knowledge from it.
Calvin asks, "How do they know the load limit on bridges, Dad?"
Dad says, "They drive bigger and bigger trucks over the bridge until it breaks. Then they weigh the last truck
and rebuild the bridge."
Calvin says, "Oh. I should have guessed."
Mom says, "Dear, if you don’t know the answer, just tell him."
If you don’t know the answer, just tell him.
What is wrong with the words, "I don’t know."? For some reason, it seems some people have a problem with these words. For some reason, it seems some people want to have every single I dotted and every single T crossed in their lives. They seem to be uncomfortable with mystery, with hanging endings, and with a lack of knowledge and understanding. Such people want everything tied up in nice, neat little packages, or they want to come across as knowing anything and everything.
But the fact of life is, we don’t know everything. We don’t understand everything. There are parts of our lives that are and will remain a mystery until the day that we die. St. Paul puts it this way in the middle of 1 Corinthians chapter 13. This is that great chapter about love that couples want read at their weddings time and time again. But there are a few very important verses that Paul pens right in the middle. Beginning in verse 9, they read, "9For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known."
Now, we see in a mirror dimly. We cannot see clearly. Our vision is blurred. Our scope, our perspective is limited. Why do we have such a problem with that? Why are we so uncomfortable with mystery? Why can’t we admit we don’t have the answers now, but one day things will become clear?
Today, my brothers and sisters in the faith, is Trinity Sunday. It’s the one Sunday of the church year where we take some time to remember that our God has been revealed to us as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In some ways it sounds like we have three God’s, but we don’t. We only have one. And even though we say we have one God, we also say that this God is revealed as three persons. For centuries, folks have tried to explain how it works–how this can even be possible. But all explanations have fallen short.
So, let’s not even try to explain it fully. Let’s admit our limitations, not only in understanding the Trinity, but in understanding the totality of life. Sometimes we are surrounded by mystery. And that is perfectly O.K. We don’t need to have all the answers. We can live with the mystery. We can live seeing dimly. We can live by saying, "I don’t know how it works. It just does." And that answer can be good enough. Amen.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Taking on CenterPoint: A Matter of Ethics
This past Sunday, my blog post: "An Open Letter to All Texans" was reprinted in the Houston Chronicle under the headline: "Looks Like Another Texas Landgrab."
The internet version did illicit a few comments, a few negative, and a few positive.
Interestingly enough a couple of negative comments chastised me for addressing this issue out of ignorance and that I should be ashamed for doing so. Well, perhaps these folks are correct in assessing that I do not know all of the the legalities of such moves by the State and by corporations, although I do have a rudimentary understanding of such things. But to yours truly, it isn't just a matter of the legalities.
For you see, there are a couple of other things that I do know:
1. I do know the city of Houston does not need extra power at this time. They are doing quite well and projections do not show them falling short of their needed electric power for quite some time.
2. This means CenterPoint must come up with some other justification for this project. They WANT these lines. They do not NEED them.
3. Their justification is to save their customers (*cough, cough* and increase their profits *cough, cough*. Sorry, I had something stuck in my virtual throat.) money by condemning the land of other Texans and getting right of way through it and building these power lines.
When a company or entity moves from a need to want, it crosses out of the realm of pure legalities and into the realm of ethics. And I believe I know a thing or two about ethics--at least theoretically. Perhaps after reading you might agree. I'm O.K. if you don't.
Basically, ethics is done by folks in one of two ways.
The first way of doing ethics is to judge something by its impact. Generally, this mode is explained by doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, or utilitarianism. For instance, if the city of Houston was having rolling blackouts every day and the production of goods and services were being stymied, including the production of oil, gas, plastics, etc. and the blackouts would be ended by building a power line through people's land, then there is a good case to argue the ethics of building such a power line through the method of utilitarianism.
But, there is a huge downside to utilitarianism. What protection does it afford for the minority? Let's use a time tested example of a misuse of utilitarianism: slavery. One could easily argue that during the early years of our country, slavery was ethical due to utilitarianism. The greater good; the U.S. and southern economy was able to thrive because of the non-existent cost of labor. Many people's lives were enhanced at the cost of the few. Yet, does anyone really want to defend slavery?
I don't. Because there is another ethical framework to work out of. Basically, in this framework, one appeals to a greater law or principle that governs how we are supposed to live. Such ethics are called deontological.
In the case of slavery, an appeal is made to the statement in the Declaration of Independence that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Slavery's utilitarian justification falls flat on its face in light of this deontological truth. If all men are created equal, then no man should own another man or force him to engage in something forcefully.
Which now brings us to CenterPoint. In the absence of a glaring NEED which allows the ethics of utilitarianism to be put into use, one therefore falls back onto deontological ethics. Property owners have rights regarding the use of their land. If they do not wish to sell it or give it up, they should not be forced to do so by an entity because that entity is larger than they are, represents more people than they do, or has more money and influence than they do. The ethics are absolutely clear on this one.
It is the job of the state, the government, to protect the rights of its people. In this case, the government should side with the people whose land is threatened because of no provable NEED in the case of CenterPoint Energy. While profit margins and cost savings are important, they do not negate the rights of individuals.
The internet version did illicit a few comments, a few negative, and a few positive.
Interestingly enough a couple of negative comments chastised me for addressing this issue out of ignorance and that I should be ashamed for doing so. Well, perhaps these folks are correct in assessing that I do not know all of the the legalities of such moves by the State and by corporations, although I do have a rudimentary understanding of such things. But to yours truly, it isn't just a matter of the legalities.
