Shirley Temple, the Olympics, and Morality

Posted on February 22, 2014 by Steve Foster

Shirley Temple died last week. Though I have never seen a Shirley Temple movie…and have never even had a Shirley Temple drink…I felt strangely sad when I heard the news. To me, Shirley Temple represented a different era in America…an era in which TV and movies presented the best of America. The ideal. Child stars were cute, respectful, hopeful. There was no pressure to be more. It was okay to simply be "good." 

Today the scene is different. "Good" is seen as unrealistic, too good to be true. The "child star" who makes it today soon finds out that to keep the spotlight they have to be sexier, more risque, more rebellious, more cool. Shirley Temple has been replaced by Miley Cyrus.

I know that's an overgeneralization but there is a ring of reality to it. We no longer promote and hold up the ideal; we expect and present the dysfunctional. The Leave It to Beaver family is ridiculed as a relic of the past. Fake. Unbelievable. Even hypocritical. What kind of family was really like that? Dad wearing suits at home. Mom cooking dinner in a dress. Beaver making innocent gaffes. We want to see the dysfunction today. The extreme. The strange. The Modern Family. Non-traditional. Streetwise kids. Clueless parent(s). Loose morals. Heavy duty problems. 

It's a different world. We're a different nation. And TV loves to show this.

So why portray the "Beaver family" when families have so many problems? Why promote a "Shirley Temple" image when the world is so much darker and dysfunctional?

I thought about that in relation to the Olympics. 

When I watch the athletes in the Olympics, I am amazed. The strength. The grace. The skill. I realize that I could never do the things I see (except maybe curling). The training needed is extensive. The dedication is total. The athleticism is rare. I can barely snowplow much less slalom down a hill at break neck speed…or jump a football field in the air…or land a triple salchow on ice…or do a 1080 corkscrew spin on a snowboard. 

But I love to see the ideal. I want to celebrate excellence. 

Even though I could never reach the level of an Olympian, they inspire me to strive a little further, to dedicate myself more, to exercise more, to dream more. I see the level that a person can reach and it convicts me, humbles me, motivates me, pushes me. 

Imagine ostracizing, criticizing, and marginalizing exceptional athletes because they are too far beyond us. They are too good to be true. They make us feel guilty. They are not "normal." 

Imagine gathering people from all over the world for a display of athletic mediocrity or dysfunctionality. The inexperienced ski jump (or who can break the most bones falling off the ski ramp). Most falls around an ice rink. Most pathetic snowplow down a hill (I got a chance in that one). It might be like a bad episode of WipeOut. Fun to watch for the embarrassment of the contestants. But nothing to celebrate. Nothing to gather people in stadiums to watch. Nothing to give out medals for. Nothing to inspire national pride. Nothing to make us better. 

It is sad that we still expect excellence in athletics but not in life. We celebrate the ideal physically but not morally. We admire dedication and personal sacrifice for a gold medal but not for the beauty of sexual purity…or the preservation of a marriage…or the stability of a family…or the virtue of a nation.

The Bible indicates that what we meditate on will eventually change us, shape us, define us. 

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable,whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any moral excellence and if there is any praise—dwell on these things (Philippians 4:8).

When our entertainment is vulgar and sexualized, it is no surprise that our culture is too. 

So with the passing of Shirley Temple, it feels like we have lost something precious as a nation.

Not a gold medal…not an iconic "child star"…not even the innocence of a prior generation.

It feels like we have lost our common sense.

It feels like we have lost our soul. 

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

Ken Ham and Other Crazy, Anti-Science Christians

Posted on February 7, 2014 by Steve Foster

I confess that I didn't see the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate on February 4. I do plan to watch it though I am not sure it will be much different than other similar debates that I have watched…some of the best being between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. 

However, I did get a chance to read some of the articles written after the debate. Christians were generally positive while non-theists were typically either dismissive or aghast that the debate even took place. 

The conventional wisdom is this: All intelligent scientists and people believe in evolution. Thus if you don't believe in evolution, it is obvious that you are not intelligent. Case closed. End of story. 

That's why most evolutionists (including Dawkins) didn't think the debate should even take place. In their minds, by debating a creationist, you actually give some semblence of credence to their views. You actually act like there is something to debate. It is sort of like debating a pig on the virtues of cleanliness. The pig can't and won't understand you and you'll just get your hands dirty in the process. 

