Pondering an Invisible God

Some friends and my wife and I are going through a video course called "God is Closer Than You Think" as a small group study. The course seems fairly interesting so far, a mixture of video and written material, with discussion before and after reviewing the media. As you try to determine how close God really is, there are some thought provoking questions that can come up. One that we seemed to key on last week (and I'm paraphrasing here) was "If God is always there, why can't we see or hear Him?"

It's a question that I think every believer, and most skeptics, have asked at least once. If you break it down to its basics, I think the question becomes "Why faith, and not sight?" And since I don't advocate "blind faith," I certainly think it's a fair question to ask. Most of us yearn for that certainty, that confirmation of our senses. In times of trouble, that desire can cross into desperation as trials mount, and prayers rise, and we still seem to find ourselves terribly alone. We sing "Our Redeemer Lives," but doubts can crop up and linger in the most faithful lives, and we tend to think "Wouldn't it be better to simply end the doubt once and for all?"

If we accept that God loves us, and wants what is best for us, then we have to assume the answer to that question is "No," at least for the time being. And as humans, that naturally leads us to ask "Why?" Tackling that question on God's behalf is a foolish endeavor at the best of times, since we know that He looks at things from a much different perspective. Without an explicit reason in the scripture, or divine guidance of the Spirit, whatever we come up with is a an educated guess. We really can't know right now. But we can refer to what has happened in the past, and history indicates that "knowing" isn't half the battle when it comes to God.

Peter declared that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God." He knew it because God had revealed it. Christ confirmed it. The Son of God was walking with them. Yet, when the time came, the disciples still deserted him. Judas still betrayed Him. Peter denied Him.

Looking further back, into the Old Testament, the Hebrews had forty years of walking with God. They saw Him as a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. He spoke to them through Moses. He took care of their every need. They didn't have to find food for themselves. And they grumbled against God and Moses. What He provided, they wanted "more" or "better." Many were killed because they wanted to return to Egypt, to be slaves, rather than serve God. Even the prophets were not immune. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam all faced tests of faith and humility and failed at one time or another.

I don't pretend to know the mind of God, but it seems to me that there is nothing about "seeing" God that makes us better servants or improves our relationship long term. Perhaps it's the limitations of the bodies we have now, or the affect that corruption has had on this world. Whatever the reason, I think that in this life we are at least as well off without seeing God "face to face." That might be what Christ meant when He said that even more blessed would those be who "have not seen, and yet still believed." At any rate, it's God's call. Who am I to argue with that?

The Flaw of "Balanced" Good

Imagine that you were to come across a rather large man beating a much smaller and apparently helpless woman. When the police arrive to break arrest the man, he says "Don't bother. I intend to help out three other people today." Now imagine that, rather than haul the brute away, the police accept this explanation and go on to their next call. What's more, as you start complaining about this turn of events to people around you, you find that roughly half of the ones you speak to support this "balanced" approach to protecting the public.

If this sounds unbelievable, it shouldn't. The same kind of thing is and has been happening all around us. The situations are somewhat different, but the net effect is the same. We've reached a point in society where many will defend violations of law or decency if they perceive that a "greater good" will be the result of such behavior. What is even more disturbing, they are often unconcerned if the "good" actually appears, judging the intent as the most important factor.This type of dispensation is selective, of course. We still haven't reached the level of savagery for the situation described above, though that day may come. The beatings still have to remain a bit less obvious to maintain public support.

As of right now, hundreds of millions, possibly billions, have been spent passing and promoting the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). The result has been the disruption of health care for millions of people, several of the greatest public frauds ever perpetrated on the American people, and an unbridled expansion of government power. These facts are incontrovertible. The "good" that was promised is a bit harder to pin down. The actual number of people who were uninsured, the effects on efficiency, and how effective this new insurance will be for most people still remain unanswered questions. And there are many others, perhaps chief among them is how long the program can even remain solvent under the existing structure. It has long been forecast that America cannot maintain the entitlements it had prior to the ACA. How long will the budget, even one as accustomed to deficits as we have become, can maintain the illusion of viability?

And throughout all of this, the administration and its supporters tout its success, and ignore the harm. Part of it is conditioning. The left has made a cottage industry of ignoring the damage it inflicts on those outside of its chosen coalitions. If gay "marriage" effects the speech and religious liberties of others, it is of no concern. If more benefits by the government means that freedom and opportunity must be curtailed, it is no problem. There is no sacrifice to great to advance the Progressive agenda as long as the cost is borne by others.