For you see, there are a couple of other things that I do know:
1. I do know the city of Houston does not need extra power at this time. They are doing quite well and projections do not show them falling short of their needed electric power for quite some time.
2. This means CenterPoint must come up with some other justification for this project. They WANT these lines. They do not NEED them.
3. Their justification is to save their customers (*cough, cough* and increase their profits *cough, cough*. Sorry, I had something stuck in my virtual throat.) money by condemning the land of other Texans and getting right of way through it and building these power lines.
When a company or entity moves from a need to want, it crosses out of the realm of pure legalities and into the realm of ethics. And I believe I know a thing or two about ethics--at least theoretically. Perhaps after reading you might agree. I'm O.K. if you don't.
Basically, ethics is done by folks in one of two ways.
The first way of doing ethics is to judge something by its impact. Generally, this mode is explained by doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, or utilitarianism. For instance, if the city of Houston was having rolling blackouts every day and the production of goods and services were being stymied, including the production of oil, gas, plastics, etc. and the blackouts would be ended by building a power line through people's land, then there is a good case to argue the ethics of building such a power line through the method of utilitarianism.
But, there is a huge downside to utilitarianism. What protection does it afford for the minority? Let's use a time tested example of a misuse of utilitarianism: slavery. One could easily argue that during the early years of our country, slavery was ethical due to utilitarianism. The greater good; the U.S. and southern economy was able to thrive because of the non-existent cost of labor. Many people's lives were enhanced at the cost of the few. Yet, does anyone really want to defend slavery?
I don't. Because there is another ethical framework to work out of. Basically, in this framework, one appeals to a greater law or principle that governs how we are supposed to live. Such ethics are called deontological.
In the case of slavery, an appeal is made to the statement in the Declaration of Independence that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Slavery's utilitarian justification falls flat on its face in light of this deontological truth. If all men are created equal, then no man should own another man or force him to engage in something forcefully.
Which now brings us to CenterPoint. In the absence of a glaring NEED which allows the ethics of utilitarianism to be put into use, one therefore falls back onto deontological ethics. Property owners have rights regarding the use of their land. If they do not wish to sell it or give it up, they should not be forced to do so by an entity because that entity is larger than they are, represents more people than they do, or has more money and influence than they do. The ethics are absolutely clear on this one.
It is the job of the state, the government, to protect the rights of its people. In this case, the government should side with the people whose land is threatened because of no provable NEED in the case of CenterPoint Energy. While profit margins and cost savings are important, they do not negate the rights of individuals.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Question the Basic Assumptions
I remember well attending college and hearing professor after professor say, "Question everything you've been taught."
It was pretty solid advice; however, as time has passed, I have come to realize what these professors were actually saying was, "Question everything you've been taught, but don't question what I am teaching you now."
Honestly, I don't believe those of us who teach at any time really and truly want those we teach questioning the things we say. I want folks to think I'm smart. I want folks to think I'm intelligent. I want folks to think I have got it all figured out. If they'd only listen to me, then everything will work out.
I know in my saner moments those last two statement are insanity. The first couple are still up for grabs.
What I also have come to know is the difficulty of questioning everything, even the basic assumptions one takes for granted.
For instance, last week I became involved in a quite heated discussion in a clergy only group on Facebook. We were discussing an aspect of clergy ministry which has almost become dogmatic in its application:
When a pastor leaves a congregation, he/she should not perform any sort of pastoral act what-so-ever. He/she needs to let the congregation know the new clergy is now the pastor. You are no longer the pastor.
Some have even added a "Thou shalt not have any contact with anyone from a previous parish." clause as well.
Unintentionally, I found myself on the other side of the issue. Because of my inability at the time to articulate clearly what I was trying to get across, I found myself questioning this basic assumption of how ministry is supposed to be done. I found myself questioning something that I personally had adhered to when leaving my previous congregation and beginning in my new one. After all, my professors in seminary drilled this command in my head as a boundary which should not be crossed.
But the more I found myself questioning the status quo, the more I found myself uncomfortable with what I had been taught. The more I began thinking this hard and fast rule might actually be doing more damage than it is doing good.
Suddenly, it was literally as if a light bulb burst in my brain. "So this is what it's really like to question everything," I thought.
For this post, I will not go into the dirty details on my thoughts regarding this issue. I'm going to save that for later. I need to do some more work on it including consulting with a trusted advisor in such matters. I need to get my thoughts organized and on paper as I continue wrestling with it.
What I can say right now is such questioning leads to some startling revelations about one's self. At least they do for me.
I particularly have to stop and ask myself, "What other basic assumptions do I hold onto that I have not diligently questioned? What other beliefs do I hold about doing the job I am doing or parenting in the manner I parent which I have failed to put under scrutiny?"
At one in the same time, it is both liberating and frightening.
As it should be.
One could always find that one's foundation is shaky.
We'll see.
It was pretty solid advice; however, as time has passed, I have come to realize what these professors were actually saying was, "Question everything you've been taught, but don't question what I am teaching you now."
Honestly, I don't believe those of us who teach at any time really and truly want those we teach questioning the things we say. I want folks to think I'm smart. I want folks to think I'm intelligent. I want folks to think I have got it all figured out. If they'd only listen to me, then everything will work out.
I know in my saner moments those last two statement are insanity. The first couple are still up for grabs.
