Pastoral Musings

I linked to a post the other day about babies and morality.
Now the New York Times carries a much longer story.

All of this research, taken together, supports a general picture of baby morality. It’s even possible, as a thought experiment, to ask what it would be like to see the world in the moral terms that a baby does. Babies probably have no conscious access to moral notions, no idea why certain acts are good or bad. They respond on a gut level. Indeed, if you watch the older babies during the experiments, they don’t act like impassive judges — they tend to smile and clap during good events and frown, shake their heads and look sad during the naughty events (remember the toddler who smacked the bad puppet). The babies’ experiences might be cognitively empty but emotionally intense, replete with strong feelings and strong desires. But this shouldn’t strike you as an altogether alien experience: while we adults possess the additional critical capacity of being able to consciously reason about morality, we’re not otherwise that different from babies — our moral feelings are often instinctive. In fact, one discovery of contemporary research in social psychology and social neuroscience is the powerful emotional underpinning of what we once thought of as cool, untroubled, mature moral deliberation.

The Sin of Sodomy And The Glory of God

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Ro 1:16-32)

The Great Exchange: God’s Eternal Glory for Fleeting Homosexual Pleasure

What makes sin sinful is the fact that it is a trade. Paul stated that there was a trade off of the glory of God for idols (Rom 1:23), and a trading of the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:25). This change is not a transforming change such as that which happens when a tadpole becomes a frog. It is rather an exchange such as that which takes place when one changes his dollars into Mexican pesos.

The first dark exchange is a trading of the glory of the immortal, undecaying God for a man-made idol.

Jeremiah recognized the sin of idolatry as setting something up in the place of God. He plainly let it be known that to do so would result in depending on a failing source of joy as opposed to God, the eternal joy.

Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit. Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the LORD. For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jer 2:11-13) KJV Imagine the folly contained in the act of trading a free-flowing well for a broken bucket. The well is the source of water. The bucket only holds water that comes from another source. How foolish it is to forsake God, the well of living water for a busted bucket that can hold no water. That is precisely what we do when we seek our pleasure in self.

Jesus also spoke of how we can sin by serving something, or someone other than God. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Mt 6:24) KJV We serve money by seeking our joy and satisfaction in it. It is in the same manner that we serve God. Idolatry is seeking our pleasure outside of God. In fact, the Scriptures plainly tell us that greed, the unbridled desire for something or someone, is idolatry (See Col 3:1-5).

The next dark exchange, however, is much more extreme than the first. While the first exchange at least retained the unde that man’s object of worship should be external to himself, this exchange involves man’s worshiping of himself. It is a trading of the Creator for the creature. It is a trading of Him who is infinitely worthy and joyful for one who can never give joy, but can only derive joy from the Creator. Worship has moved from an external object to self and the passions of the flesh. Homosexual sin is the result of setting one’s self up as God in opposition to the infinitely bountiful and joyful Creator and seeking joy in self and self’s passions and longings.

These things being so, it is no surprise that today we see a religious sort of fervor among those who are seeking to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle. It is a religious issue. One worships the eternally happy God of the universe, a god of his own making, or his own flesh. Homosexuality is the worship of the flesh.

The Greater Exchange: Christ’s Righteousness for Our Sin

The glory of the gospel is that God’s glorious righteousness becomes ours by faith. No matter how wicked that we have been, we can be set free from sin by the grace of God. Our text tells us that the good news of Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and rose from the dead, is God’s method for giving to us righteousness. Yes, Jesus’ righteousness will be accounted to everyone who believes the gospel. Isn’t that amazing? Jesus’ righteousness is exchanged for the believer’s sins. Paul spoke of this when he reminded the Corinthians of their conversion. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1Cor 6:9-11) KJV Looking at the list of sinners contained here we find that homosexuals are there, too. They are not beyond hope. You are not beyond hope. If you will believe Jesus to forgive your sins He will trade His righteousness for your sin. He will give you joy forever more. After all, He is the eternally joyful God. There is no limit to His pleasures, nor to the pleasures that He offers to you and me (See Ps 16:10,11;1Tim 1:9-11;6:17).

Isn’t that a much greater trade than swapping the eternally joyful God for the small-time pleasures of the flesh?

The book of Genesis gives us the basis for marriage.

You see, the truth is this:  we may speak of “thousands of years of Judeo-Christian ethics” as the basis for our need to keep the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.  The problem is this, however: those who want to redefine marriage have no allegiance to Judeo-Christian ethics.  Their ethic is a post-modern relativism, so that truly has no bearing on them in their minds.

Too many Christians have walked away from the truth of the first three chapters of Genesis.  They have sought to accommodate evolution in different ways.  Having done so they have effectively deleted the force and relevance of the morality of Genesis 1-3.  Why?  Because if the Creation account is not true, neither is the institution of marriage that the Creator gave to His human creatures.

It is indeed as simple as that.

This culture war did not start with homosexuals wanting to be married.  It started with modernists who want to compromise Scripture in a desire to accommodate pseudo-scientific fallacies such as evolution.  Thus we have the day age theory, theistic evolution, and a smorgasbord of other theories.  In the end, we should accept the historical account that was given to us by the ONE Who MADE all of this.

Oh, I know, I (and all others who believe in Biblical Creation) will be viewed as ignorant country bumpkins, and possibly even dangerous people.  The true danger lies, however, in the fact that, if we deny, reject, or change Genesis 1-3, we are loosed from our mooring and are drifting in a sea of social change without any guide.