That's where we are right now. It's not a place any society can stay very long. The question that America has decide quickly is "Where do we go from here?"

What DID Jesus Do: Turning the Tables

In an online comment recently, a woman implored me and other believers to accept gay "marriage" in the name of harmony. Her implication was that Christ would want believers to not stir up the kind of division that is resulting as Christians assert their beliefs in traditional marriage. Her question: What would Jesus do?

What would Jesus do?

Initially asked with the best intentions, I think it's about time to put the question to rest, at least as far as public discourse is concerned. While the Spirit may provide wisdom and guidance to sincere believers, slogans are fair game for anyone, and are often used with no regard to context or true meaning. Some of the finest religious scholars of His day, most in fact, did not understand or appreciate the actions of the Christ. How much less can we trust politicians and lobbyists whose goals have nothing to do with God?

God has proclaimed that His thoughts are often unfathomable to mankind. That is the reason that the Holy Spirit was sent. Even then, trying to "know" what the Son of God would do in a tense situation would be difficult task. I prefer relying on the history and examples that He left for us whenever possible. Then there is no need to guess.

When Jesus went into the temple, in the Court of the Gentiles, he saw not worship, but a market place. Merchants were profiting from the sale of "unblemished" sacrificial animals. Moneychangers were profiting by converting foreign currency to the denominations required for offerings. Any or all of these could have been justified as needed services, assuming that the exchanges were done honestly, but the scriptures imply that was hardly the case. And as for the location, Christ was very specific: This was to be a place of worship for all the nations, not a market.

On that day, the Prince of Peace took violent action. He turned over tables. He scattered the coins. He made a whip, and chased the merchants away. The people came, religious and secular, to challenge His actions, and He stood there against them.

Now Christians are being asked to stand by as marriage, the symbol for Christ's covenant with the church, is made into a mockery. Worse, we are demanded to participate, and some who claim Christ as us to accept this meekly. And yet, I seem to hear the Spirit whisper "No." I see the examples in scripture, and I remember that "holy" means "set apart." If we participate in all of the things the world calls good, if we do not even raise our voice to make known the objection, how are we set apart?

James wrote that faith without works is dead. Sometimes the most difficult action of all is to refuse. It was the challenge of Daniel. It was the challenge of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And now it is fallen to us. Each of them passed the challenge and were honored before God and men. How will believers of today fare?

Captain America and "Irony" Man

I went to see the new "Captain America" film this past weekend. While I wouldn't put it in the same league as "The Avengers (no pun intended)," I thought it was a good film. It was technically well done. The acting was solid. I thought the overall plot was worthwhile as well, though that's where things began to get shaky for me.

(Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead!)

It wasn't too long before the camaraderie and cohesion of a Mr. Fury's organization was revealed to be nothing more than a facade. From there, most of the suspense of the movie was gone, as it was easy to guess who the masked villain was, who was in charge of the big conspiracy, and what the overall goals were. From there, it was simply a matter of counting how many explosions until the bad guys were done in.

As I said, it was still an enjoyable ride, but it shouldn't have been that easy to figure out. It would not have been that easy to figure out had I not seen the same basic plot structure. I'm not talking about in other spy movies, or even in other super-hero movies. I'm afraid that I seem to be referring to most everything that Joss Whedon has been involved in lately.

I began to notice the trend in earlier movies. The same themes were being repeated - general conspiracies at high levels of power and / or outright incompetence by authority figures. The basic given that no matter how professional or selective an organization may be, you can trust no one outside of your tight little group. Everyone else has somehow been co-opted or corrupted (though how the group that you happened to make it into escaped this dire fate will always remain a mystery.) When the series came out this year (Marvel's Agents of SHIELD), that began the end of the government spy organization as any kind of force for good. "Winter Soldier" just finished off the job.

Now, with all due respect to Nick Fury, I can't really say that I'm sad to see SHIELD go. It was being run pretty much as a private army during The Avengers. The way the plot was arranged, it made it look as though that was the best way, but it really isn't. That's how rebellions get going. It was with great wisdom and forethought that the framers of the Constitution put elected civilian authority at the head of the military. That's where it needs to stay. And, while you can hardly have a completely transparent spy network, for any kind of organization armed the way that SHIELD was, you better have a lot more accountability than a few shadowy members meeting on secure video lines. The organization had to go. I get all that.