What I also have come to know is the difficulty of questioning everything, even the basic assumptions one takes for granted.
For instance, last week I became involved in a quite heated discussion in a clergy only group on Facebook. We were discussing an aspect of clergy ministry which has almost become dogmatic in its application:
When a pastor leaves a congregation, he/she should not perform any sort of pastoral act what-so-ever. He/she needs to let the congregation know the new clergy is now the pastor. You are no longer the pastor.
Some have even added a "Thou shalt not have any contact with anyone from a previous parish." clause as well.
Unintentionally, I found myself on the other side of the issue. Because of my inability at the time to articulate clearly what I was trying to get across, I found myself questioning this basic assumption of how ministry is supposed to be done. I found myself questioning something that I personally had adhered to when leaving my previous congregation and beginning in my new one. After all, my professors in seminary drilled this command in my head as a boundary which should not be crossed.
But the more I found myself questioning the status quo, the more I found myself uncomfortable with what I had been taught. The more I began thinking this hard and fast rule might actually be doing more damage than it is doing good.
Suddenly, it was literally as if a light bulb burst in my brain. "So this is what it's really like to question everything," I thought.
For this post, I will not go into the dirty details on my thoughts regarding this issue. I'm going to save that for later. I need to do some more work on it including consulting with a trusted advisor in such matters. I need to get my thoughts organized and on paper as I continue wrestling with it.
What I can say right now is such questioning leads to some startling revelations about one's self. At least they do for me.
I particularly have to stop and ask myself, "What other basic assumptions do I hold onto that I have not diligently questioned? What other beliefs do I hold about doing the job I am doing or parenting in the manner I parent which I have failed to put under scrutiny?"
At one in the same time, it is both liberating and frightening.
As it should be.
One could always find that one's foundation is shaky.
We'll see.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
A Tribute to Dad
There were times in my growing up years that I wasn't too fond of my dad.
He and I share a strain of stubbornness which has been deeply embedded in the Haug family for generations. This strain does lead to confrontation at times.
But what I have also discovered is there is a strain of patience as well--a strain that waits and endures as stubbornness eventually turns into admiration.
There were many things my dad did that annoyed me as a kid:
1. I didn't like him dragging me away those summer days to work in the cotton patch and grain fields.
2. I didn't appreciate him tearing me away from my basketball hoop to mow the lawn.
3. I didn't want to watch him change the oil, or fix anything automotive for that matter.
4. I didn't want to spend time planting in the garden, harvesting vegetables, or processing those vegetables. I just wanted to eat them.
5. I didn't like it when he kept telling me I needed to try those foods I didn't think tasted particularly good.
6. I was embarrassed when he acted goofy and playful with other adults and kids. Did he have to pretend like he was going to run into somebody with the car? Did he have to make those jokes? Did he have to laugh like that?
7. I was angry that he didn't buy a cooler car for me to drive around in.
But, looking back, I know my father's wisdom. Want a story to illustrate it? (Too bad if you don't. I'm telling it anyway.)
One day, he and I set out to repair a lawnmower which was not running optimally. We were dismantling it when we came to a particularly stubborn bolt. I was wrenching it all different sorts of ways trying to manhandle it. Dad waited a few moments and then said, "Kevin, let me tell you how to get that off."
I smarted off saying something like, "Why can't I do it this way?" (There's that stubborn streak I talked about earlier.)
Dad didn't force me to change what I was doing. He didn't get angry or frustrated. He just said, "I'm going to go do some work. You keep working at that thing, and when you get tired, you come get me."
At that point, I was bound and determined to get the bolt loose. "I'll be d@mned if I let him win on this one," I told myself.
About an hour later, I was ready to admit defeat. I couldn't get the bolt loose. I was tiring, and even though I considered myself strong and intelligent and able to do things my way, I found myself at a loss. I reluctantly went and got my father.
Dad talked me through a couple of steps and in less than a minute, the bolt was loose, and we were able to continue fixing the lawn mower.
But more than that lawnmower was fixed that day. A bit of that stubbornness went out of yours truly because I learned that I had much to learn. I learned my father had much to teach. The process of admiration and respect took even deeper root than I would have thought.
My Dad was pretty wise. Let me figure it out on my own. Let me admit defeat. Teach me a lesson in humility. Important stuff.
Now, as I look back at all that stuff I was annoyed at, I realize my Dad's purpose in all of it. He was being a master craftsman working to build his little boy, his growing son, his arrogant teen, and his maturing youth into a man--a man who would one day have a family of his own; a man who would need to learn responsibility, humor, hard work, and a willingness to try different things so that he could provide for and take care of his wife and children.
I understand now, Dad. Thanks for putting up with me during those years and being patient. I hope you can see your efforts have paid off. Because I'm trying to instill those same values you instilled into me into my own children.
You and mom mean a ton to me, but today is your day, Dad. Happy Father's Day!
He and I share a strain of stubbornness which has been deeply embedded in the Haug family for generations. This strain does lead to confrontation at times.
But what I have also discovered is there is a strain of patience as well--a strain that waits and endures as stubbornness eventually turns into admiration.
There were many things my dad did that annoyed me as a kid:
1. I didn't like him dragging me away those summer days to work in the cotton patch and grain fields.
2. I didn't appreciate him tearing me away from my basketball hoop to mow the lawn.
3. I didn't want to watch him change the oil, or fix anything automotive for that matter.
4. I didn't want to spend time planting in the garden, harvesting vegetables, or processing those vegetables. I just wanted to eat them.