But the debate did take place and for the most part people seem to agree that Ken Ham at least sounded smart, "vaguely professional," and like "a reasonable human being." And that's the other big problem for the evolutionist. When you debate creationists, they often sound somewhat intelligent and their arguments sound somewhat reasonable. But we know that they cannot be since (see above) "all intelligent scientists and people believe in evolution." Thus, these creationists are simply clever, slick, power-hungry individuals who are able to play to the common man/woman who is also not very intelligent. 

I guess I am one of them crazy, gullible yokels. 

Now I admit that there is much that I don't understand. I have read many evolutionary essays that have made my head spin. I am not a scientist or an expert on scientific issues. I generally agree with the young earth creationists but realize there is much that is hard to explain and some things in Genesis that may allow for gaps or longer time spans. We have to approach these issues with humility, teachability, and a willingness to be corrected. 

But there are a few things that I am reasonably sure of…

1. No person is totally objective. We all bring our presuppostions to the table and see things through a subjective lens. Thus, to act as if you have reached a state of total objectivity and complete knowledge is the ultimate ignorance (1 Corinthians 8:2). And to act as if an atheistic scientist is approaching the data objectively without an agenda while the creationist is approaching it subjectively with an agenda is naive at best. 

2. Historically, the scientific movement emerged within the Judeo-Christian worldview. Thus, to argue that Christianity is "anti-science" is to be purposefully or unknowingly misleading. The Harvard philosopher Alfred North Whitehead noted that science developed in Europe because of the widespread "faith in the possbility of science derivative from medieval theology" (Stark, The Triumph of Christianity, 284). Indeed as Johannes Kepler, one of the great early scientists, stated: 

The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God.

In other words, unless the universe is ordered and rational, then there is no sense in studying it. But if it is rational and ordered by a rational God, then its mysteries can be discovered. Thus, it is no accident that the majority of early scientists were very religious men with a Judeo-Christian worldview. 

3. If we truly live in a materialistic world with matter being the only true reality, then our very thoughts are simply random chemical processes in the physical brain. So who cares what Dawkins, Ham, Nye, or anyone else thinks?

4. The fairly well-established scientific theory that the universe emerged in an instant out of nothing is a pretty difficult (or dare I say, impossible) concept to explain from a non-theistic standpoint. 

5. As Ham indicated in the debate, there is a difference between observational science and philosophical science. The origin of the universe is not observable, repeatable science that can be subjected to the scientific method. It is a philosophy (and even a religion) that must be accepted with some element of faith. 

6. The notion that believing in God is a killer to scientific curiosity (the "God of the gaps" argument) is simply not true (see #2 above). If I came home today and found a full dinner immaculately prepared for me on the table, I could infer that it either miraculously appeared out of nowhere or that someone else prepared it for me. Yes, trying to figure out how it emerged randomly and spontaneously might be fun and challenging to my imagination. But I would argue that the greater mystery is trying to figure out why my wife would love me enough to do something special for me in the first place. The mystery of relationship is far greater than any other mystery and the pursuit of its knowledge is far deeper than any other knowledge.  

7. When I look at the intricacy and complexity of the universe…when I observe the beauty, creativity, and symmetry of nature…when I consider the wonders of the human body…when I ponder the mysteries of life, consciousness, and love…then I am moved to awe and to worship. Like a child, I may not understand all things, but I can see the handiwork of my Father and know He loves me. 

If that makes me crazy, then call me crazy. 

Posted in Creation and Humanity | Leave a comment

Same Love?

Posted on January 29, 2014 by Steve Foster

It wasn't too long ago that I first heard "Same Love" by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. It is a compelling song with lyrics that plead for love and acceptance for those who have and/or struggle with same sex attraction. It is a powerful message that resonates with many people. And it has become the anthem of the homosexual movement as evidenced by the recent Grammy awards in which the song was sung as 33 same sex couples said marriage vows in front of a national audience. 

The notion of the song is that since same sex couples have the same kind of love that heterosexual couples do then there is ultimately no difference between them. It is the same love therefore it should be accepted as the same kind of marriage. "What's the difference?" the song would ask. And why would anyone, especially Christians who believe in love, fight it?

It's a good question…but it is based on a mistaken notion.

Christians do not have a problem with the love between two males or two females or between any group of people. We are all commanded to love. And the love described between two males or two females isn't any different than the love prescribed for a man and woman in marriage.