Here's what I don't get: The man behind the scripting for much of the last few Marvel movies, while sounding the alarm about shadowy organizations in "comic book" America, has consistently supported a similar administration in the America that we live in. The man who once complained that America is turning into "Tsarist Russia" has no trouble lending his vote to the President who has done more to reduce the liberty of Americans than any other president I can recall.

I'm baffled.

People are complex, or so I am told. Personally, I think that I am rather on the simple side, at least when it comes to politics. When in doubt, I choose to err on the side of freedom, mostly because I don't even like to think about what's on the other side. I believe it can take any number of forms, but all are dark and unpleasant. And some of them seem to be getting pretty close. That's why I would like to understand what it is that so many others appear to find appealing about giving their freedom away, even as they call for it to be guarded, even as they warn it can be lost.

It can be lost.

Captain America isn't coming. Neither is Thor. Nor Spiderman. Nor Black Widow. This battle is up to us.

When It Rains (on Noah), It Pours

A couple of days ago I was reading an article about the new film "Noah." More specifically, the article was about Russell Crowe's response to the controversy over "Noah," that of the film not being much like the Biblical story. The gist of his comments seems to be that people are ignorant, and should not prejudge the film, but decide for themselves after they see it.

I am not unsympathetic to Mr. Crowe's view. I often disagree with critics as to what constitutes a "good" movie. Tastes are subjective. I also believe that Mr. Crowe is a fine actor. The same can be said for the other members of the cast of "Noah" that I am familiar with, with the exception of Anthony Hopkins, who I believe is an extraordinary actor.

At the same time, I have to acknowledge certain realities. The movie "Noah" is not the Bible story Noah or anything close to it. The days where a major director would tackle that kind of project are long gone. And the criticism that the actors and director get for making an "artistic" version of a Biblical epic is nothing compared to making a faithful one. Ask the people involved in "The Passion of the Christ" about their publicity if you want to know about real horror stories.

So the director made "Not 'Noah'", the studio backed it, but then started to get worried about it when people noticed. There was a lot of money involved, after all. So they started issuing disclaimers that weren't quite disclaimers about "artistic license" or some such thing, and putting extra time and effort into selling "Not 'Noah.'" And based on the receipts for the first weekend, it seems to have worked. The movie is on track to make $40 million. Of course, it cost $130 million to make, so there is still a ways to go. There's still a lot to worry about there.

Meanwhile, a tiny little film that cost $1.5 million to make, another $6 million to distribute, branched out this past weekend. "God's Not Dead" expanded to another 360 screens, and has made over $20 million. And I don't think the people involved in that are worried too much about anything with regard to that movie. I think that movie is already doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. The money is just a nice bit of fluff on the side.

Third Grade Diplomacy

In a stunning explanation of foreign policy this week, the President again demonstrated why he won the Nobel Peace Prize before he had a chance to take office and actually carry out any official duties. The successful invasion of Crimea by Russia, it seems, was not an indication of Russia's strength, but rather Russia's weakness. Considering that, in the past, most countries tend to resist invasion and takeover by "weak" countries, I have my doubts that Crimea considers Russia all that weak, but it could have been an elaborate bluff. The troops and tanks and helicopters could have been cardboard cutouts, or props borrowed from a defunct movie studio. In that case, the entire invasion amounts to little more than a cry for attention from a wanna-be emperor trying to recapture lost glory days of the past. He is to be pitied, not feared.

And this is what it has finally come to: International law on the third grade level. For invading a sovereign nation, Russia is barred from the G8 (pardon me, G7) conference. Putin is given a time out. He is classified as a bully. To the liberal mind, that is a terrible thing. (Most liberals are bullies, but they bully people for "good" reasons, so to their way of thinking, that doesn't count.) It is so terrible that on some level they believe Putin will resent the label so much that he will reverse course. They will not allow themselves to admit the truth consciously.

Some people like being bullies. They like what being bullies does for them. They like the deference and privilege that is granted to them based on their antisocial behavior because it would never be granted on their importance or accomplishments. If you doubt this, just ask North Korea, Iraq, or any militant Islamist organization.

