Freedom and Firearms

The one freedom our founding fathers did not want or guarantee is the freedom from responsibility. For the same reason that God's love compels Him to allow us to have the freedom to make bad choices, our freedom comes with an innate responsibility.

God loves us, and yet bad things happen. When God created the world, he had a choice. Did He want us to be robotic automatons with no will of our own who would love Him unconditionally because He told us to, or did He want us to love Him because we chose to love Him? He gave us choice. Unfortunately, with the freedom to choose comes the freedom to choose the wrong thing. God is a God of love, but He is also a just God, and a good God. He loves us enough to give us freedom, but with that freedom comes consequences. Because we have chosen wrong, our choices have consequences, and those consequences impact not only ourselves, but others.

What does any of that have to do with the current debate on gun control? Just like our freedom to chose is innately linked to being able to choose the wrong thing and face the consequences of our choice, so the freedoms envisioned by our founding fathers comes with responsibility. If we want freedom, we accept the responsibility to defend our freedom and the freedom of those weaker than us when that freedom is challenged. If we demand that the government care for our every need and keep us safe from every bad thing out there, we willingly abdicate our freedom. There may be an illusion of freedom, but once we turn our well-being over to someone else, it becomes their responsibility, and they must do everything in their power to protect us, including protecting us from ourselves. For example, if we determine we want the government to keep us safe on the roads, it becomes the government's responsibility to set and enforce rules that everyone must abide by. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, but you need to understand that you have surrendered your freedom to drive whatever you want at whatever speed you want to. You're trading that freedom to the government in exchange for them doing their best to keep you safe. We may use the roads, but it is no longer on our terms, it is on the government's, and if it decides we are abusing the priviledge, they can revoke it. If we want the government to keep us safe from guns, we give up the freedom to own them. The government can say "OK, if you want me to protect you, you're going to have to give me your guns. Otherwise, I can't keep you safe," and it would be right. The only way for a government to protect its people is to remove the danger from them. It is impossible to be free and irresponsible. It is impossible to be free and demand someone else keep you safe. With each area where we demand the government protect us, we surrender one more aspect of our freedom. You want protection from violent crime, muggings, and rape? We can almost completely eliminate them. Just surrender your freedom to move about unattended. We'll set up a system of armed patrols who will escort groups of people where they need to go. Anyone not in a group with a patrol will be assumed to be up to nefarious purposes and will be detained or shot on sight.

This is not the philosophy that our founding fathers espoused. They wanted us to have freedom. They wanted the ability to determine the course of their own lives, free from government intervention. They knew that with the freedoms they envisioned, came certain innate responsibilites. We have the responsibility to be informed of the current issues and to vote responsibly, holding our elected officials accountable for their actions. We rail against politicians, but who puts them in power, and who keeps them there? People can be broken into three categories, sheep, wolves, and shepherds. Sheep have no responsibility. They are cared for and protected by the shepherd. He makes sure they have water and food and are free from danger. They also have no freedom. They can move around in the area the shepherd designates, and they can eat the food and drink the water he provides, but they are not free to leave his care. Wolves have decided to put their individual desires above everyone else, and they do whatever is in their power to impose their will on others. They're not satisfied with the portion alloted to them, they want their neighbor's portion as well. There is no way for a sheep to stand up to a wolf. The sheep can't resist, it can't fight back. It depends on the shepherd to save it. The shepherd is responsibile for the safety of the entire herd. He protects it and cares for it, but he also decides what is best for it. The shepherd has the freedom of choice, but the responsibility of care. In most nations of the world, the general populace are the sheep. Those who have decided to throw off the rules of polite society and take what they want are the wolves, and the police, army and government are the shepherds. When the wovles attack, the sheep bleat and cower in fear, demanding thicker walls and more protections, and it is the shepherd's responsibility to step in and ensure that safety. The founding fathers rejected this principle. They envisioned a nation not of sheep, but of shepherds. Everyone would have freedom, but they would also have the responsibility that went along with it.

