The Internal Coherence of the Universe

It is a fundamental opinion of scientists (not science itself) that every question in the universe can be answered.  Many scientists take this one step further and assume that all such questions will be answered.  Whether or not this is true is not truly the point, though I think on some level it may be true, at least within certain bounds.  But many scientists assume that if they can in fact explain everything, this will prove that there is no god.  To work under such a belief, you have to start from the perspective that, "there is no god."  It is important to note here that by god I mean any god, Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Pagan, Muslim, Deist, etc.
There is a broad but simple problem with this assertion.  If science has explained everything, what does that say about "god"?  It says nothing.  All it actually says is that the universe is internally coherent and the different pieces all work together.  There is an assumption made by some atheist scientists that if there is no need for god to fill in the gaps, then god must not exist.
This itself works off of an assumption about who god is.  It is to assume that god, whatever god is, is not competent enough to make an internally coherent universe, that there must be some point at which god says, "Magic! It works now, I couldn't figure out any other way to make this happen."  This is of course ridiculous, because if there is a god who is powerful enough to create everything that is, then it is a small leap to assume that god is intelligent enough to make it all work according to the laws of nature that god created.
On either side of the debate is the same faulty assumption--that we can conceive what the universe would look like if we were wrong about whether or not their is a god.  Theists have no idea what the universe would look like if there is no god, and Atheists would have no idea what the picture would be if there was a god.  Atheists say, in effect, "If there was a god that created the universe, this is what it would look like."  Theists, in their turn say, "If there was no god, then none of this could have happened."  Theists are on firmer ground on this point, since we do exist, and the universe could not be much different and still produce "us".  Along this line of Occam's razor, the situation leans hard to the Theist side.
An atheist would argue that if god existed, why would god not leave evidence that proved god's existence?  Why would there be such logical answers that do not involve god?  This is a valid question, but, for the Judeo-Christian worldview, this question has been answered thousands of years ago by seemingly ignorant nomads.  It has long been the bedrock of this worldview that God desires human beings to make a choice either for or against God--to love or not to love God.  To create a universe that had no alternative but to believe in God would be to withhold the true possibility of a choice.  It would be easy to argue that nomads had no concept of the knowledge we now possess, but to make such a statement assumes to much.  If God is god, then God would be intelligent enough to know that we would one day discover gravity, DNA, dark matter etc.
This is why fundamental internal coherence of the universe is critical to God's designs.  So for a scientist or other person to observe this coherence and to claim that this proves the non-existence of god is nonsense.
But there is an implied warning to theists in this as well.  It applies particularly to Christians and even more so to the "conservative" types.  The God-of-the-gaps principle that says that certain things will never be explained hangs its hat on a very loose peg.  It assumes that a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God is incapable of creating a universe that is complete in all its details.  If something that contradicts your assumption is proven true, you have nothing left to base your faith on.  But, if we assume more rightly that we will keep making deeper and deeper discoveries into nature, we will find that this does not disprove the existence of God, but rather magnifies our understanding of God.
In the end, all an atheist can really say about God from science is, "The god in whom I believe could not possibly have created the universe in this way, therefore god must not exist."

Evil

You can quote statistics about how violence is down in schools over the course of history.  While that may be true, we need to notice that the character of the violence has changed dramatically.  Two people getting into an argument of some kind and one of them ending up shot is a very different kind (and in many ways a lesser form) of evil from the randomness of shooting up a classroom of kindergartners.  Perhaps we need to admit, at least on some level, that the Christians are right and that the real problem is within the human heart.  Laws will not fix the problem.  Law enforcement will not fix the problem.  Armies will not fix the problem.
Love is the most potent arrow to strike the heart.  In wounding it heals.  In tearing it makes whole.  In destroying it rebuilds.  There is only one who can fire such an arrow.
What we need to realize is that the darkness that repulses us in others is the same darkness that resides within us.  It is the darkness that refuses to welcome the light and chooses instead to become its own light, its own guide.  Such a light is darkness indeed!  If we recognize the darkness within ourselves, we can love when faced with the darkness of others.  This is the beginning of the solution.  The end is to step into the light that is light and chases all of our dark corners away.  It searches the house for every corner of darkness and removes it entirely.
God grant us light, love, and healing.  Give us all the humility to turn to you so that we may have our dark places brought to light so that we may live in your peace.  Amen.

