Higher Mathematics

God's mathematics are nothing like ours. You only have to look at Gideon's army or the story of the loaves and fishes to realize that He doesn't think about numbers the way we do. Having said that, I don't think anything is as incomprehensible as the "1 + 1 = 1" mathematics behind a biblical marriage:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

It's a fairly well known verse, and we quote it readily when talking about marriage; but have you ever considered the implications? When Job loses everything he has, all of his possessions are stolen or destroyed, and his children die. But only when Satan is allowed to attack his body do we hear Job's wife say "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die."

As a man, this is particularly poignant to me; whether I like it or not, discord between me and my wife tears at who I am. For years we've been reading about studies that show how married men live longer than those who are single. Some assert that this is because married men are more likely to take care of their own health. IMHO, that's one reason, but another might be simpler: "It is not good for the man to be alone." (Genesis 2:18).

I've been thinking hard about this for a bit, and I'm convinced that God wasn't correcting a mistake when He made the need for marriage. I think it was part of the original design specification.

This has significant implications for our view of marriage and divorce, but this post has gone on long enough, and I'll have to save those thoughts for another time.

A new year's resolution

Generally speaking, I don't like New Year's resolutions. They seem somehow false to me, so I haven't done them in the past. It's similar to the celebration of Lent, which I gave up (for Lent) before I ever started. But I digress...

Having had a week to cool off over the whole Mark Teixeira free-agency signing, I know understand that there is no way Boston could ever have signed him. He was apparently still upset at the Sox for how Dan Duquette treated him in the draft, and was playing them to get more money from NYY, where he really wanted to go. I'm not surprised that a limbless reptile like Scott Boras would be involved in such a ploy, but I'm disappointed in Tex, whom I'd heard was a stand-up guy.

Knowing this, I hereby make my first-ever New Year's resolution: "I will trust Theo Epstein and John Henry this year."

Repeat it with me, Red Sox Nation. Theo knows more than I do about the business of baseball. When John Henry says we're out of the running on the Teixeira sweepstakes, he knows what he's talking about. They got us a pair of World Series titles, and they can do it again. If not in 2009, then soon.

Given that my tax dollars are helping to fund the Yankees' new stadium, though, I might need another resolution, to be patient. That could be hard.

Immigration Reform

While driving to work this morning, I happened to hear an NPR article on deported immigrants who immediately attempt to re-enter the USA. To be honest, I find approximately 50% of the political news on my local public radio station entirely unpalatable (perhaps due to the influence of Alan Chartock), but this article got my attention. I'd like to think I care about the poor, no matter what their nationality, and seeing them suffer from our desire for increased national security is something I can't tolerate in silence.

Nearly four hundred years ago, my ancestors landed near Plymouth, MA, and established a colony; we ate our Thanksgiving dinner at Plimoth Plantation, a reproduction of that colony, just last week. I also had a chance to visit Ellis Island this past summer, where we found the records of my wife's family entering the US. With very few exceptions, each one of us in the USA is at least partly descended from immigrants, and I am saddened to hear people cry for us to close these doors on new immigration when we ourselves have benefited from an open immigration policy.

One of the biggest complaints I hear about opening our borders is the concern about criminals entering the country. Like most suburbanites, I favor law and order, too. But when I read the history of my family, I find their arrival in this country is likewise suspect -- they violated their Charter with King James, by settling too far north of the Jamestown colony, and apparently did so with intent. This crime was never prosecuted, to my gain. Knowing this, I wonder if perhaps the nonviolent criminal acts of others might likewise be overlooked to our national good.

Another concern (most often raised by organized labor) is that immigrant workers would take American jobs. The fact is, immigrants have been taking the low-wage jobs in this country for hundreds of years. These are not typically jobs that our workers want to do, so why not let others do them legally? I would much rather see low-wage workers living in the US, paying US taxes, and giving their strengths to our country, than to watch businesses move overseas in search of those same workers.

