Anatomy Of A Miracle
Filed under: Answering an Atheist, Bad Things, Christian Living
I recently answered several questions about miracles. The questions originally came from an agnostic/atheist type (Agath) who thought miracles were nonsense and I partly agreed. Agath’s questions were aimed at Christians and for obvious reasons. Who else makes more noise about miracles.
My intent was to answer Agath’s questions, which implied God doesn’t exist and therefore miracles can’t happen. My intent in this post is quite different.
I want to bring a little sense to the grab bag approach to miracles popularized in some circles. It might seem strange but in one sense I agree with Agath here. But that really shouldn’t surprise you. Because Atheists and Christians differ on a few important issues doesn’t mean they disagree on everything. It also doesn’t mean all Christians agree.
So, this post is aimed at Christians who I believe are confusing the issues and making it difficult for practically minded people to believe.
The problem, as I see it, is this. Some Christians are claiming a large number of miracles – of the most sensational kind – and suggesting miracles are promised on demand.
I say “some” because not all Christians agree. I, for one, am of a different opinion and I’m not alone. Many of us are a little skeptical about all the claims.
And it’s a sensitive issue for everyone. Who hasn’t been desperate enough to want a miracle occasionally? When life gets hard, unpredictable and cruel, what better (easier) way to solve the problem than pour a miracle on it.
God, however, hasn’t promised that and the few promises He has made that require miracles in order to be fulfilled have little to do with your personal problems or wish list.
So, let’s analyze the concept of miracles and answer a few questions. Read more
Unrestricted Choice? Don’t Kid Yourself!
Filed under: Christian Living, God's Sovereignty, Philosophy
“Choice” has been relevant to every person in every era and is part of everyone’s daily life. You can’t get out of bed in the morning without making choices.
Life’s pathway is not pre-scripted. Moving from start to finish involves many electives and the ultimate outcome for each person is the sum of those choices.
Unfortunately, choice-making isn’t fun and games. The difficulties associated with the exercise was illustrated best in Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” speech and every major philosopher has added their two cents as well. Clever sayings abound.
Choices are the hinges of destiny.
Attributed to both Edwin Markham and Pythagoras
Hindsight is 20/20
Author unknown.
And choices come in all shapes and sizes: easy, obvious, hard, intentional, blind, well thought out and so on.
You really can’t escape it. You can ignore the issue but that requires a choice, a poor one. You can choose to rely on “chance” or live “under” the circumstances but that is like choosing not to choose.
“Choice” is an essential part of human nature and history shows that it cannot be bound. Humans go places, do things, learn through experience, expand their understanding, overcome obstacles and become things and all of this growth is fueled by choice. One way or another humans will exercise their abilities to choose.
Unquestioned Authority Opposed
“Choice” is the reason the Protestant Reformation came about. People refused to accept what they were told without explanation or obey bastions of authority unquestioningly. Trading reason for blind compliance is a choice human nature doesn’t easily swallow.
During the reformation the idea that authority was right simply because it was authority was rejected. Society came to realize that no one had the right to think, believe or understand for the rest of us and they chose to protest.
Tradition Rejected
The Modernist and Post Modern eras began in the mid 19th century and are characterized by the tendency to question traditional ideas in every form: religious, political, artistic and so on. The individual became more significant and personal taste, feelings, perspectives or inclinations became factors in the choices we made. The democratic approach.
“Individualism,” the antithesis of tradition, moved us away from being critical toward people who make unusual choices. Now we attempt to move traditional boundaries to accommodate those choices.
Tradition as a fixed value was no longer accepted only because “it has always been done that way.” Everything is subject to individual inspection.
The Question
But the question is: just because authority and tradition are no longer seen as guiding lights must all the choices they recommended also be recategorized? Because authority figures couldn’t give reasonable explanations or didn’t allow for individual tastes does that mean the choices they recommended were wrong? Should we throw out the recommended choices or would it be better to vigorously investigate the reasons behind traditional choices? Read more
Separation Of Church And Marriage
Although some troubled couples can avoid divorce, this post is written in support of those who can’t.
Strange title, I know, especially coming from a minister but religion and marriage are just as different as church and state and shouldn’t be managed as one.
You can be religiously happy without being married. You can be married happily without being religious. You can be married on one day, with no interest in religion, and become very religious later.
But, it has proven particularly difficult for an excessively religious person to marry only within the strict guidelines of their religion and be happy for a life time. The marriage might last for a life time but the happiness fades. Sometimes the marriage falls apart.
Religion-influenced marriages are more likely to stay together but according to statistics they are also more likely to be unhappy. Religion has added layers of adhesive to the institution’s external side but not much to sustain it on the inside. So religion’s legacy might be stated as: “married unhappily ever after.”
Although religion and religious people have served many good purposes, interfering with marriage is obviously not one of them.
Admittedly, it would be illogical to suggest all non-religious couples are happy. Marriage is easily mangled, religion or not. And it is also true that happiness in any marriage will never be absolute. It isn’t easy to get it right.