Separation of Church and state, the IRS, and dual citizenship.

   There has been a fair amount written in the news about churches and the U.S. tax code.  The IRS tax codes forbids religious tax-exempt organizations from engaging in the political arena.  The U.S. constitution declares the separation of church and state.  Neither in spirit nor in letter does the constitution make such a statement. What the constitution says is that the state will not run the church and vice-versa (in effect at least).  There is a lot of concern from non-religious people that allowing the church a place in the public sphere is a violation of their rights as American citizens.  To a certain extent this is a valid concern.  After all, though the founding fathers were not thinking in non-religious terms, they were essentially promoting a country where the government would not tell you how to believe.  This freedom to believe (and act) as you choose is absolutely fundamental to the dream of America.
  On some level, the IRS tax code makes a little bit of sense.  Religion is something that is difficult to define, so this essentially puts a restriction on what the government sees as a religious institution.  But there are a couple of problems with this view.  For one, PACs are also tax-exempt.  So the idea of keeping politics from the tax-exempt crowd doesn't really apply here.  But also, religions, regardless of their nature, are in some sense a political venture in that they affect the way we relate to each other and how we act in the public sphere.  If your religion doesn't change the way you behave in public, then you don't really believe what you think you do.
  There is another issue that becomes apparent here.  The IRS tax code is blatantly unconstitutional.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  You could make the argument that it wasn't congress that made the law, but then you would have to declare all IRS laws unconstitutional since they weren't made by congress.  The IRS rule clearly prohibits the free exercise of religion.  The gospel is our religion, and the gospel clearly has political implications.
  What we see here is that we do not live in a Christian nation.  Perhaps we once did, perhaps not, but that is irrelevant.  You can no longer make a case for this being a Christian nation.  So does this mean that Christians should storm Washington D.C. and take back this country for Christ?  I don't think so.  What we are seeing here is that our government has been twisted away from what it was originally intended.  This should not be surprising given that governments are a human institution, and human institutions will always falter.  (Yes, I know in the new testament that Paul talks about governments being of God, but that's not exactly the point he was trying to make.  We have to remember that way back when Israel wanted a government, God told them that it wouldn't end well, they didn't need it.)
  Remember what Paul wrote in his letter to the Ephesians: "For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."  Given that our struggle is against the rulers and authorities, should we really be looking to them for a handout such as tax-exempt status?
  There are a few things that we need to realize.  For one, to preach and practice a religion that is primarily internal is to deny the gospel, and deny God.  Second, we can realize that the politics of the gospel indicate not a way to vote or for our American government to function, but a way to exist as a kingdom whose borders are not bound by oceans and fences.  Third, we are too dependent on the idea of being a legal entity from the standpoint of the government.  This in turn makes us ultimately dependent on the government itself, which is odd for a people who are to rely on God.  Fourth, we need to admit that deep down we feel we are entitled to special status since we are religious.  If we're going to build a multi-million dollar facility that employees dozens if not hundreds of people, why on earth shouldn't we pay taxes?
  If we don't want to pay taxes as a church, we should de-organize.  It's impossible to tax an entity that doesn't exist.  If we stop owning stuff, paying people, and charging people, there's nothing for them to tax.  Then guess what?  You would be absolutely free to discuss whatever you wish in your church setting, because the enemy would have no foothold in your door.
  One last thing we need to realize.  We are living in a day and age where people are not only apathetic towards Jesus Christ and his church, but at times hostile.  If we become the people of God that Jesus intended, we will be a fortress that can withstand any onslaught, even death.  But when we try to dabble in the American kingdom and the kingdom of God, we get hung up between two worlds.  Jesus tells us to choose him or the world.  Church, which is it going to be?

Job Creation

In all of this talk about job creation, there is a point that seems to get lost from time to time.  We talk all the time about skill development and education being the keys to jobs.  The reality is that we are not all wired to work in a job that comes from an education.  Many people are wired to work with their hands in ways that do not rely on a formal education to make a living.  But here is the point that is worth noting: This does not mean that a person is somehow lesser or lower than someone with an education. More importantly, and here is the point many will disagree about, this fact does not mean that they deserve to earn less.  That will rub many people the wrong way.  People assume they deserve to earn more because they went to college and got an education.  But that is simply not true.  For the very least of reasons, one thing an education does is allow you to work with your mind in a way that doesn't break down your body.  At the very least, this seems a fair trade-off for four years of college and some student loan debt.

