Encouraging Kids

I can only imagine I’m like most parents. There are ways my children can finish the “Hey, Dad, I finally figured out what I want to be when I grow up…” sentences that could easily make me cry.

“Doctor” or “teacher” are safe bets. I won’t shed a tear, though I have a problem seeing my reckless five-year-old son caring about other people’s health given his careless disregard for his own safety. If Viggo, says “doctor,” he’ll get a raised eyebrow.

But if Viggo, or any of my boys, comes to me and declares that they are going to be a banker, systems analyst, salesman, or accountant I will require an special dispensation of God’s grace to get me through the conversation.

See, I’m holding out for artist, musician, or farmer. Completing their declaration with one of those would make my heart leap. Teacher, fireman, or healthcare professional wouldn't be bad either. I'd even take lawyer--as long as it wasn't ambulance chasing.

I’m not sure I understand how someone can get excited about a child becoming a financial adviser or a actuary. Seriously? Why would you want your kid to become one of those?

What are you thinking? You see a childhood of joy and creativity and believe that it comes to its true bloom in navigating Excel spreadsheets to improve business efficiencies and cost reduction?

I suspect that when someone gets excited about their daughter becoming a human resources manager, they’re not excited that their daughter will be using her God-given talents in a way that best allows her to reach her potential and make the most positive impact on the world, but is excited that their daughter has chosen a stable profession that pays well (and is a "manager" so they'll have authority). Her daughter has chosen to be safe—much safer than had she pursued her drawing hobby.

But are we called to be safe? Isn't the bulk of our time on earth meant to do great things?

Thoughts on faith

What is faith? It's ultimately a relationship between two people. Where a relationship exists, faith exists. Even strained relationships presuppose some type of connection, even if it's less than ideal.

Jesus lifts up the faith of a child as a model. What does that faith look like?

I doubt there are many people, especially parents, who would doubt the reality that young children have faith in their parents. From infancy to toddler years that faith is nearly absolute. It's utter and complete dependence and reliance on the parent. They believe that the parent will always be there for them. This belief isn't based on any cognitive assertion or rational argument, it's part of the fiber of their very being.

As the child grows into the pre-school years that faith matures. They begin to assert their own ideas that may at times be totally at odds with the parents'. But even at times of flagrant disobedience, the child is still ultimately faithful to the parent. They reside in the parents' home, and they assert their own ideas only because they unconscientiously believe that no matter what happens they won't be thrown out on the street. They assert themselves, but only because they ultimately believe that their parents will keep them safe and keep up their end of the relationship.

As a child gets older, more and more of their thoughts and beliefs about the world come from sources other than their parents. The child must weigh these new worldviews in light of their currently-held view which largely came from their parents (or the media the parents encouraged the child to watch).

It is the hope of every good parent that as their child matures the child will retain the set of beliefs they were taught as a child. Doing so, in effect, is affirming the primary position of the child's parent as the wise and correct teacher of the ways things are.

It is obviously, very sad if a child leaves their parents' worldview and adopts another by, say, dating someone whose values run contrary to the values taught by the parents. The child's relationship with their parent is broken. But even though trust is broken, it is not accurate to say that the entire relationship is lost. The parent is still active in the relationship, seeking reconciliation, praying for change, seeking the betterment of the child.

Every good parent yearns the opposite to happen. They hope that when their child comes of age that they will not only continue to walk in the footsteps of the parents, but that the child will do so as an act of conscience free will and not simply like they did as an infant, trust merely because it was a innate impulse.

When that day comes it is glorious. It welcomes a new dawning of the relationship between parent and child. With the addition of free will into the relationship, new possibilities open up as the talents and interests of the parent and child can now interact in new and exciting ways as they treat each others in some respect as peers and not merely as parent and child.

This is wonderful, and there is a temptation to say, "there is a new relationship between us." But to say that is to inaccurately describe reality. Although the relationship looks very different, it is not an entirely new relationship, as though it were preceded by no relationship at all. The child's faith and trust in their parent looks entirely new, but it's not, its just more mature.

In this ideal scenario, the child had continuous faith in their parent, it just looked different at different points in the child's life. It's easy to celebrate the later stages because unlike earlier stages the child has used their free will to become more of an active participant in the relationship, but the earlier parts of the relationship are just important, if not more so. To elevate this later portion of the relationship as the only true part of the relationship is to glorify human free will and to slap the face of a parent who faithfully nurtured their child through the means of a relationship that spanned infancy to adulthood.