The freedom to bear arms, and the responsibility that freedom brings are innate to our way of life. That freedom forms the foundation of many others, including our freedom from oppressive governments. The shocking truth of the matter is, the second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting. In the days it was written, hunting wasn't a sport, it was a means of survival. It would have been unheard of for the government to step in and ban hunting. The second ammendment was put in place to protect our right to overthrow an oppressive government. We like to espouse the checks and balances of our government, and how each branch balances and keeps the other two from over reaching. We have forgotten that there is one other check and balance in place. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that it would not be an easy thing for the government to overreach and errode the freedoms they had fought for, and that many had died to secure. They wanted to ensure that there was a well armed populace in place who would be able to stand up to tyranny wherever it was found. They expected us to love those freedoms just as passionately as they did, so that we would be willing to lay down our lives before we laid down our freedom, no matter who threatened it. They never expected that any segment of the population would be begging for those freedoms to be taken away so they wouldn't have to deal with the inherent responsibility.

God is Good

Philippians 4:6-7 jumped out at me as I read this morning, especially the way they are laid out:

"do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."

I've read that several times, but this time I noticed the sentence structure more, which seems to imply this meaning:

"do not be anxious about anything, 

Instead, 

in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 

When you do that, 

the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."

It's also interesting that we are to bring our requests to God with prayer AND supplication, AND thanksgiving. That means we should be thanking God for His answer before we know what it is. I think that part is key for us to be able to benefit from the promised peace. Praying to God and knowing in your heart that regardless of the outcome, His answer is good.

Misconceptions on Giving

I've heard it said before, but for some reason, it really hit me as I was reading Philippians 4.

Giving is an act of worship.

It is not a duty.

It is not a responsibility.

It is worship.

In Philippians 4:18, Paul says, "I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God." That text jumped out to me. "A fragrant offering." "A sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God." I know those terms are used for Old Testament sacrifices and offerings, but they are also used to describe prayer. I think that's what the key was for me. I've always seen the offerings of the Old Testament and tithing/giving as related. They both seemed to be duties that we, as believers, were required to do, not really acts of worship.

Sadly I don't think I am the only one who has this misconception. While we say giving is "worship" we teach that it is "duty". We emphasize that it must be done, not why we are doing it. Why is this? I suspect it is strongly related to a lack of faith. People struggle with trusting that God will supply their needs, so they restrict their giving. Churches feel the pinch to their budgets, and instead of trusting that God will provide, they start emphasizing the importance of giving, which reinforces the concept that this is an act of duty, not one of worship.

We know that God considers giving an act of worship, but how is it really worship? First of all, we're acknowledging that everything already belongs to God, and expressing gratitude for what He has entrusted us with. By giving our offering, we are acknowledging that God is in authority, all we have belongs to Him, and whatever He asks of us is just. Secondly, we are trusting God to provide for our needs. God knows what we need. He knows about our bills. He has promised to meet those needs. Giving is us acting on our faith in Him. It is uncomfortable. It requires us to step out and live our faith rather than merely verbally asserting it.

Does God need us to give Him money? Absolutely not! Do we need a regular, physical reminder of our absolute dependence on Him? Absolutely!

Does this mean that we should sign over every dime that God has entrusted to us, giving it all back to Him? Most assuredly not. God is sovereign. He has foreordained the end of the world ever since the beginning. He knows when each of us will leave this mortal plain, and He is omnipotent, fully able to ensure that His plan is fulfilled. That doesn't mean we cross the street without looking both ways. He has given us the freedom to choose and to act. With that freedom comes the responsibility to excercise it wisely. That means looking both ways before crossing the street. That also means wisely using the resources He has provided for us. Am I advocating always tithing 10% everytime the plate is passed? No. The concept of a tithe is a decidedly Old Testament concept, and is altogether too frequently applied to our giving today. However, when the budget is tight, and the ends aren't meeting, consider giving up your Starbucks before you give up your giving. Even if all you can afford is the quarter you found in the parking lot on the way into church, don't deprive yourself of the act of worship, of stepping out in faith. God is not an investment banker. He won't give you interest on your deposits. He doesn't promise that for every dollar you put in the plate you'll get 10 back. He does promise that He loves us and will provide for our needs.

This has been a hard post to write. I haven't had the best understanding of giving. I don't have a hidden agenda. I'm not trying to drum up support for my local church or my favorite mission board. When I set out to write this post, these thoughts were not fully formed. I had been convicted by what I read in Philippians, and have continued to be convicted as I penned these words. I'll be the first to acknowledge that I will likely not live up to the ideal expressed above, however I have learned, and I hope to continue to learn.