The problems that cause breakups don’t mysteriously appear all of a sudden decades after the wedding. They lurk quietly in the background from the start and over time grow intolerably huge if not managed well.
Kind of like warts. Small at first, growing over time and eventually getting painfully in the way. And we all have them.
However, my focus is not the problems that cause break ups but religion because religion tends to be dismissive toward such problems which in turn adds another dimension of difficulty to married life. Instead of admitting up front that relationship problems can be deal killers the focus is limited. Only the permanence of marriage is addressed and the possibility of a break up is treated as if it could never happen. Head-in-sand stuff.
Like snake oil pedaled by traveling salesmen, marriage is presented as a fairytale elixir to all relationship dreams and wishes in this life with implications for the next.
What religion fails to acknowledge are the problems induced by marriage that arise only after the ceremony, maybe years after, and even when the problems can’t be ignored they are never allowed to trump the vows.
Psychologists tell us that divorce is one of the most traumatic human experiences. It rates right up there with the death of a loved one or the loss of a limb. And, again, religious conservatives use this information to support the theory that divorce should never happen.
But is this trauma caused only by the divorce? Shouldn’t religion be blamed for part of the problem since they historically have proven unable to accept this unhappy experience and therefore haven’t been there for people when it happens?
Shouldn’t we also attribute part of the trauma to the culturally negative attitudes, encouraged by religion, that leave divorced couples stigmatized?
Knowing that religion and culture are against you before you start makes it stressful just thinking about a divorce never mind getting one.
Society is much more accepting today and divorce numbers have increased but maybe the 1 in 2 divorce rate isn’t a sign of more marriages going wrong but an indication that people are taking advantage of a more forgiving culture to correct poor marriage choices.
In the past more people stayed in their marriages but were they happy? Were they really committed to each other or just afraid of public responses toward divorce? Maybe it was less painful to stay in a difficult marriage than to dissolve it and in that light the 1 in 2 rate may be better than we thought.
If speculations about behind the scenes morality during the Victorian Age are even partly true it wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that the number of extramarital affairs were indirectly proportional to the number of divorces.
And looking around today you find that some of the strongest and happiest couples are second marriages. Go figure!
Religious leaders aren’t bad people and they aren’t saying evil things. The problem is they paint only half the picture. I think marriages would have a better chance of lasting if couples were told up front that marriage can be very hard to get right. It isn’t always easy to find the right partner in the first place and even when the partnership fits well you can’t know ahead of time how each person will react to the ups and downs of family life or to each other when things go south.
For these reasons it would do us well to consider some of the fail-points in the religious approach to marriage. And maybe consider removing all the add-ons religion has imposed on the wedding and the relationship. Read more
Contemplating Marriage? Answer These Questions!
An outline of the following post was used in a wedding ceremony I performed recently.
Unfortunately, there are no perfect couples. Some couples may be perfect for each other but because couples are only inhabited by imperfect people they can never be absolutely perfect.
What that means is…
Quietly lurking in the background at every wedding are the faults that each person brings to the union. We all have them.
Couples aren’t too bothered by them before they marry because they are too in love to notice. People attending the wedding don’t pay much attention to them because they are focused on how handsome the couple looks and all the reasons they make such a great pair.
But over time the balance changes.
Once we move away from the altar and settle into a routine the things each partner loves about the other get taken for granted and irritations are felt.
It isn’t serious initially. First offenses usually register as nothing more bothersome than a drop of rain.
But if the couple doesn’t learn to process those drops effectively they mount up.
One drop a day over two weeks isn’t serious.
One drop a day over 30 years adds up to more than 10,000 drops, approximately 500 kilograms. That is a lot of “heavy” for one relationship to bear.
Because of that, every couple contemplating marriage should ask two questions. Read more
Nurture Your Child’s Emotional Resilience
The following sentiment has become the mantra for all good parenting and every interested parent has made this statement, or something like it, in the process of raising their kids:
I want my children to have a better life than I had.
And one of the ways parents help their children attain a better life is to help them avoid all the mistakes they made themselves. They assume that “mistake free” is equivalent to better. On the surface it sounds smart. Inwardly it feels good.
The reality, however, is that children managed by this rule are not better off. Instead of being better at life they are emotionally inhibited, stunted, crippled or lacking sensibility. Which means guarding them against disheartening moments might do more harm than good. Like many responses to charitable needs, the protective approach to parenting is a short term, knee jerk response which creates long term damage.
We feel better after force-guiding our children around every tripping point but does this make them better at managing life or just more managed? Over-navigating a child’s life might save them from some immediate “toe stubbing” but can it encourage them to develop the watchfulness and maneuverability to avoid future crashes or manage them well if they can’t?
The truth is, the one thing children will not always have is a watchful parent warning them and steering them away from every life sapping experience. And the one lesson every child needs to learn is how to accept and manage their mistakes well.
Parents earned their wisdom through hard knocks. It made them stronger and smarter and they shouldn’t rob their children of the same opportunity. Second hand wisdom isn’t easy to swallow and every wise person knows that… Read more
Tim Pepper - Beautiful Frustration