But people liking to act like bullies is only half of the problem. The other half is the enablers. It's the people that refuse to act like adults. They've made up a critical mass in Europe for a long time, at least enough so that they were content to let America do the bulk of the military operations while they spent their cash on bureaucrats. Now America has finally caught up, or close to it. Too many people don't want to act like adults. People have refused to grow up on their own, to the point of not even wanting to take responsibility for their own food, shelter, college, or even birth control.

You know, maybe Putin isn't so bad to have around. Maybe people need to be reminded of what it's like when you don't have to worry about taking care of yourself at all.

Fleeing a Dead Dinosaur

A sad admission of mine looking back is that I wasn't much of reader growing up. I was adequately skilled, but seldom found it enjoyable. Mathematics was my first love, and prose could not compete with the sheer purity and precision, that blissful order that I craved so much in my early days. It was only after I had enlisted in the Navy, and found myself in need of frequent worlds to escape into, that I became a true lover of the written word. (Note: This was not due to any particular fault of the Navy as an organization. I simply came to realize over time that we were ill-suited for each other.)

While I was not the reader some of my friends were, did go through spurts of various authors. I was quite fond of Stephen King, Harlan Ellison, and Dean Koontz, to name a few. My friend's taste were quite different. Whereas I enjoyed modern fantasy and horror, they preferred a more classic touch.

Burroughs was a particular favorite, and while I was not much for older writing styles, I decided to give him a try. My test novel was "The Land That Time Forgot," the story of a submarine the finds prehistoric creatures in an isolated crater in Antarctica. I was always fascinated by dinosaurs growing up, so I thought it had the best chance of any of his works of capturing my interest.

Sadly, Mr. Burroughs and I parted company after the novel. I can't really say what it was about the style that I found unappealing, this being close to forty years ago now, but for the amount of reading I did there were authors I much preferred. There was a concept that he used in that novel, however, that I found quite clever. The basics of the scene remain with me to this day.

At one point in the story, some of the men from the submarine are menaced by a dinosaur. I don't recall which variety, though Tyrannosaurs are always a favorite in those situations. The crew is armed with rifles and begins firing, but the dinosaur keeps coming. Terrified, the men retreat. The dinosaur is gaining on them rapidly, and about to overtake them, when it suddenly falls down, dead. The rationale employed by the author for the sudden failure of the predator is that the huge reptile was known to only have a brain the size of a walnut. Given the size of the body, the number of systems being controlled, etc., some functions and responses are substantially slower than in modern animals. In this case, one of the men had shot the dinosaur in the heart, but it had already decided to take off running after them, and it took a while for the beast to realize it was dead.

There are certain parallels in modern times we are more familiar with. One of the most common is stepping on a dead bee. A child will learn quickly that the insect doesn't have to be alive to sting you. Potentially more damaging would be the rider whose horse is shot, but then falls on top of him as they go down.Not exactly the same as running out of gas on the freeway.

And now, as a nation, we face a similar problem. For that matter, so does the bulk of Western civilization. Only instead of fleeing monsters such as T-Rex and Allosaurus, the behemoths following us go by names like "Social Security" and "Medicare." There are other, smaller beasts running with the pack, various pensions and assorted benefits. And there's the new kid on the block: Obamacare. It's starting out pretty large on it's own, but it has the potential to be huge beyond all imagining.

And they all have joined together, forming the great herd called "Social Safety Net." It's an irony of the darkest order. There is neither safety, nor a net, not one of any substance. As with many parts of the programs themselves, most of their features are illusory, bits of smoke propped up by public money and self-serving politicians. All of the programs are dead, as dead as the dinosaurs. They just don't know it. For, if we couldn't afford the benefit programs that we had, if the spending levels were already unsustainable, how could we ever believe that we could manage the system as it increases, government pushing to provide ever more services on a constantly shrinking supply of productive individuals?

The answer is, of course, it cannot. The beasts will fall, and not only in the Americas. Europe has been growing its own phantom herd even longer, and with a far greater percentage of public funds until recently. While some of the politicians have been making brave noises about reform, none have showed the combined dedication and resilience to get anything lasting accomplished. Barring something truly astounding, the systems will crash, and only God in heaven knows the extent of the destruction.

It would be the ultimate irony, one worthy of note assuming it is remembered afterward. Twenty-first century man, at the height of his intellectual and technical prowess, killed while fleeing a dead dinosaur.