One last side note. Share what you are studying. Often, it is not in the reading, but in the re-telling that God works in our lives. Find an accountability partner to check in with every day. Tell them not only if you did your devotions, but what they were about. You'll find that at times you learn more with the re-telling than you did with the reading.

Thoughts on silence

Periodically, I am struck by this thought: "Why are we afraid of silence?" It is usually spurred by actually experiencing quiet, and realizing that rather than being something that should be avoided, or something that makes us uncomfortable, silence can be rejuvenating. I'm not advocating we all take up yoga and start meditating, but maybe there is something to be gained by slowing down and allowing our brain time to get its bearings.

 Another thought that usually follows quickly after I begin considering our "silencephobia*" is, "Why do we seek amusement over all else?" We want to be entertained. Looking at society, you'd think that the worst possible thing would be not having plans on a Friday night. We always want to be doing, doing, doing. We program our kids that down-time is evil. We actually use it as a punishment for them. What is there in silence that we find so terrifying? 

Recently, I was studying Philippians 4, and I realized something. It looks like Paul's theme for the chapter is "Living Right". He talks about having right attitudes, right actions and right emotions. It hit me as I was reading, that the Bible's order of priorities for how we should feel is just about exactly opposite to "normal" priorities. In man's method, we see people trying to have enough so they can be content, thinking that once they are content, they will be happy, and when they are happy, they will have peace. I think that's why we see such an emphasis on amusement. A friend of mine in college had a theory about the origin of the word amuse. He thought it may have it's roots in ancient Greek. He pointed out that the word appears to be made up of the Alpha Privative (the letter "A" at the beginning) and the word for thought. The Alpha Privative literally takes the word it is applied to and makes it the opposite of or negative of the original word, so if muse means "thought" amuse means "without thought" or "not thinking". Whether or not that theory is accurate, it provides a lot to think about. Today people seek amusement over all else. They want happiness, and to get it, they feel they must turn off thought. They seek amusement to find contentment, because they know if they think about it too long, they'll find a huge God shaped hole in their lives. The mantra of "Party hard, die young, leave a pretty corpse" could easily have the codicil "so you don't have time to think about what's causing the empty feeling."

On the other hand, exactly opposite to man's philosophy is what we see in Philippians 4. We are told to be at peace with our circumstances, regardless of what they are, because we know God and understand that He loves us and is in control. Once we are at peace in whatever state we are in, we will be able to rejoice and experience happiness, and because of that, we can be content.

Don't be afraid of silence. When the noise dies away and we shut out the distractions, you'd be amazed what you can find. Peace and contentment can be attained. In fact, they are the emotions God wants us to be feeling.

*Made up term, not a clinically diagnosed phobia. The actual phobia of silence is Sedatephobia.

Religious Freedom and Conflicting Beliefs

Please stop rallying behind Kim Davis as an example of someone who's First Ammendment Rights were violated. She's not. Her rights are fully intact. The government is not asking her to perform the ceremony. It is not asking her to add her personal stamp of approval on these unions. It is merely asking her to issue a certificate. Her approvoal or disapproval is not needed. Rather, this is an example of Ms. Davis imposing her convictions on others. "I believe that is sin, therefore, I will not allow you to do it." This is totally different than if she were being forced to do something she didn't believe in. If she is deeply convicted that it is wrong for her to be involved even incidentally, then she needs to ask for a transfer to a different job. At that point, if the state fires her, then it is worth considering as an issue with her First Ammendment Rights. If the state imprisons her for leaving her job because she feels she can't in good conscience provide marriage licenses to same sex couples, THAT is a violation of her First Ammendment Rights. This is most definitely not the same as a pastor who is asked to perform a same sex marriage. He has every right to refuse, just as the couple has every right to find someone else who won't refuse.