5. I didn't like it when he kept telling me I needed to try those foods I didn't think tasted particularly good.
6. I was embarrassed when he acted goofy and playful with other adults and kids. Did he have to pretend like he was going to run into somebody with the car? Did he have to make those jokes? Did he have to laugh like that?
7. I was angry that he didn't buy a cooler car for me to drive around in.
But, looking back, I know my father's wisdom. Want a story to illustrate it? (Too bad if you don't. I'm telling it anyway.)
One day, he and I set out to repair a lawnmower which was not running optimally. We were dismantling it when we came to a particularly stubborn bolt. I was wrenching it all different sorts of ways trying to manhandle it. Dad waited a few moments and then said, "Kevin, let me tell you how to get that off."
I smarted off saying something like, "Why can't I do it this way?" (There's that stubborn streak I talked about earlier.)
Dad didn't force me to change what I was doing. He didn't get angry or frustrated. He just said, "I'm going to go do some work. You keep working at that thing, and when you get tired, you come get me."
At that point, I was bound and determined to get the bolt loose. "I'll be d@mned if I let him win on this one," I told myself.
About an hour later, I was ready to admit defeat. I couldn't get the bolt loose. I was tiring, and even though I considered myself strong and intelligent and able to do things my way, I found myself at a loss. I reluctantly went and got my father.
Dad talked me through a couple of steps and in less than a minute, the bolt was loose, and we were able to continue fixing the lawn mower.
But more than that lawnmower was fixed that day. A bit of that stubbornness went out of yours truly because I learned that I had much to learn. I learned my father had much to teach. The process of admiration and respect took even deeper root than I would have thought.
My Dad was pretty wise. Let me figure it out on my own. Let me admit defeat. Teach me a lesson in humility. Important stuff.
Now, as I look back at all that stuff I was annoyed at, I realize my Dad's purpose in all of it. He was being a master craftsman working to build his little boy, his growing son, his arrogant teen, and his maturing youth into a man--a man who would one day have a family of his own; a man who would need to learn responsibility, humor, hard work, and a willingness to try different things so that he could provide for and take care of his wife and children.
I understand now, Dad. Thanks for putting up with me during those years and being patient. I hope you can see your efforts have paid off. Because I'm trying to instill those same values you instilled into me into my own children.
You and mom mean a ton to me, but today is your day, Dad. Happy Father's Day!
Friday, June 17, 2011
Honesty Versus Expectations: Weiner Follow Up
After my post the other day on Rep. Weiner's debacle, one of my friends posted the following in my Facebook comments:
I knew you were a brave man, but broaching this topic makes you braver or crazy. Not sure which...
I responded, "Maybe a little bit of both."
But I did some thinking about my friend's comment. Some serious thinking, and I began to wonder why saying the things I said in my blog would be considered crazy. And I wondered if it was because I was willing to "tell it like it is" to be brutally honest about the way the majority of men function.
Believe me, I know the way men are expected to be. An entire culture has sprung up which reacted against the macho, male dominated cultures of the past where women were objects to be seen and not heard, and where they were supposed to remain at home: barefoot, pregnant, and satisfied to do nothing more than watch the children and cook for their spouse. Men were almost given free reign to do whatever they wanted, and that wasn't necessarily a good thing. So, instead of the male domineering, macho type, men were coached to be more considerate, more loving, to get in touch with their feminine side. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the problem is, I'm not feminine. I am masculine. There are small amounts of estrogen which flow through my body, but the overriding hormone is testosterone. Period. Can't change that. At all.
Which means exactly what now a days? Now, that's a tough question to answer. Gender roles today are not so well defined. I spoke a little bit about a time period not so long ago. Perhaps the only good thing about this time was that gender roles were very defined. Men knew their place, and women knew what they should be doing. (I'm not saying the roles were good. I am saying, folks understood them.)
That is a far cry from the way things are today in gender relations. Men and women struggle with what is expected from them. Many function in a great cloud of unknowing trying to figure out what they should or should not be doing.
For instance, I know of men who have positioned themselves to open a door for a woman only to be rebuked for their act of kindness/chivalry. Yours truly continues to open doors in such a fashion, even though he has never personally suffered such a rebuke, and I wouldn't stop if someone did such a thing. Such courtesy is deeply ingrained in me no matter the consequences. But, for men who are more sensitive, they are left scratching their heads in bewilderment that their act of kindness receives a tongue lashing.
From the other perspective: my wife is happy to stay at home and raise our children. Yet, there are those who tell her that she is unfulfilled and not reaching her potential by not working outside the home. Really? When we have visited about such things, she will often talk about how rewarding it is to stay with the kids, but she still feels that pull by those who criticize women who stay at home to care for their families.
This lack of definition in gender roles leads to all kinds of issues in marriage. Oftentimes couples wed , and they each have expectations of the other. Because there is no defined standard, the first year of marriage is often very, very troublesome as the couple works to define their expectations of how each is to function. Many times such issues are never worked out, and the long term result is the big D (and I don't mean Dallas).
Looking at the way the world functions, I don't think we will ever come back to the time where gender roles are fully defined by society. There will be continued attempts, but I'm not sure they will ever be successful. Instead, individual family units will have to work diligently to define those roles.
But here is where the sticky part comes in. Most of the time, we are not satisfied to allow individuals to define their own roles. We are not satisfied to allow men and women to define themselves and who they are. Most of the time we want to tell others how they should act and what they should do.