Yes, the real culture war began back in the nineteenth century when ministers capitulated to Darwinism.  It  blossomed in Germany in their universities and seminaries and ultimately led to the Holocaust.  If only there had been enough Bible-believing Christians in Germany in the 1930′s the Holocaust may not have happened.  Immorality and violence blossom in the absence of Biblical morality and ethics, though.  As Germany went, so goes the USA, it seems.

How sad that we refuse to learn from history.

Just musing.

It seems that Jenna Bush-Hager has given Ellen Degeneres permission to “marry” at the Bush’s Texas ranch.

Uh-oh………….that’s not legal………….queers can’t marry in Texas.

Not that President Bush cares much about the law.  He doesn’t care to follow the Constitution of the U.S.A.

I wonder what this tells us about the true moral state of the “Christian” First Family?

Sigh……honestly, we get the leaders we elect and the leaders we deserve.

Just musing….

Some think so.

I’m sure there’s plenty of blame to spread around, but the writer makes a good point.

Gavin Newsome of San Francisco just does not get it. The mayor seems to think that, since the courts have decreed that homosexuals can marry, the decision of the court trumps the individuals right to freedom of expression.

You see, Mayor Newsome thinks clerks who refuse to issue a marriage license to homosexuals who wish to marry should be fired.

What about the rights of the clerks who conscientiously oppose?

Mayor Newsome is welcomed to his personal opinions, but to seek to put those opinions into policy would go contrary to the principles of our constitution and bill of rights.  Sadly, they just don’t get it.  That’s why liberals make such statements as this.

A NYT editorial states that FBI agents informed their superiors of seeing torture at various terrorist holding facilities, but were told not to speak out.

Why torture?

Someone says that they should be tortured so as to gain information needed to keep us safe.

My response:  a person will say practically anything to stop the pain, so this sort of information will be notoriously unreliable.

Secondly, how many of these terrorists have been convicted of terrorism?  How many have gone to trial and been found guilty?

It seems that our once great nation keeps finding new lows to which to stoop.

Oh, I know…………..I’ll be considered weak on terrorism………maybe to the point of being blamed for giving aid to the enemy.

The truth is this: We have met the enemy………….and it is ourselves.

Torture cannot be justified.  It speaks volumes about the sort of people committing the atrocity as well as the ones condoning and commanding it.

I wonder what it will do to the hearts of the torturers in the long run?  How will they deal with shame and guilt?

Will they be able to be kind people in the future, or will they always be cruel people?
Torture will not only affect the ones being tortured, but it will harm the ones torturing.

It is a two-edged sword.

Would Christ condone torture?

Just musing….

Texas CPS admits that they have no “Sarah” in custody, but are still not admitting fault in forcefully removing over four hundred children from their parents.

“But CPS has not confirmed whether it thinks “Sarah” is real or not, saying that the call didn’t force the removal of 463 children, and that what the agency found — which has yet to be truly revealed — did.”

The above statement is extremely out of line with what is just.  The fact that the children were taken because of a bogus tip makes it illegal to use any “findings” (which findings have not been proven to this point anyway) because they are the “fruit of a poisonous tree.”

From  Arlington  National Cemetery  Memorial Site

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

As a surgeon attached to the 1st Field Artillery Brigade, Major McCrae, who had joined the McGill faculty in 1900 after graduating from the University of Toronto, had spent seventeen days treating injured men — Canadians, British, Indians, French, and Germans — in the Ypres salient.

It had been an ordeal that he had hardly thought possible. McCrae later wrote of it:

“I wish I could embody on paper some of the varied sensations of that seventeen days… Seventeen days of Hades! At the end of the first day if anyone had told us we had to spend seventeen days there, we would have folded our hands and said it could not have been done.”

One death particularly affected McCrae. A young friend and former student, Lieut. Alexis Helmer of Ottawa, had been killed by a shell burst on 2 May 1915. Lieutenant Helmer was buried later that day in the little cemetery outside McCrae’s dressing station, and McCrae had performed the funeral ceremony in the absence of the chaplain.

The next day, sitting on the back of an ambulance parked near the dressing station beside the Canal de l’Yser, just a few hundred yards north of Ypres, McCrae vented his anguish by composing a poem. The major was no stranger to writing, having authored several medical texts besides dabbling in poetry.

In the nearby cemetery, McCrae could see the wild poppies that sprang up in the ditches in that part of Europe, and he spent twenty minutes of precious rest time scribbling fifteen lines of verse in a notebook.

A young soldier watched him write it. Cyril Allinson, a twenty-two year old sergeant-major, was delivering mail that day when he spotted McCrae. The major looked up as Allinson approached, then went on writing while the sergeant-major stood there quietly. “His face was very tired but calm as we wrote,” Allinson recalled. “He looked around from time to time, his eyes straying to Helmer’s grave.”

When McCrae finished five minutes later, he took his mail from Allinson and, without saying a word, handed his pad to the young NCO. Allinson was moved by what he read:

“The poem was exactly an exact description of the scene in front of us both. He used the word blow in that line because the poppies actually were being blown that morning by a gentle east wind. It never occurred to me at that time that it would ever be published. It seemed to me just an exact description of the scene.”

In fact, it was very nearly not published. Dissatisfied with it, McCrae tossed the poem away, but a fellow officer retrieved it and sent it to newspapers in England. The Spectator, in London, rejected it, but Punch published it on 8 December 1915.

Read about it here.