Afterthoughts--

Those earlier days when the child trusted the parent blindly allowed for a foundation to be built that the child could later stand on. As an adopted child who has recently found their birthparent will tell you, it may be exciting to discover your birthparent, but it will take years to have as much faith in them as they do of their adopted parents, a process prolonged by the fact that it is happening at a time when the child can think critically about a parent's intentions, whereas had the relationship began in childhood the child would have trusted them implicitly.

Obviously, God wants us to see a connection between the nature of our relationship to our parents and our Father Above.

Modern American Evangelism

The problem with traditional approaches to evangelism is that most Americans do not find it hard to believe that God loves someone like them. The typical Americans has internalized the God is love concept as well, if not better than the typical evangelical Christian.

Therefore, if a Christian approaches a non-Christian and says that God is going to condemn them to hell if they don’t accept Jesus, what the non-Christian is going to hear them saying is “God is not as loving and forgiving as you think. Christians believe that God is not all-forgiving love, but rather a wrathful God.” The non-Christian will immediately reject this message as categorically untrue, since they know the truth: God personally takes Love as His primary identity, not wrath.

If the conversation continues the evangelical will continue to convict the non-Christian of their sins because if they don’t God will condemn them to hell. If the Christian is successful in their arguing and the non-Christian converts, the new Christian’s new view of God will be one who’s primary concern is the holiness of people. Therefore, this new Christian, like the Christian who converted them, will be more concern about being holy and legalistic than being loving and kind.

Instead, the Christian evangelizing to the typical American should not focus on God’s wrath, but rather God’s love. Instead of trying to call the non-Christian’s mind to their sin, they should call attention to their pain.

Pain and stress is the ache in our modern lives that doesn’t jive with our notion that God is love. The Christian message in modern times shouldn’t primarily be “If you don’t believe, you’re going to hell after you die,” but rather “If you don’t follow Jesus, you’re going to miss out on the fullness of the loving God’s mercy and compassion.” In short, instead of convincing people that “God is wrath” we should be convincing them that “God is even more loving than you think.”

Christians believe that the answer to pain is found in the life and death of Jesus. Jesus died in an act of God’s love so that we may have life and have it abundantly. Not just so we can go to heaven, but that we can be transformed into new creations where the pain and suffering we and those around us experience is confronted and undone through acts of sacrifice and forgiveness.

So instead of using scare tactics which innately turn the evangelist into a judgmental dogmatic, we should be meeting people where they’re at and share with them a message of hope and love that, if accepted, can offer the non-Christian a life of meaning and purpose.

Einstein's Description of Theologians?

Been reading Walter Isaacson’s Einstein bio. It’s awesome. This morning read this thought-provoking quote from Einstein and couldn’t help but think that this idea holds the key to solve the disconnect between science and religion in popular thought.

"Some scientific theories depend primarily on induction: analyzing a lot of experimental findings and then finding theories that explain the empirical patterns. Others depend more on deduction: starting with elegant principles and postulates that are embraced as holy and then deducting the consequences from them. All scientists blend both approaches to differing degrees. Einstein had a good feel for experimental findings, and he used this knowledge to find certain fixed points with which he could construct a theory. But his emphasis was primarily on the deductive approach... ‘The simplest picture one can form about the creation of an empirical science is along the lines of an inductive method. Individual facts are selected and grouped together so that the laws that connect them become apparent. However, the big advances in scientific knowledge originated in this way only to a small degree. The truly great advances in our understanding of nature originated in a way almost diametrically opposed to induction. The intuitive grasp of the essentials of a large complex of facts leads the scientist to the postulation of hypothetical basic laws. From these laws, he derives his conclusions.’” (Isaacson, Einstein, p.117/118)

"’The deeper we penetrate and the more extensive our theories become,’ [Einstein] would declare toward the end of his life, ‘the less empirical knowledge is needed to determine these theories.’" (p. 118)

Most often people dismiss religion as being relative and therefore not authoritative because it is unverifiable, not testable. But theologians are attempting to do the same thing Einstein sought with his deductive thought experiments: move humanity great leaps forward in their understanding of creation. Theologians shouldn't ignore the evidence of life any more than Einstein was ignoring the experiments of scientists of his day (he wasn't). But experimentation is not the key to getting human beings to understand the universe, as Einstein said, deductive reasoning is. Einstein seems to stand as the preeminent example of a critical thinker who models how rational deductive reasoning should proceed.