"Get in touch with your feminine side! Then you will be a real man!"
Whatever.
Here's a little secret: I'm not worried about my feminine side. I'm perfectly happy being a man. I'm perfectly happy taking responsibility for providing for my family and taking responsibility for my actions (BTW, I believe this is the sign of a real man. Sexual conquests do not make anyone more masculine. Neither do large muscles. Neither do muscle cars, even though I own one.). I'm perfectly happy treating women with respect and dignity. I do not consider women the "weaker" sex by any extreme. I consider women helpers and partners, and I try to allow each individual woman to define herself as she sees fit. I do not put any expectations upon my wife to work or stay at home--that is her choice, and I am raising my daughters to be strong, competent little girls, young ladies, and women who will have the choice to decide what they want to do with life and who they want to be. It is not my job to tell them what to become, but to give them the tools and then respect them enough when they make their own choices.
Biblically, my family adheres to the "man is the head of the house" stuff. Yep, that Ephesians text does govern us. You know, the one that drives some women absolutely nuts:
21Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 2324Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
This doesn't mean I dominate and tell my wife what to do. Remember the writer here tells husbands to love their wives and to give themselves up for their wives as Christ gave himself up for the church. This means, I do not make a single important decision without consulting my wife. We're in this as a team, but the ultimate responsibility falls on my shoulders. This also means I cherish her thoughts and hopes and desires. I want what is best for her, and I can only know that by being in communication with her. As she defines her hopes and wants and desires, I want to encourage her, help her achieve those things, and help her to be the person she feels God is calling her to be. And if I have to, I will lay down my life for her, no questions asked. Ephesians doesn't tell women to do that, only men. Only men have a call to die for women, that's how much respect they are due.
Now, I'm being brutally honest in how I view such matters. I'm being brutally honest in how my wife and I define our relationship. I'd bet a dollar to a hole in a donut it doesn't meet the expectations of some readers. I'll bet a dollar to a hole in a donut there would be some who would read the above statements and think I am nothing more than a male, chauvinist pig. Well, I respect your right to hold that sort of judgment upon me. But I truly am not worried about it. My family and I have hammered out our roles, and they have worked well for 15 years thus far. We are committed to continue to make them work together, and they are up for negotiation if necessary. This is our reality and it works, and we will take what works over anyone else's expectations.
That's the honest truth.
I knew you were a brave man, but broaching this topic makes you braver or crazy. Not sure which...
I responded, "Maybe a little bit of both."
But I did some thinking about my friend's comment. Some serious thinking, and I began to wonder why saying the things I said in my blog would be considered crazy. And I wondered if it was because I was willing to "tell it like it is" to be brutally honest about the way the majority of men function.
Believe me, I know the way men are expected to be. An entire culture has sprung up which reacted against the macho, male dominated cultures of the past where women were objects to be seen and not heard, and where they were supposed to remain at home: barefoot, pregnant, and satisfied to do nothing more than watch the children and cook for their spouse. Men were almost given free reign to do whatever they wanted, and that wasn't necessarily a good thing. So, instead of the male domineering, macho type, men were coached to be more considerate, more loving, to get in touch with their feminine side. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the problem is, I'm not feminine. I am masculine. There are small amounts of estrogen which flow through my body, but the overriding hormone is testosterone. Period. Can't change that. At all.
Which means exactly what now a days? Now, that's a tough question to answer. Gender roles today are not so well defined. I spoke a little bit about a time period not so long ago. Perhaps the only good thing about this time was that gender roles were very defined. Men knew their place, and women knew what they should be doing. (I'm not saying the roles were good. I am saying, folks understood them.)
That is a far cry from the way things are today in gender relations. Men and women struggle with what is expected from them. Many function in a great cloud of unknowing trying to figure out what they should or should not be doing.
For instance, I know of men who have positioned themselves to open a door for a woman only to be rebuked for their act of kindness/chivalry. Yours truly continues to open doors in such a fashion, even though he has never personally suffered such a rebuke, and I wouldn't stop if someone did such a thing. Such courtesy is deeply ingrained in me no matter the consequences. But, for men who are more sensitive, they are left scratching their heads in bewilderment that their act of kindness receives a tongue lashing.
From the other perspective: my wife is happy to stay at home and raise our children. Yet, there are those who tell her that she is unfulfilled and not reaching her potential by not working outside the home. Really? When we have visited about such things, she will often talk about how rewarding it is to stay with the kids, but she still feels that pull by those who criticize women who stay at home to care for their families.
This lack of definition in gender roles leads to all kinds of issues in marriage. Oftentimes couples wed , and they each have expectations of the other. Because there is no defined standard, the first year of marriage is often very, very troublesome as the couple works to define their expectations of how each is to function. Many times such issues are never worked out, and the long term result is the big D (and I don't mean Dallas).
Looking at the way the world functions, I don't think we will ever come back to the time where gender roles are fully defined by society. There will be continued attempts, but I'm not sure they will ever be successful. Instead, individual family units will have to work diligently to define those roles.
But here is where the sticky part comes in. Most of the time, we are not satisfied to allow individuals to define their own roles. We are not satisfied to allow men and women to define themselves and who they are. Most of the time we want to tell others how they should act and what they should do.
"Get in touch with your feminine side! Then you will be a real man!"
Whatever.