Christian Business

So what is the best choice in the business world?  Is it to allow capitalism free reign or to support social laws that limit it?  If the former, it is easy to see that working conditions will degrade, wages will fall, and profits will soar.  If the latter, costs will soar, profits will climb, and working conditions will maintain themselves.  Soaring costs are a legitimate problem, since rising costs do weaken the economy and cause a lot of pain for everyone.  In the former case, soaring profits helps grow the economy, creates jobs, and economic prosperity for at least some.

Jesus did say that we will always have the poor among us, and so in some ways, I suppose this position is justifiable.  Of course, people can find scripture and other ways of justifying just about anything.

The question ultimately is whether or not it is right for the boss to live in a mansion surrounded by luxury while their employees struggle to live in a trailer park?  We could say all kinds of things like, “everyone has an equal opportunity to better themselves.”  Quite frankly that is not true, and besides, not everyone can be a boss.  Not everyone can own their company.  Some people are given the opportunity to have such a position.  It is not, however, “given” in the sense that Obama would have us believe.  Obama would have us believe that what we have is given to us by the country or worse—by the government.  Ultimately, for the Christian, the only thing we can rightly believe is that what we have was given to us by God. 

If we believe that, then it must also follow that we are given these things in the same sense that the master gave his servants the money and expected them to invest it and grow it for his purposes.  So the point then is that a business owner is given stewardship over what they have, not ownership.  (The same is absolutely true of all of the resources we have, whether we are a business owner or not.)  To that end, they are ultimately responsible for the living they grant to those in their care.  Does this mean that it doesn’t matter how hard a person works—that they should be given a wage irregardless of their effort?  Certainly not.  Good work should be rewarded.   But think about this from the perspective of the kingdom of God.  What we are really saying is that should a person be proven responsible over a few things, they will be given responsibility over many things.

Even a negative action such as firing/laying off must be seen in a loving way.  It may be that saying, “you need to try harder at your work, and so I am laying you off so that you will eventually be more responsible” is the most loving thing that you can do. 

Ultimately we are responsible for not only our own actions, but the actions which we support.  When you spend a dollar, what do you support?  Are you supporting slave labor whether in this country or others?  Are you putting someone else in poverty so that you may have your luxury?  Most of us are ignorant about the ramifications of our buying choices.  But those of us who are given knowledge and the ability to choose must choose wisely and with the knowledge that our master will return soon.

The church institution

The problem is church.  See, the thing is, that people don’t want to be committed to an institution.  They, at least in American culture, don’t really wish to be committed to anything other than what might bring fun, power, glory, or money.  But the kingdom of God doesn’t work that way.  Those who seek power, fun, glory, or money will find it, but they will lose their life because of it.  When the church becomes an institution, there is no reason to be committed to it.  It would be like committing yourself to a particular bar of soap.  You might prefer a certain brand, but you wouldn’t go to huge lengths to get it.  Well, that may not be entirely true, but for them we can only shake our heads.
The reason this is coming up now is that we have more than ever in our lives to distract us and to bring us pleasure, so why be faithful to an institution.  Remember when Jesus says that they will know you are my disciples by the love you have for your organization?  No, because he didn’t say it.  He said that they will know you are my disciples by the love you have for each other.  But we have forgotten that these 2000 years past.  We have made the church into a business instead of a family joined by a collective will to see the kingdom of God realized here on earth.  And so when that institution—that business no longer serves as the center of community life, people back away from it.
This is not an invention since the 1950s, as some would suspect.  Christendom which placed the church at its religious, social, and political centers allowed the maintenance of the illusion that all was well.  But it wasn’t.  People broke away in droves from the church to either leave altogether or to start their own institution.  If people had been committed to each other as a natural family, this wouldn’t have happened.  If indeed the church had been the church, the protestant schism would not have happened, flawed though the Catholic church was at the time.
For a long time (I would guess since Constantine wooed the church into an unholy marriage) the people of God who are the living kingdom of God here on earth was more concerned with the institution than the people within its walls.
It is much harder to leave your loved ones.  If there is one thing that Jesus makes perfectly clear, it is that your family consists of all who call God “Father.”  But the bride of Christ is no longer a family joined by a common love and goal.  It is a group of individuals labeled into the same group for only as long as situations or preferences allow.
But this cannot be.  She must and shall go free.  The church cannot and will not remain in bondage by institutionalism.  She is a living breathing temple of God’s presence here on earth and nothing will stand in the way of her final victory.  She will be presented spotless and blameless to the son of God, cleansed by his own blood and made whole by the grace of the Father.
And these questions remain: Are we going to take the words of Jesus seriously?  Are we going to live as he would have us live instead of serving ourselves and our dying institutions?  Is God our master or is the world?  Do we believe Jesus when he promises to protect and provide for us?  Do we live our lives counting on our future resurrection to justify our actions in this part of our life?  Are we banking on the promises of God or are we, like Ananias and Sapphira holding something back in case it’s all a sham?
If we do not step out on faith, we will sink like Peter, but if we have faith we will walk high on the waves as Peter did before he began to sink.  We will laugh at the storms and waves, dance in minefields and live without fear or hesitation.  We can live this life with God if only we will believe.
BELIEVE!