I've seen parallels drawn between Ms. Davis and Germans working in the government in Nazi Germany. People have applauded her "standing up to evil" and resisting a government that is trampling her rights. Please stop. These situations are in no way related. A German soldier told to execute a person merely for the crime of being born into a different race, should have been able to recognize that what he was told to do was wrong, and should have refused to do it. (However that brings up the discussion of evolution, and the beliefs that the people they were executing were not "fully evolved" or "fully human", that their DNA was mixing with the "true humans", and preventing further evolution, and therefore, by exterminating them, they were doing humanity a service. But that's a discussion for a different day.) The crux of the matter is who is being forced. Let's set aside arguments about right and wrong, moral and immoral for a moment (not that they don't matter, they most certainly do, but in *this* discussion, they don't. This disussion is about who is being forced to do something they don't believe in. Ms. Davis believes homosexuality is a sin. The gay couple who comes in believes they have every right to get married. By refusing to issue them a marriage liscense, Ms. Davis is imposing her beliefs on the couple. Does that mean she must act against her conscience? Absolutely not. She can seek a different job. Now, let's change the discussion. Should that gay couple be able to go into any bakery and demand that they make them a wedding cake? No. That would be imposing their beliefs on someone else. The business owner has the right to politely refuse, because they don't want their business associated with gay marriage. The couple has every right to look somewhere else. The same goes for officiants. A pastor can refuse to marry them, because it would be a violation of his consience to do so. They have every right to find someone else. The pastor and the baker are not imposing their beliefs on the gay couple. Forcing them to comply would be imposing the gay couple's beliefs on them.

Let me make one thing clear. I believe homosexuality is a sin. It's laid out fairly clearly in the Bible. If you disagree, just read Romans. Personally, I find it repugnant. However, I realized something. My reaction to homosexuality is what God feels about sin. It is repulsive to Him. I am repulsive to Him, because I am a sinner, and yet He looked past my sin, saw me, and sent His Son to die on the cross to pay the penalty for my repugnant sin. If He can look past my sin to me, and love me in spite of myself, how can I do any less for my fellow man? My job is not to enforce my morality on those around me. My job is to live my life consistently, following God's law to the best of my ability, and doing everything in my power to show love to those around me. Did Jesus braid a whip and beat the prostitutes and drunks of his day? No. He went to the temple, to those who were practicing a false form of religion, and beat them. He spent so much time with the drunks and prostitutes that He was labeled as one of them by the religious leaders of His day. Does that mean that He was endorsing their lifestyle? Absolutely not! But He saw past the sin, to the sinner in need, and knew that reaming them out for not living a holy life was not the message they needed to hear. "I forgive you, I love you, go and sin no more," was the message they needed. I can't forgive people, I'm not the one who has been sinned against, but I can show them that regardless of their condition or their actions, God loves them.

Global Warming

This has been bothering me for a while. There are 2 major things that worry me about Anthropogenic Global Warming. First, we are worried about the consensus of scientists (and those falsely so called) more than the facts. A consensus of scientists believed that we lived in a geocentric universe, that the world was flat, and that it was a good idea to bleed a sick individual. So much for the consensus. Show me facts and hard data. I don't care what "the majority" thinks. Second, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a plastic theory. No matter what the data indicates, it's proponents can twist the interpretation of them to "prove" their theory. This is the definition of bad science. A true theory needs to be expressed in such a way that it can be proved or disproved. When that key element is overlooked, the theory looses all it's value because it is impossible to test. I understand the global warming argument about colder than average years is that it's supposed to be the average temperature is increasing, but that we may actually see dips every once in a while. In light of that, it seems that a useful statistic to check would be the record highs. You would think that we would see an increase in the number of record highs set in a decade if the average temperature is increasing. Surprisingly, most of the records were set in the late nineteenth century, or early twentieth. On average, we see between 2 and 4 records broken each decade. Except for the last one. In this past decade (actually a couple years over a decade, but who's counting) we have seen exactly 0 high temperature marks set. Odd. Does this count as an inconvenient truth?

Death of a Medium

I've been meaning to write this post for a while. It is a bit of a divergence from my previous topics, but since I haven't really defined my blog as anything other than a soapbox for me to speak from, I guess that really doesn't matter!

I'm sure by now, you've all heard that Borders is going out of business. I know some have been waxing nostalgic about this, and bemoaning the fact that we have lost a great source for books, but I don't buy it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a bigger bibliophile than most. I love to read. I love to get lost in the depths of a great book. I love wandering through used book stores and finding buried treasure. The reason I don't feel sympathetic or nostalgic for Borders is because they tried to do business in a rapidly evolving industry, they were reluctant to embrace change (i.e. ebooks) and they simply made bad business decisions. I do respect them for not playing the "We're too big to fail" card and seeking government subsidies to stay in business. They played in the free market and they lost.

