Skip to content

Tag: corporate sin

7 Questions for Pro-Choice Individuals

We are aware that the government has determined that unborn infants have no legal status (except in certain cases). The following questions are not about “what the law is,” but to discuss “what the law should be.”

  1. It has often been said that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Why rare? Why not frequent?
  2. Do you believe the mother’s right to choose an abortion is absolute throughout the pregnancy and should never be denied? Or is there some point prior to delivery at which you think her choice should be limited? Why at that point?
  3. If there is no point prior to delivery at which the mother’s choice should be limited, at what point during the delivery process do you believe that a mother loses her right to choose an abortion? Why that moment? (Again, remember that we’re not asking what the law is, but what you think it should be.)
  4. What–apart from their legal status–do you consider to be the difference between an 8lb infant in the womb as the mother arrives at the hospital and that same 8lb infant outside of the womb four (or fourteen) hours later?
  5. Prior to the moment at which you think the abortion should no longer be an option, what do you think actually exists in the pregnant woman’s womb? Is it a person, a human being, a ball of cells, a potential life, or some other thing entirely?
  6. Do you find any of the following motivations for an abortion to be morally offensive: genetic defects in the child, the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, the baby is a girl, the father is of another ethnicity or lower economic class? If you are offended by any of these, which ones and why? What grounds do you have for taking offense over the mother’s choice rather than celebrating it as an expression of reproductive freedom?
  7. If scientists were able to develop a test to determine, during the pregnancy, the likely sexual orientation of the child, would you oppose an abortion chosen by the mother because the child is considered likely to identify as gay? If so, on what grounds?

For fellow Christians, please read and consider the following article:

What John Piper writes is true. At some point, the logical arguments are going to fail to persuade those committed to the use of abortion. The series of horrific videos released in 2015, which detail terrible evil at Planned Parenthood clinics, have also demonstrated that many are willing to turn a blind eye to the gruesome nature of the practice they staunchly support.

Today, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, women all around the country are marching for life. Please join them and us in praying and fasting for the end of abortion in America and around the world.

Seeking God’s Mercy,
Dan & Anna J.

What I Read in October, 2015

I enjoyed a visit from my folks over the week of my birthday in October, and we found ourselves settling into our new place a bit more, which made it possible to read a couple of longer books. In October, I read:

1984 is a classic, and perhaps rightly so. I read it back in late high-school (or was it early college?), and have lately been interested in re-reading some classics that I haven’t read in over a decade. How I got through it the first time, I’ll never know. Apart from the chapters in which the story moved forward, about 2/3 of the book is little more than a series of extended monologues evaluating the benefits and dangers of an authoritarian government. It’s dry and repetitive, and I’m sure it made the point it needed to make, but I ran out of patience with it all pretty quickly.

Still, a couple of ideas struck me as particularly interesting. First, if one has control of the language (or expression) one has control of the people. This is clearly true today, and it is not always bad; for instance it is a tangible good when a change in the language used results in increased empathy and charity. Second, whole divisions of Orwell’s dystopian society were devoted to the production of mindless, lurid, sexed-up and dumbed-down entertainment in order to keep a large percentage of the population distracted and disengaged. This also is clearly true today, though it’s not in the hands of the government.

I’ve included a few quotes that struck me as interesting:

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

“But if there was hope, it lay in the proles. You had to cling on to that. When you put it in words it sounded reasonable: it was when you looked at the human beings passing you on the pavement that it became an act of faith.”

“Sanity is not statistical.”

“Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

The Girl on the Train and Dark Places were a fortuitous combination, as both are written in first person, both feature women who have suffered a great deal of harm, and both revolve around how the awful past has affected these protagonists in the still-awful present. However, similarities aside, I think Hawkin’s Girl on the Train would have seemed more impressive were it not placed alongside Flynn’s much better Dark Places. In Flynn’s novel, the characters are more sympathetic, the stakes are higher, the emotions run deeper, the prose is more polished, the twists are better earned, and the conclusion is appropriately tuned (I mean here that it hits the right blend of forward-looking optimism and understandable melancholy).

That’s not to say that The Girl on the Train is bad. It’s not bad. It’s just not nearly as good. And being not nearly as good, it feels much worse in retrospect.

Dark Places is the second book I have read by Gillian Flynn this year, and I think it’s safe to say that she will be on my “to read” list in the future.

Steven Pressfield’s The War of Art is a very quick read, directed to writers. A couple of friends here in Spain (very good musicians, check out their music!) recommended it, and then Jon Acuff recommended it in a video on three books that changed the way he looks at creativity.

Pressfield first identifies a bunch of little tricks creators use to avoid creating (he calls these tricks “Resistance”), then offers suggestions for combating such tricks. I found these two sections helpful and insightful. He has a third, semi-mystical section on the Muses, which I found less helpful. A few quotes on the difference between those who write and those who merely tinker:

“There’s a secret that real writers know that wannabe writers don’t, and the secret is this: It’s not the writing part that’s hard. What’s hard is sitting down to write.”

“The professional tackles the project that will make him stretch. He takes on the assignment that will bear him into uncharted waters, compel him to explore unconscious parts of himself.”

“The professional has learned that success, like happiness, comes as a by-product of work. The professional concentrates on the work and allows rewards to come or not come, whatever they like.”