The Government's Role in Society

On the right side of the political spectrum, we have people saying that it is not the government's job to provide for the poor.  On the left side we have people saying that we need to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.  These are not opposing positions.  For anyone on the right to speak in such terms, they must add without any pause whatsoever that they themselves will be the ones responsible.  For those of us in the church, it is us who are charged with the care of the poor, orphans, and widows.  No, for my part I do not believe it is the government's role to take care of people.  I believe it is my job as a follower of Christ to take care of my neighbor, whether they be next door or in the next town, or the next country.  No, I cannot do it on my own, but I am just one member of a larger body.  It is this body that is charged with spreading the kingdom of God throughout the world in word and deed.  It is not even on the lowest realms of our agenda to promote our own wealth.  In fact, to do so is to deny our savior.

Keeping sexuality in its place

One of the great issues that our culture will live or die on is the issue of sexuality.  To be sure sexuality is a powerful force in nature.  But it is our willingness to let it dominate our identities and actions that is causing such a problem.  One of the chief causes of this is, of course, biological.  Most humans are born with the desire to reproduce.  Thus we have a desire for sex.  We also have an innate desire for love.  This is nothing new of course, but what we have difficulty understanding is that sex does not necessarily equal love.  Don't misunderstand, sex is emotional and involves love but love does not in itself necessitate sex.  The fact that we believe it does is to give our sexuality too much credit for its role in our lives.  Do we really want to be dominated by our sex instinct?  Do we want that to be making the decisions for our lives?
I would hope for most people the answer would be no, and in fact, I believe it is, at least on some level.  God's love for us is unconditional, whether we be sinners, saints, or a mixture of the two.  There is so much love that comes to us without involving our sexuality.  Quite often when people feel devoid of love from other sources, they will seek to fill that void by fabricating love through a sex act.  This equation of sex and love has to be resolved in our culture, because it is threatening so much of our existence.  "Free love" (meaning sex) sounds great until you deal with all of the unwanted babies, diseases, and emotional trauma involved.  As Phil Vischer says, "we worship at the altar of romantic love" in this culture and because of this we have a lot of social issues to deal with which we wouldn't if we didn't place such monumental importance on eros.
The problem here is that even romantic love takes a back seat to other forms of love.  Even the love of a longstanding marriage isn't necessarily always a romantic one.  Obviously it is often romantic, but any good couple will tell you there are times they love by choice rather than instinct.
But our culture's desire to have romance at any and all costs is destroying too much, and it is time we stood up and took notice.  Marriages are lost to romance, families are torn apart, teenagers are lost to it, and indeed every area of society is affected by it.  Even a non-religious humanist would have to admit that allowing one force, which should be a lesser one in our lives, to dominate our lives with no recourse to responsibility, commitments, or even prudence is ultimately a destructive force.  This is how we have to frame our discussions about love.  Romance and affection, while great, is not the most important thing in life. Ultimately, while it is a gift from God, it is not meant to be enjoyed however or whenever we want.  To do so throws the life out of balance.