Here's a little secret: I'm not worried about my feminine side. I'm perfectly happy being a man. I'm perfectly happy taking responsibility for providing for my family and taking responsibility for my actions (BTW, I believe this is the sign of a real man. Sexual conquests do not make anyone more masculine. Neither do large muscles. Neither do muscle cars, even though I own one.). I'm perfectly happy treating women with respect and dignity. I do not consider women the "weaker" sex by any extreme. I consider women helpers and partners, and I try to allow each individual woman to define herself as she sees fit. I do not put any expectations upon my wife to work or stay at home--that is her choice, and I am raising my daughters to be strong, competent little girls, young ladies, and women who will have the choice to decide what they want to do with life and who they want to be. It is not my job to tell them what to become, but to give them the tools and then respect them enough when they make their own choices.
Biblically, my family adheres to the "man is the head of the house" stuff. Yep, that Ephesians text does govern us. You know, the one that drives some women absolutely nuts:
21Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 2324Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
This doesn't mean I dominate and tell my wife what to do. Remember the writer here tells husbands to love their wives and to give themselves up for their wives as Christ gave himself up for the church. This means, I do not make a single important decision without consulting my wife. We're in this as a team, but the ultimate responsibility falls on my shoulders. This also means I cherish her thoughts and hopes and desires. I want what is best for her, and I can only know that by being in communication with her. As she defines her hopes and wants and desires, I want to encourage her, help her achieve those things, and help her to be the person she feels God is calling her to be. And if I have to, I will lay down my life for her, no questions asked. Ephesians doesn't tell women to do that, only men. Only men have a call to die for women, that's how much respect they are due.
Now, I'm being brutally honest in how I view such matters. I'm being brutally honest in how my wife and I define our relationship. I'd bet a dollar to a hole in a donut it doesn't meet the expectations of some readers. I'll bet a dollar to a hole in a donut there would be some who would read the above statements and think I am nothing more than a male, chauvinist pig. Well, I respect your right to hold that sort of judgment upon me. But I truly am not worried about it. My family and I have hammered out our roles, and they have worked well for 15 years thus far. We are committed to continue to make them work together, and they are up for negotiation if necessary. This is our reality and it works, and we will take what works over anyone else's expectations.
That's the honest truth.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Is It Reasonable to Believe in God? Part 2
One's basic premises guide any discussion regarding the reasonableness of believing in God.
The evidence can be read either way.
If you are sympathetic to belief in God, you will see the evidence pointing toward God.
If you are not sypathetic to belief in God, you will see the evidence in a very different way.
For instance:
If I place a chair in the middle of a room, I will look at it and say, "This is a chair." There would be little dispute amongst my friends and family members or nearly anyone I know that this is a chair.
However, if someone wanted to be a smart alec about it, someone who is well versed in particle physics, he or she could say, "That's not a chair. It's a bunch of atoms all vibrating at exactly the same frequency giving the appearance of a chair. It's really a bunch of energy floating around in a bunch of other energy. And your brain is sending energetic signals telling you there is a chair there, when in reality, there is only energy."
Well, technically, this person is correct. But there is still a darn chair in the room--even if it is made out of energy. One's perspective changes how one sees the chair, but it does not change the reality that there is a chair there.
Well, what if the circumstance is somewhat different? What if we are talking about the evidence for God?
As I stated yesterday, I do not believe the evidence is conclusive, but I think it leads a person to a reasonable belief there is a creator of the universe. Why?
1. The chances are astronomically small that the universe works the way it works. The odds are astronomically small that all the stuff lines up to have life as we know it as well. Mathematically, chalking it up to chance is a cop out.
2. The universe has a beginning which begs the question, what made it begin? Did it just happen? I personally don't think it just happened. I believe there is a cause.
3. If the universe is just a random occurance, is there any sort of purpose to it? One would hope so. And if there is a purpose to this universe, and to life at all, wouldn't we get clues as to what it is? I think so, because the uniqueness of the universe demands it.
4. Evolution doesn't look so random as it occurs. Something seems to be driving it. Most biologists acknowledge this. Most of the adaptations that occur should take much more time than they do. How do animals adapt and change so fast? There seems to be a purpose behind it. Again, not proof of God, but it makes it reasonable.
Most scientists who are open minded will tell you the evidence can point either way, and much of it depends upon your predisposition.
As Christians, I believe we are predisposed to belief in God. I believe His Holy Spirit moves to instill faith within us. For the past several hundred years, such faith was seen by science as irrational, hokey, magical, and inferior since it was not based in rational thought. There was a belief that science would lead us to a better world since science could measure and verify and remove the hokiness behind faith driven propositions.
Science failed in this endeavor. While it gave us tremendous technological skills and accomplishments, it did not manage to solve the greatest mysteries of our species: why are we here? What is our purpose? How do we get along with one another? How do we overcome our selfish natures and begin to care about folks who are not members of our "tribe"? How do we be good stewards of the earth?
Science has a hard time giving answers to these questions. In fact, some of the "answers" are pretty unreasonable. (Take evolution and survival of the fittest to its logical conclusion with the very ill, very old, mentally challenged, etc. See if you think such an approach to ethics is reasonable.)
When it comes to asking the big questions, faith certainly plays a huge role. Disputing such a thing, I believe is intellectually dishonest. Therefore, when seeking those kinds of answers, I believe faith is more than just faith. It's perfectly reasonable.
The evidence can be read either way.
If you are sympathetic to belief in God, you will see the evidence pointing toward God.