The Bible predominantly uses the Greek verb, agapao, to describe the love that we are to have for one another. Agapao describes an action of sacrificial love. It is a love given for the benefit of another person. Unselfish and other-centered. Characterized by patience, kindness, humility, graciousness, forgiveness, truth, acceptance, commitment, and loyalty (1 Corinthians 13; John 3:16; 1 John 3:16-18; Philippians 2:1-8). 

This kind of love is a beautiful thing. Really an unnatural thing. It runs counter to every selfish gene that we have in our bodies. 

And it is love that can be stronger between two men or two women than between a man and a woman.

For instance, the Bible describes the love between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18:1-4.

Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day, and would not let him go home to his father’s house anymore. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan took off the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, even to his sword and his bow and his belt.

David and Jonathan loved each other and even made a covenant of loyalty together. Jonathan, as King Saul's son, gave David his prince's robe, armor, and weapons as a sign that he recognized David's right to future kingship and would not fight him or oppose him. Later, when Jonathan died, David would lament in 2 Samuel 1:26:

I grieve over you, my brother Jonathan! You were very dear to me. Your love was more special to me than the love of women. 

This kind of love is called friendship and its bond can potentially be closer than any familial bond. A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:23-24).

So what ultimately distinguishes marriage in the Bible is not the love. What ultimately distinguishes marriage is the sexual union and its purpose. 

The institution of marriage is first described and defined in Genesis 2:24-25.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

God designed male and female as biologically different. They are two "other" and complementary beings. And He designed sexual intercourse between one man and one woman to be exclusive, beautiful, uniting, and life producing. This sexual union is so powerful, sacred, and special that it is to be protected within the lifelong security of a marriage covenant so that its vulnerability and intimacy cannot be misused or abused, so that its potential procreation of children would be in the stability of a family, and so that its picture of security and intimacy would reflect the union of Christ and His church. 

This is what marriage is and should strive to be. And it is the sexual union which separates it from all other unions. If nothing else, even the objective non-theist would have to say that the biology of sex is intended and best designed for one man and one woman and that this is the only natural means for procreation. 

So the issue is not really over love. It is over sex.  

Are there any limits to sex? Are there any parameters? Is there a divine design for marriage and sex that is best for individuals, for families, for society? Or is it all open to individual interpretation, definition, gratification, and pleasure?

Can we redesign the design of the Designer to fit our own designs?

The recent Grammys show illustrated what happens when sex is preached and promoted apart from any divine design or limits. 

The sexual act is imitated on stage for all to see. Intimacy is turned into voyeurism. Security is turned into self-gratification. Love is turned into lust. And sex is whatever I want it to be.

In this kind of society, everything is sexualized. Even friendship. The biblical story of David and Jonathan can't even be read without sexual implications. We can't imagine how a person could live without sex or how two people could have a committed, close friendship without it. Sex is our new god. And the old One who designed it must be mocked, disdained, and burned at the stake. This is not a new idea or a progressive movement. It is as old as biblical days when Baal was god and sex was the worship of choice for those who followed him. 

But whether in an ancient society or in our own "modern" society today, the message of the Bible remains the same.

We are all broken, morally, sexually, spiritually. And we all need redemption, healing, restoration, and grace from the God who designed us (Psalm 139:13-14)…and died for us despite our sin and selfishness (Romans 5:8)…and rose again from the dead so that we could walk in holiness and newness of life (2 Corinthians 5:17-21).

And those who experience that kind of divine, gracious, sacrifical, transforming love are to show that same love to others.

Posted in Sex and Marriage | Leave a comment

The Right to Be Angry?

Posted on November 6, 2013 by Steve Foster

But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?" "I do," he said. "I am angry enough to die." (Jonah 4:9)

Jonah is steaming mad. So mad that he is physically trembling. Why? Because God had the audacity to show mercy to those whom Jonah didn't feel deserved it. In short, God didn't meet Jonah's agenda. Jonah wanted life to operate one way and God said "no." And like a child, Jonah went up on a hill and pouted.

On that hill, God graciously gave Jonah an object lesson. A vine grew up over Jonah's head providing temporary relief from the sun. Then the vine died. Now Jonah is so mad and depressed that he says he wants to die. Then Jonah wished death for himself, and said, "It is better for me to die than to live." (4:8)

Wow. Such drama. But anger does that to us. We lose rationality. We wallow in self-pity and depression. We vent our frustration so that everyone, including God, knows that we are not happy. And God asks a simple question to us, "Do you have a right to be angry?" Interesting question. Jonah thinks he does. In fact, he is willing to defend his right to be angry even to death if necessary. Jonah would rather die than let go of his anger…and his right to stay that way. Sad. But so true.