What Jesus meant by "do not judge."

It is commonplace to quote Jesus when he says, "Do not judge."  This is taken to mean that no person can have anything to say about what another person does, as in, whether or not it is right or wrong.  At first glance, this seems well intentioned.  For one, it is absurdly impractical if followed in this sense.  For another, it misses the real point of the message and has the unintended effect of creating the same situation which the teaching is aimed to prevent.
That our culture is widely hypocritical in most of its notions is well understood by many who even briefly observe culture.  We judge everyday, and we must, for without it, there is no law and order, and the structure of our society would fall apart.  We view some things as acceptable, and others as punishable.  There are, of course, a great many degrees in between, but even a casual observer will note that our society would cease to function under an ideal that allows no idea of good to take precedence over another.  The litmus test in this case is often on an action's effect on people other than the one (or ones) involved.  But even such an idea is ignorant to the real interconnectedness of our lives.  What we do in private affects others, whether we admit it or not.  A drug addict's habits affects more than just their own personal, private time.  Every decision or action, in some way, whether major or minor, affects the community at large.  Something as simple as taxes demonstrates this idea.  The rich are taxed more because most people believe the rich should contribute more to society.  But is this not a way of imposing one group's judgments upon another?  Is this not judging in some way?  Our society has determined that such a tax structure is right, even though a great many people disagree.  Their opinion is judged wrong in the eyes of society.
Really what we mean by this principle is a bit more selfish.  Essentially we mean, "don't tell me to do/not do anything that I do not or do want to do."  Often we may speak on the behalf of others, but the drive behind it is still very much the same.
But is this even what Jesus meant by this?  It is not.  Clearly what Jesus means is the notion of condemning.  For someone that knows little of the Bible, the difference here seems to be non-existent.  But the idea of condemning in the Bible has much more of an eternal significance than a situational one.  To extrapolate, the idea is something like, "do not condemn others to hell or you to will be condemned to hell (or risk being condemned to hell)."  But again, what's the difference.  To be clear, there is a big difference between saying an action or attitude is evil/wrong/worthy of hell and saying that because of said action, a person is condemned to hell.  The first is to recognize that we all make evil choices.  The second is to suggest that such evil choices are irredeemable and that the person is no longer worth trying to save.
Everything we do may be forgiven.  Jesus makes reference to only one unforgivable sin, and it is not intolerance, homosexuality, greed, sexism, racism, hatred, or any such thing.  It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  (This is, depending on your perspective, to deny the work of the Holy Spirit and remain against God.  Various other perspectives exist on this issue, but they are not relevant here.)
So if this is the intended message, how does the popular interpretation undermine the original intent?  They do not initially seem that far off, so how could they be polar opposites?  The problem with "Do not judge," as our culture sees it, is that it creates a sense of apathy towards the spiritual lives of others.  Whether that apathy springs from condemnation which pronounces a person as beyond all hope, or if it comes from the mistaken idea that we have no right to tell people that they may not do as they please, the effect is the same. The condemning/not judging person has ceased to be a light in the world for the love of God.  Neither is acceptable, and both go against what Jesus taught.