However, this post isn't about the Death of a Business.When I went to Borders for (likely) the last time a couple weeks ago, I was looking for some deals. I admit it. I was a materialistic vulture just like everyone else who was swarming the store. If we had shown a modicum of that same level of support to the store on a regular basis, it would not be circling the drain as I type. But as I perused the shelves, it became apparent to me why Borders had passed, and why all brick and mortar bookstores stand on the razor's edge of a similar precipice. There's one reason, and it's not ebooks. Amazon.com. Plain and simple. I can go to one website, find every item in that store, and find it for cheaper than they could dream of selling it, even going out of business. I have gazed into the future, and there are no bookstores. Used bookstores, yes. Places to go and buy new books and overpriced CD's? No. Enjoy them while you can. Take videos of your visit so you can show your kids, or at most, grandkids what it used to be like to buy books.

I apologize. I still have not made it to my point. As I said, this isn't about the Death of a Business Model. What do I mean by Death of a Medium? Simply, that as I was standing in Borders, I found a book I've been looking forward to. I had recently discovered Patrick Rothfuss' The Name of the Wind, and was eagerly looking forward to reading the second installment, The Wise Man's Fear. I eagerly scanned down the aisle. After a little perusal, I saw it. They still had stock! I swooped in for the kill, grabbing the book, flipping it over to see the price tag. Ouch. It's okay though, the sign says it's 25% off. Some quick calculations, and I realize, it's probably better than I could do on Amazon, or at least almost as good, but I don't have to pay shipping, and I have it in hand today. As I'm weighing these thoughts in my mind, holding the book, I can't help but notice that at 1008 pages, bound in hardcover, this book is rather heavy (shipping weight of 3lbs according to Amazon). It's also quite thick, meaning it's going to take up some serious shelf space at home, which is at a bit of a premium these days. The thing that killed it for me, though, was the fact that I could walk out of the store, pick up my iPad, and order the same book from the iBook store, and have it in hand in seconds. It wouldn't add any weight to my iPad, which at 1.5lbs is only half the weight of the book. It's not going to take up extra room in my house. I don't have to worry about pages getting ripped, torn or stained. And the kicker - it's still cheaper than the bargain basement, going out of business sale price of it's paper cousin. The arrival of convenient ebook readers, such as tablets, kindles, and others of that ilk are the extinction event that has marked the demise of the paper book. The market is rapidly heading that direction, and the benefits are beginning to seriously outweigh the disadvantages.

I know there are many who are resistant to this idea, and claim that they really enjoy holding that book in their hands. They like the tactile sensation of turning the pages. For me, it's more of a visual thing. I thought it would be tactile as well, but I have found that those apps on the iPad that appear to turn a page as I swipe my finger are nearly every bit as satisfying as holding the book. Besides which, I don't need to worry about loosing my place. I also love the ability to be able to select a word and look it up in the dictionary with a simple tap of my finger. It has significantly improved my reading experience, especially when it comes to the classics.

There are some items we need to get cleared up and sorted before people as a whole will be ready to take the plunge.

1. We will need digital bookshelves. I don't want my books tied only available through my login to the store's website. I want a centralized location that I can store all my books regardless of where they have been purchased.
2. Cross Platform compatibility and availability. I don't want to loose my library just because I decide to replace my iPad with a different tablet. I want to be able to go to my bookshelf using any device and read any of my books. I also want to be able to read them in any app I choose. I tend to like the visual features available in iBooks, as well as the lookup and notation options, however I'm not a fan of Apple's Draconian policies when it comes to what I can put onto my device. I also can not in good conscience stand idly by and watch as Apple robs authors and publishers by demanding a 30% cut.
3. Pricing. I shouldn't have to pay more for a digital book than I have to pay for one that is physically produced. I can understand paying the same price as a paperback for a digital book but only when it is new and hot off the presses
4. Ability to lend books. This to me is one of the most important items on this list. I should be able to authorize someone else to temporarily use my copy of a book. I would fully expect that my access to that book would be locked out while it was on loan, but I should be able to lend it out to whomever, whenever I want to, for however long I want to let them have it. I should also be able to have a reclaim button that allows me to decide when their time is up and lets me have the rights to the book again.

These are my thoughts on the issue. What do you think? Are we witnessing the death of not only a business model, but also a medium?