If you are not sypathetic to belief in God, you will see the evidence in a very different way.
For instance:
If I place a chair in the middle of a room, I will look at it and say, "This is a chair." There would be little dispute amongst my friends and family members or nearly anyone I know that this is a chair.
However, if someone wanted to be a smart alec about it, someone who is well versed in particle physics, he or she could say, "That's not a chair. It's a bunch of atoms all vibrating at exactly the same frequency giving the appearance of a chair. It's really a bunch of energy floating around in a bunch of other energy. And your brain is sending energetic signals telling you there is a chair there, when in reality, there is only energy."
Well, technically, this person is correct. But there is still a darn chair in the room--even if it is made out of energy. One's perspective changes how one sees the chair, but it does not change the reality that there is a chair there.
Well, what if the circumstance is somewhat different? What if we are talking about the evidence for God?
As I stated yesterday, I do not believe the evidence is conclusive, but I think it leads a person to a reasonable belief there is a creator of the universe. Why?
1. The chances are astronomically small that the universe works the way it works. The odds are astronomically small that all the stuff lines up to have life as we know it as well. Mathematically, chalking it up to chance is a cop out.
2. The universe has a beginning which begs the question, what made it begin? Did it just happen? I personally don't think it just happened. I believe there is a cause.
3. If the universe is just a random occurance, is there any sort of purpose to it? One would hope so. And if there is a purpose to this universe, and to life at all, wouldn't we get clues as to what it is? I think so, because the uniqueness of the universe demands it.
4. Evolution doesn't look so random as it occurs. Something seems to be driving it. Most biologists acknowledge this. Most of the adaptations that occur should take much more time than they do. How do animals adapt and change so fast? There seems to be a purpose behind it. Again, not proof of God, but it makes it reasonable.
Most scientists who are open minded will tell you the evidence can point either way, and much of it depends upon your predisposition.
As Christians, I believe we are predisposed to belief in God. I believe His Holy Spirit moves to instill faith within us. For the past several hundred years, such faith was seen by science as irrational, hokey, magical, and inferior since it was not based in rational thought. There was a belief that science would lead us to a better world since science could measure and verify and remove the hokiness behind faith driven propositions.
Science failed in this endeavor. While it gave us tremendous technological skills and accomplishments, it did not manage to solve the greatest mysteries of our species: why are we here? What is our purpose? How do we get along with one another? How do we overcome our selfish natures and begin to care about folks who are not members of our "tribe"? How do we be good stewards of the earth?
Science has a hard time giving answers to these questions. In fact, some of the "answers" are pretty unreasonable. (Take evolution and survival of the fittest to its logical conclusion with the very ill, very old, mentally challenged, etc. See if you think such an approach to ethics is reasonable.)
When it comes to asking the big questions, faith certainly plays a huge role. Disputing such a thing, I believe is intellectually dishonest. Therefore, when seeking those kinds of answers, I believe faith is more than just faith. It's perfectly reasonable.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Is it Reasonable to Believe in God?
I suffered through philosophy during college. Even took a philosophy of religion course. Wrote a paper arguing for the existence of God. Made an A on it. Made an A in the class. Realize now, I didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about.
Much of the reason why, I believe, is because my brain flatly wasn't mature enough to handle the concepts being put forth. (I've learned quite a bit about brain maturity by studying Family System's Theory. Our brains mature at different rates. Apparently, mine has taken a while.)
Recently, I have delved into books which deal with philosophy and theology. For some reason, my brain can handle this stuff now. I actually get it, and it's opening up a whole new area for me in apologetics (defending and articulating the Christian faith.). Whereas at one time I was overwhelmed by certain arguments, I now can see the flaws in those arguments and come back at them with my own. Of course, many of my arguments have flaws as well, but one of these days...
One thing which has intrigued me recently is the argument for a reasonable belief in God. Now, I personally do not believe there is an argument which proves the existence of God. I believe we come to belief through faith and faith alone. I don't think one can "measure" or offer any sort of scientific proof for the existence of God.
But I do think the evidence can lead us quite a way in that direction; hence the idea, belief in God is reasonable. (I'm particularly indebted to Timothy Keller, Richard Neuhaus, John Polkinghorne, and Oz Guiness for directing my thoughts this way.)
The particular issue which has gotten my attention is the "Fine Tuning" of our universe. Simply stated: our universe is marvelously put together. There are some mathematical constants, which, if they were off just a hair's breath, would make it impossible for the universe to exist. So how did our universe come to be so finely tuned? How did this universe "beat the odds" and come to exist in such a way that life can actually come to thrive on this little planet in the midst of a very big cosmos? Let me quote John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale's book Questions of Truth here: "As Tony Hewish once remarked, the accuracy of just one of these parameters is comparable to getting the mix of flour and sugar right to within one grain of sugar in a cake ten times the mass of the sun." (page 44) That's extremely fine tuning.
There are basically four possible conclusions one can make according to Polkinghorne and Beale (page 44 and 45):
1. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but God has ensured in his loving wisdom that it is so, so that we can come into being.
2. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but just by luck the one that exists is anthropic.
3. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but there are such a vast number of other universes that it is not unlikely that at least one of them is anthropic.
4. There are as yet undiscovered reasons why this fine-tuning is not highly unlikely in a random possible universe.
Number one is a reasonable response based in faith.