Religious freedom

Religious freedom is under attack these days.  The immediate question is of course, "In an age of tolerance, how can such a claim be made?"  It is this demand of tolerance from our culture that is causing the problem.  As yet there are few legal restrictions on religion.  There is one crucial one that I will mention in a moment.  Tolerance in its truest form is to allow people to believe what they wish without forcing others to believe as we do.  (This, it should be noted, is the real sense of the first amendment)  In its more modern form, tolerance is the idea that a person's belief is irrelevant to the rest of the world, thus it is not open to censure, nor is it allowed to influence others. 
To start, this is a very ignorant stance.  The mere fact that we have multiple political parties with differing beliefs illusrates this point perfectly.  Whether Democrat, Republican, or any other strain, adherents to a political party view their beliefs as true, others as wrong, and each side does its best to win the day.  All of life functions this way.  We believe what we believe, whether it be in science, business, art, and every sphere of life.  At times it is clearer than others, but such an idea is always present.  Where would science be if scientists didn't debate issues.  How well would business function if everyone were allowed to approach their work however they saw fit?  How would anyone choose, for example, a piece of art to sit in the town square if no one was allowed debate on what was proper?
So why is religion and religious-like belief treated any differently?  It is partly because deep down most people in our culture who claim such a stance believe that any religious idea is bogus anyway.  I would argue that this is true of a large number of adherents to the various religions.  There is some sense in this, because if none of what we believe is true, then there is no reason for us to try and change anyone else, or to help our culture reflect our religious values.
Regardless of the specific religion, There are broad implications to each belief structure.  If one's belief is that all babies should be destroyed except for a few born under specific circumstances, then that person would promote that in a larger societal context.  If one's belief is the opposite, that all babies should be allowed to be born and prosper as much as possible, then obviously they will try and promote that.  To claim to believe something and yet do nothing about it is a falsehood with which our culture is far too comfortable.  If you believe a building is on fire, what kind of person would you be if you took no steps to remedy the situation simply because others disagreed?  That would be ludicrous.  I am a Christian and because of this, I believe that Jesus Christ offers the only way to know God and to be saved from our sinful selves.  If I am right, when the final judgement occurs, what would we think of a person who knew Jesus Christ all along, and yet did not share with those around them because of some notion of tolerance?  Hindsight would indeed be 20/20 and we would not think well of such a person.  This is not a redressing of Pascal's wager but a reminder that if we believe that what we believe has consequence for the world at large, we would be a truly deplorable person to not somehow impact the world according to those beliefs.
This has led to one of the few concrete instances of a law limiting the freedom of religion.  Not surprisingly, this law centers around money.  It is law that non-profits (including religious centers) are barred from political activism or they will lose their non-profit status and be obliged to pay taxes as a religious entity.  While there certainly is room for debate about whether churches should pay taxes anyway, this is nto the point in question.  The point here is that churches are essentially instructed by the state to remain silent on political issues.  This at the very least should offend our idea of constitutional freedoms.  But it also implies that whatever political convictions may arise from our religious beliefs have no inherent right to a place in the political sphere, in fact it denies in a way that religions should have political implications. 
And this is the true attack on religious freedom, the idea that religion is not allowed to speak a word to the culture at large, and that it can only speak to an individual's personal life.  Such a religion is not worth having.  Such a belief would only set up such hypocrisy in a person that most of us would find objectionable.
So am I then dooming us to religious intolerance?  Are we destined for holy war?  I don't believe so.  If we can truly love each other enough to both share our faith, speak our mind, and yet be respectful, then we will more appropriately be practicing tolerance.  Just because people disagree, or even find another's actions to be wrong, does not mean that there is hatred.

Gay Marriage Debate

In the debate on gay marriage, one side is constantly accused of trying to push its morality and ideology on the other. What the accusing side fails to realize is that they are in fact doing the exact same thing.  A common question usually brought up is "What does it have to do with anyone else, this is an issue of freedom?"  While that may be true on the surface, upon further investigation, we discover that it is not true at all.  When gay marriage is approved in various contexts, the actual marriage of same-sex couples has very little to do with anyone outside that couple.  But, by granting that relationship the legal status of marriage, people are unwillingly forced into accepting that relationship whether they agree with it or not.  Should a faith-based institution such as a hospital or social service center be forced to give healthcare coverage to a homosexual partner?  By doing so, aren't we forcing them to live as if they believe there is nothing wrong with that?  It is not enough to say simply that this is not a moral question.  It very much is a moral question.  Our sexuality and the way we express it is very much wrapped up in our whole life and our attitudes towards God, sin, life, death, right and wrong.
A "live and let live" type of mentality does no good, because a person who truly is moral to the core will live an integrated life in which all of their morals interact with each other and inform each other.  Thus, for the gay marriage supporter, they would be hypocritical if they did not in some way promote the "normalcy" of homosexuality in the hopes that everyone would accept it.  For the opposition, it would be hypocritical to decry homosexuality as a sin and yet treat a homosexual partner as a spouse.
Perhaps the only real solution that satisfies a notion of American freedom as well as the Christian ideal of not judging those outside the church is to allow for people not to accept homosexual unions as valid.  Practically this would mean that employers could choose not to cover the spouses in such a case.  Of course, they can also choose not to cover heterosexual spouses either.
We have a horrible notion in America that people have a right to believe what they believe as long as it does not impact their dealings with anyone else.  Frankly, that is stupid.  If you elect a Christian to a political post, it is wrong to ask them to set aside their religious convictions while in that office.  If our religion is worth anything (whatever that may be) it has to impact all areas of our life, including the political, economic, and social spheres.  What the constitution says is that as a nation, we will not choose one religion over another and force everyone else to follow it.  It does not ban religion from the political sphere, for to do so would require all politicians to become less of a person and separate their beliefs from their actions, which, if done, means beliefs are worthless.