“Someone once asked Somerset Maugham if he wrote on a schedule or only when struck by inspiration. ‘I write only when inspiration strikes,’ he replied. ‘Fortunately it strikes every morning at nine o’clock sharp.’ That’s a pro.”

And a final, longer quote in which Pressfield taps into what I think is a fairly Christian way of thinking about the gifts God gives each of us:

“Are you a born writer? Were you put on earth to be a painter, a scientist, an apostle of peace? In the end the question can only be answered by action.

Do it or don’t do it.

It may help to think of it this way. If you were meant to cure cancer or write a symphony or crack cold fusion and you don’t do it, you not only hurt yourself, even destroy yourself. You hurt your children. You hurt me. You hurt the planet.

You shame the angels who watch over you and you spite the Almighty, who created you and only you with your unique gifts, for the sole purpose of nudging the human race one millimeter farther along its path back to God.

Creative work is not a selfish act or a bid for attention on the part of the actor. It’s a gift to the world and every being in it. Don’t cheat us of your contribution. Give us what you’ve got.”

So that was my reading for the month.

As November races along, I’m only about 10% into a long book on the history of jazz, and I’m realizing I may have difficulty finishing four books this month. Oh, well.

Happy Reading!
Dan J.

Thoughts On Miller’s Sabbatical

You should read Paul Miller’s article, “I’m Still Here: Back online after a year without the internet.” I have a couple of thoughts and I’m interested in yours.

  1. The internet doesn’t corrupt, but it creates a space for the expression of existing corruption.  This shouldn’t surprise any Christian (see Mk 7:14-23), but it’s helpful to remember that the internet does not defile.  Our response to the internet defiles.
  2. The internet distracts us from who we are.  Miller had the idea that without the internet, he would be a better person–that the internet was “corrupting his soul.”  But, all it did was allow for existing corruption to play out in a different environment.  The web plays a growing role in blinding people to the evil in their hearts, and it anesthetizes them by convincing them that their behavior is shaped by the internet (“If only I could disconnect, I would be a better person!”).  However, while the expression of their desires might take different shapes in different environments, their desires come from within, not from without.
  3. The internet reveals who we are.  Ironic, I know, given no. 2.  While I believe the internet distracts us from who we are, I think it also reveals our great evil.  Daily we are confronted with the reality of great human evil–child abuse, sexual assault, murder, racially-motivated hatred, disgusting practices and desires, and on and on.
  4. Christians need to let the gospel shape our response to the internet, and let the internet serve our proclamation of the gospel.  We must constantly, daily, return our minds to the gospel reality–we are great sinners in need of a great savior–and the internet did not make us this way.  At the same time, the internet is another irrefutable piece of evidence against those who say that humans are basically good.  Who can surf for a day without agreeing that humanity is broken and wicked?
  5. We can use the internet to sustain Christian community. As missionaries and members of the body of Christ, we find e-mail, Skype, and social media to all be significant aids to maintaining healthy relationships with a worldwide community of fellow believers and family members.
  6. We can use the internet to avoid true community.  At the same time, the internet gives us an extra mask.  We can hide behind our e-mails and status updates, feigning vulnerability and hiding from one another.  Face-to-face, hand-in-hand discipleship requires time and presence.
  7. We can let the internet can distract from more substantial work–work which requires extended thought and extended time for creative output.  Perhaps this alone is sufficient cause to disconnect for extended periods of time.
  8. Christians need to personally evaluate how to apply the Sabbath principle to our connectivity.  Shutting off our phones, email, social media, Netflix, television, etc., at set weekly times would likely be a valuable and edifying practice.  Maybe you all do this, but I don’t and I should.  (On this, maybe read “What Happens When You Really Disconnect” by Tony Schwartz.)

I’ll stop there, but I’m very interested in your thoughts.

Internetfully yours,
Dan J.

Postmodernism Goes to Church

Chapel of the RockAll too often, we sacrifice truth for experience, and this is a growing, dangerous trend in the American church.  Out of the desire to avoid doctrinal arguments, we rely only on our own life-story to explain Scripture.

Rather than proclaim Christ incarnated, crucified, risen, and seated (1 Cor 15:1-11), we talk about how the church has improved our lives, broken our “bad habits,” or made us better people. These things are true, but they are not the center of the Gospel. In fact, other groups often do these things as well or better than many churches (see AA, Mormonism, counseling, Neighborhood Clubs, Peace Corps, etc).

Such an attitude towards evangelism and discipleship reduces Christianity to another form of self-fulfillment. It acts as though the Gospel is all about us.  I think that such an evangelistic approach springs out of an over-acceptance of the claims of postmodernism.  While postmodernism is correct in emphasizing our subjective experience of objective truths, it often over-reaches–valuing such experience (which is limited in scope and context) over objective reality (which is not limited).

So, churches, seeking to avoid division over doctrine, begin to emphasize experience first.  This feels good–we’re naturally bent towards narcissism–and it pushes us further away from doctrine and further into ourselves.  Eventually, we have divorced ourselves from the Word, from clear truth, and ultimately from the hope that the Gospel gives to those who know the depth of their sin.  For such people, hope is not found inside or in our experience.  For such people, hope is found in the truth of Scripture.  But if the church has abandoned such truth in favor of experience, then the church has nothing to offer hopeless sinners.

So Happy that Christ is Always True,
Dan J.