Number two is basically a cop out. I've seen such a rebuttal on the Wikipedia site regarding bridge playing. It reads:
An analogy from common experience where the odds can be readily calculated is given by John Allen Paulos in Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences (1989), that the probability of a very mundane event such as that of getting any particular hand of thirteen cards in a game of bridge is approximately one in 600 billion. It would be absurd to examine the hand carefully, calculate the odds, and then assert that it must not have been randomly dealt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
In some ways, the argument is accurate--if it applies to any ordinary hand. But if a person were dealt all thirteen spades in said hand--a perfect hand, so to speak, then the questioning must surely begin. Oh, and the mathematical odds that Paulos is describing are far too small to compare to the fine-tuning of our universe. To get a comparable statistical analogy, it would be like getting two or three such perfect hands in a row. As a card player, if I see someone get two such hands, I would personally believe the deck is stacked and had been put together by someone.
3. This option is purely based in faith as is option number one. One cannot measure other universes. One can only conceive of them. This response certainly isn't scientific by any extreme. So which option is more reasonable, believing in a being that fine-tuned a universe that we humans can live in or believing in multiple universes that we cannot see, measure, or confirm by any means that we know of?
4. I'll let Polkinghorne have his two cents on this one again: "Option 4 might correspond to the idea that the true fundamental theory (unifying relativity and quantum theory) has no arbitrary constant. This seems unlikely, and even if it were true, the fact that such abstract physical requirement let do anthropic fine-tuning is surely the most astonishing coincidence of all." pg. 45.
Again, none of these things absolutely prove the existence of God, but can one deduce the existence of God from the evidence?
I personally think so. Especially if you are open to different perspectives. More on that later.
Much of the reason why, I believe, is because my brain flatly wasn't mature enough to handle the concepts being put forth. (I've learned quite a bit about brain maturity by studying Family System's Theory. Our brains mature at different rates. Apparently, mine has taken a while.)
Recently, I have delved into books which deal with philosophy and theology. For some reason, my brain can handle this stuff now. I actually get it, and it's opening up a whole new area for me in apologetics (defending and articulating the Christian faith.). Whereas at one time I was overwhelmed by certain arguments, I now can see the flaws in those arguments and come back at them with my own. Of course, many of my arguments have flaws as well, but one of these days...
One thing which has intrigued me recently is the argument for a reasonable belief in God. Now, I personally do not believe there is an argument which proves the existence of God. I believe we come to belief through faith and faith alone. I don't think one can "measure" or offer any sort of scientific proof for the existence of God.
But I do think the evidence can lead us quite a way in that direction; hence the idea, belief in God is reasonable. (I'm particularly indebted to Timothy Keller, Richard Neuhaus, John Polkinghorne, and Oz Guiness for directing my thoughts this way.)
The particular issue which has gotten my attention is the "Fine Tuning" of our universe. Simply stated: our universe is marvelously put together. There are some mathematical constants, which, if they were off just a hair's breath, would make it impossible for the universe to exist. So how did our universe come to be so finely tuned? How did this universe "beat the odds" and come to exist in such a way that life can actually come to thrive on this little planet in the midst of a very big cosmos? Let me quote John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale's book Questions of Truth here: "As Tony Hewish once remarked, the accuracy of just one of these parameters is comparable to getting the mix of flour and sugar right to within one grain of sugar in a cake ten times the mass of the sun." (page 44) That's extremely fine tuning.
There are basically four possible conclusions one can make according to Polkinghorne and Beale (page 44 and 45):
1. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but God has ensured in his loving wisdom that it is so, so that we can come into being.
2. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but just by luck the one that exists is anthropic.
3. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but there are such a vast number of other universes that it is not unlikely that at least one of them is anthropic.
4. There are as yet undiscovered reasons why this fine-tuning is not highly unlikely in a random possible universe.
Number one is a reasonable response based in faith.
Number two is basically a cop out. I've seen such a rebuttal on the Wikipedia site regarding bridge playing. It reads:
An analogy from common experience where the odds can be readily calculated is given by John Allen Paulos in Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences (1989), that the probability of a very mundane event such as that of getting any particular hand of thirteen cards in a game of bridge is approximately one in 600 billion. It would be absurd to examine the hand carefully, calculate the odds, and then assert that it must not have been randomly dealt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
In some ways, the argument is accurate--if it applies to any ordinary hand. But if a person were dealt all thirteen spades in said hand--a perfect hand, so to speak, then the questioning must surely begin. Oh, and the mathematical odds that Paulos is describing are far too small to compare to the fine-tuning of our universe. To get a comparable statistical analogy, it would be like getting two or three such perfect hands in a row. As a card player, if I see someone get two such hands, I would personally believe the deck is stacked and had been put together by someone.
3. This option is purely based in faith as is option number one. One cannot measure other universes. One can only conceive of them. This response certainly isn't scientific by any extreme. So which option is more reasonable, believing in a being that fine-tuned a universe that we humans can live in or believing in multiple universes that we cannot see, measure, or confirm by any means that we know of?
4. I'll let Polkinghorne have his two cents on this one again: "Option 4 might correspond to the idea that the true fundamental theory (unifying relativity and quantum theory) has no arbitrary constant. This seems unlikely, and even if it were true, the fact that such abstract physical requirement let do anthropic fine-tuning is surely the most astonishing coincidence of all." pg. 45.
Again, none of these things absolutely prove the existence of God, but can one deduce the existence of God from the evidence?
I personally think so. Especially if you are open to different perspectives. More on that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)