Complexity of the Universe

It is interesting in a way that as science progresses, it finds that our universe keeps getting more and more complex.  This week, a new subatomic particle was confirmed.  Though I do not pretend to understand everything involved (I have long since been out of that game), I am impressed at the things we are able to discover.  The thing that really gets me is that as we discover the universe to be more complex than we imagined, we can still look at the world and say that it all happened by chance.  There are so many presuppositions that must be stacked on top of each other to make for a completely natural universe that it is astounding that would be our conclusion.  And yet it is.  Quarks, neutrons, protons, etc. are so complex that the vast majority of people can't understand them without years of study.  Yet it is the assumption of many people that these all came together through random/lucky processes to form matter and eventually life.  Bravo, that is an incredible act of faith indeed!

Love is/not

There are a lot of notions going around about what love is or isn’t, what love does or does not do.  A very common statement in our culture is, “love accepts someone the way they are.”  With all deference to my postmodern contemporaries, this simply is not true.  Allow me to modify the statement so I may prove my point.  “Love loves someone as they are.”  Semantics?  No, it is much deeper than that.  The reality of love is that it never allows someone to stay the way they are.  Or at least, it never hopes to leave them as they are.  It does not accept their present situation/actions/thoughts/feelings, without beckoning them to change.  True love helps someone to become the best version of who they can be.  So if someone is living in sin, love calls them out of it.  Does this sound judgmental? Hateful?  At first glance perhaps it does.  After all, who are we to tell someone they are living in sin?  Paul says it very clearly.  We are Christ’s ambassadors.  In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting the world’s sins against them (2 Corinthians 5).  And that’s as much the point as anything.  God isn’t counting our sins against us.  But he is beckoning us to come be reconciled to him and be healed. 

What kind of parent would let their child grow up to be a monster because they accept them the way they are?  What kind of a master would let their dog jump, bite, bark and terrorize people because that’s the way they are?  What kind of spouse would watch their husband or wife spiral down into depression while they just accept them the way they are?

Love that asks nothing of the other person is merely affection.  Affection idealizes the other person.  It fails to see them as they are, which is a broken, hurt, sinful, wonderful person that needs help (as we all do) to become the person God created us to be.

Intelligient Design/Evolution/Creationism

So once in awhile I will run across an article or review of a book that talks about creationism or intelligient design versus science.  This is always a train wreck.  Christians saying bad things about atheists/scientists/scientists that are Christian.  Then there is a the general mockery of Christianity from the atheist/scientific community.
First of all, to the scientific community: Even if every theory/law/principle you can come up with is true, that in no way proves or disproves the existence of God.  Ex nihilo nihil fit.  It is an argument as old as the cosmos, and yet just as true today.  Whether it be an infinite string of universes or a finite solar system, it had to come from somewhere.  In many respects, the most rational explanation for our universe as a whole is that some intelligient being created it.  Despite what many people would say, the Bible does not declare to us how the earth was created other than to say that God created it.  So in a very real sense it does no good to argue against creationism.  As some scientists will admit, science is a method of exploration, not, in a sense, a worldview.  There are areas that science cannot speak to, like philosophy, religion, history, and politics just to name a few. 
Second, to the Christian community: Did God create everything, yes.  But God is supremely interested in allowing us to make our own decisions.  God refuses to be tested (he expressly forbids it even).  Beyond that, why would you want to reduce God to some scientifically verifiable formula?  God is not part of creation, and while creation testifies to the glory of God, it is so infinitely smaller than God that it is useless as a proof in the scientific sense.  But this is where science fails us.  Though creation does not prove God scientifically, it can make us sure of God's existence and character nonetheless.  You can look at creation and know God is there in a way that no scientific method could hope to touch.