C.S. Lewis used thought experiments too. The difference between someone like Lewis and someone like Einstein is not really in terms of process, but rather in terms of semantics. Theologians don't say they discover things about God's way, and the scientist doesn't say that they discover things about God's way. But in reality, they're both describing the exact same things. Both theologians and scientists who rely on Einstein's model are both using deductive reasoning to determine the reality of creation. If they're good at their job, neither is doing so to with disregard to the facts of the universe, but they are attempting to move human understanding ahead of where inductive science and everyday experience currently take us.

The Limits of Tolerance

There's a great article in the Wall Street Journal today by a Muslim theologian who is a former member of a terrorist cell. It's fascinating. You should really read the whole thing, but here's a good clip.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

Deep Thoughts from Senator Edwards

I know most will find this to be splitting hairs, but it's so true. Anyone who prays daily and/or is active in Christian thought does not refer to Jesus in the past tense...at least they wouldn't in this context.

FIRST THINGS: "Senator John Edwards has offered us a reflection that gives us a glimpse of his hidden theological depths: “I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.”

“WOULD be”? Would be as in “he would be, if he knew about it”? There is a very false note here. A Christian who prays naturally thinks of Christ as ever-present and all-knowing, not as a figure from the past who would doubtless have something interesting to say if he were still alive, or who would have definite opinions of certain matters were they called to his attention. On the other hand, at least Senator Edwards didn’t say that Jesus would be turning over in his grave."

Team of Rivals

In my meager estimation, Team of Rivals is an unparalleled work of biography. It's easy to write powerful work when your subject is Lincoln, but Goodwin has found an approach that not only gives great new insight into her subject, but also gives her potent writing a framework which can be at once both a forceful narrative and an intellectual stimulant. She achieves her focus on Lincoln's greatness by doing the counter-intuitive act of broadening her scope and interweaving Lincoln's biography with biographies of his contemporaries.

I must say, seeing Lincoln side by side with Seward, Chase, Stanton, and others--many of whom would be considered great men even if they weren't a part of Lincoln's cabinet--truly makes Lincoln's supremacy express itself, as Tolstoy points out "in his peculiar moral power and in his greatness of character." I've never been so inspired.

Of the many qualities that Lincoln exhibited, I must say his even handed critical thinking approach is the one I found to be most helpful. Largely because reading about it gave words to something I've tried to live out in my own life. He really had an impressive ability to cling to what he believed is true while expressing himself in a way that gave a chance to people on all sides and ideologies to appreciate or see the benefits of his propositions.

I've got Carwardine's Lincoln: Life of Purpose and Power from the library and am half way through it. I wasn't going to embark on more Lincoln so soon after Goodwin's long opus, but after being so moved by Goodwin's writing and then reading this review last week, I feel compelled to give a run at Carwardine. Carwardine's work is really impressive, and had I read it before reading Rivals, I probably would have put it along side of Guelzo's Redeemer President as the best a Lincoln bio could be. But Goodwin proves that one can't really claim to have probed the depths of a person's psyche unless they've explored the people around them.

This spring I watched the mockumentary CSA; it was after watching that mockumentary that I bumped Team of Rivals back towards the top of my reading list. I'm also glad I saw CSA (and read Confederates in the Attic) prior to reading this book since Goodwin is so forceful in the righteousness of Lincoln's convictions that I think if I were to read Confederates today I would probably be even more offended by southern sympathizers or find CSA's revisionism to be even harder to laugh at.

Finally, it was a great book to read to help get a firm grasp on the moral and economic principles that the Republican party was founded on. Carwardine's book delves more into the religious influences than Goodwin does, but even so, Goodwin's portrait of this powerful persona who essentially made the Republican party into a via political party that has survived almost 150 years since his election, is really helpful at a time like this. (unfortunately, it's helpful because I'm now able to clearly identify why some of the most prominent Republicans really have no philosophical right to use the same label Lincoln worked hard to forge.)