What goes on in the human heart that makes us more willing to die than to soften our hearts to God's Word, repent of our selfish attitude, let go of our pride and resentment, and rest in God's sovereignty and mercy? We are fighting for our own way. We are fighting for life to match our agenda. We are fighting for our right to have things be like we want them. And in the midst of our self-focused, God-resisting anger, God still speaks to us…quietly and gently…"Why do you value your convenience over My compassion? Why do you think your rights trump the needs of everyone else? Why do you trust your will over My own?"

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

Jesus Is Lord

Posted on October 24, 2013 by Steve Foster

The earliest and most basic Christian confession was just three words long.

Jesus is Lord. 

1 Corinthians 12:3 says that no one can truly confess that "Jesus is Lord" except through the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9-10 says that when someone confesses that "Jesus is Lord" and believes in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead, then they will be saved from their sin and given eternal life. 

Philippians 2:11 says that at the end of all history, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, whether in voluntary adoration or involuntary submission, that "Jesus Christ is Lord." 

Jesus is Lord.

Such a simple statement but loaded with implications.

Jesus. A confession in the historical, physical Jewish man named Jesus who was born in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, walked the roads of Galilee, was beaten and crucified under Pontius Pilate, was buried in a rich man's tomb, and was physically raised from the dead.

Is. A confession in the present reality of this Man from Galilee. He is not dead but alive, declared to be the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4). He is not just the Son of Man but the Son of God, born of a virgin but eternal in nature. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End…who was and is and is to come (Revelation 1:8). 

Lord. A confession that Jesus is Creator of humanity, Sustainer of life, and Conqueror of death. This Man from Galilee is God in the flesh and He alone has power over sin, Satan, and death. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. He has the right to rule over all creation…and over me. 

Jesus is Lord. 

It can become a cliche, a phrase said with no meaning, a slogan on a neon sign, a screen print on a T-shirt. 

But it is a radical confession.

It declares allegiance. Jesus is the One I look to for salvation.

It defines faith. Jesus' death and resurrection are the basis of my hope.

It destroys pride. I am not the captain of my soul and the master of my fate.

It divides humanity. Either I receive Him or reject Him. Either I bow now in grateful adoration or bow later in forced submission.

It is the confession that caused the early Christians to face persecution and death in the Roman empire. You could worship any god you wanted, you could follow any religion you desired, you could pursue any belief you liked…as long as you didn't claim exclusive truth, as long as you kept things to yourself, as long as you were still willing to bow to the lordship of government (Caesar). A Christian who confessed unequivocally that "Jesus is Lord" was seen as subversive, disruptive, divisive…even if he was otherwise a law-abiding citizen who showed love and respect to others. 

Some beliefs are simply not tolerated in a tolerant society. 

Humanism says that man is the measure. Christianity says, "Jesus is Lord." Postmodernism says that you can define your own reality. Christianity says, "Jesus is Lord." Pluralism says that all religious beliefs are a matter of opinion and preference. Christianity says, "Jesus is Lord." 

Christianity declares that Jesus existed in history and reigns over history. 

He either was born of a virgin or He was not. He either died on a cross for our sins or He did not. He either rose from the dead or He did not.

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone. (1 Corinthians 15:17-19)

Christianity is an "all or nothing" confession. 

Jesus is Lord.

Or Jesus is a myth…fraud…ordinary man…deceiver…tragic figure…dead revolutionary.

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. (C.S. Lewis)

As a Christian, I am not saying that I don't have struggles…doubts…questions. There are things I do not understand. There are objections hard to answer. There are days my faith is weak. But despite my doubts and in the midst of life's mysteries, I have decided to cast my lot with the Man from Nazareth. 

Conceived by the Holy Spirit. Born of the virgin Mary. Suffered under Pontius Pilate. Crucified. Dead. Buried. Risen. Ascended. Coming again. 

And thankfully my security doesn't rest in my power but in His.

"Jesus is Lord."

Not me. 

And I can live with that.

Quite literally.

Posted in 1 Corinthians | Leave a comment