The problem as I see it is not the presence of foreign workers, it is the fact that so many of these foreign workers are undocumented. As illegal aliens, they rightfully fear our law enforcement agencies, which empowers other criminals to take further advantage of them. Moreover, the flood of illegal immigrants to this country makes it easier for dangerous criminals — terrorists, or those who import illegal drugs — to sneak in unnoticed. This is just wrong.

If we really want to have a successful immigration policy, we need to be generous with the number of people we allow to enter the US, especially from Mexico. Document them, track them, and refuse those few who commit violent crimes — but let the honest people come. I'm not saying this would be a popular thing to do, but I'm convinced it's the right thing to do.

The Three Circles

A friend asked me to clarify the difference between essentials, convictions, and preferences, which I will attempt to do here. First, a picture to cover my first thousand words of explanation:
These circles represent three different categories of personal opinion. Since I have previously defined convictions as requiring grace from us, I should probably clarify how I decide what those things are.

1. If the issue is necessary for salvation, it's essential. The question I would ask is, "Can someone not believe this and still go to heaven?" If not, it's essential.


2. If the issue is related to doctrine, it's a conviction. The question I would ask is, "Can I legitimately say I don't care, and still base my beliefs on the Bible?" If not, it's a conviction.


3. Other opinions are preferences by default.

An example of an essential would be the divinity of Jesus. An example of a conviction would be the role of women in the church. An example of a preference would be styles of music to use in worship. Even though most believers would, I think, agree with the examples I have just given, there will certainly be differences of opinion on which issues fall into which circles, especially when dividing between convictions and preferences.
Differences between believers can be sustained, however, if we hold an attitude of grace towards one another. I am bold enough to believe that I am correct in my beliefs, but not so arrogant as to believe that I can't be wrong. Recognizing this fact, I depend on the grace of God to cover my human limitations. If I am unwilling to show the same grace to others, I find myself a wicked servant; and that is one prospect that terrifies me.

When does grace become stupidity?

I just made it back from my trip, and right away my friend E asked me one of those hard questions for which this blog was born. He expressed to me quite elegantly the need for strong doctrinal statements on a number of topics -- that certain beliefs were what we might call "essential" to the Christian faith. I on the other hand, considered these same topics to be "conviction" areas -- that is, issues that it is important for us to believe, but on which Christian believers might legitimately disagree while still considering one another to be "saved."

This distinction is important because essentials are things we don't back down on, whereas we need to have grace towards one another on conviction issues. I am big on grace; I consider it to be absolutely vital to my Christian walk. Since I teach teens in our church, however, it is particularly relevant that E has challenged me with this question, which I paraphrase below:

When does grace become stupidity?

The intent of this question is to divine where I draw the line on doctrinal issues; am I willing to let someone believe something I feel to be wrong, simply because I don't think it's essential to salvation? To be honest, my answer surprised me: grace became stupidity when God decided to save me.

I am old enough, and have seen enough of my own sin, that I have no comprehension why a holy God would want anything to do with me. In human terms, then, saving grace is "stupidity" -- it makes no sense. This sounds insulting to God, though, so perhaps I should call it "outrageous." Let me proclaim, therefore, that all grace is outrageous. If there is even one good reason why God would be good to me, I would deserve it, and it wouldn't be grace. That doesn't mean I'm not saved by grace, it simply makes my salvation outrageous.

If you have ever been wounded in the church (or even without) by rejection from other people, I strongly recommend Philip Yancy's book What's so Amazing about Grace? If we're honest with ourselves, I think we'll find that salvation makes no rational sense, nor do any of the small mercies we receive in our lives. That is grace. And I am persuaded that Christian believers can do more to spread the gospel by demonstrating that grace towards others than we ever could do through preaching and teaching alone.

Perhaps there are others whose callings in Christ require them to challenge mature believers to deeper faith. Perhaps we need people like E to force us to think hard about everything we believe, and not just a few essentials. Even so, I am still so overwhelmed by the grace of God that I can not imagine a need to preach anything more than Christ crucified and risen again (for me? For me!!).

Standards of Evidence

It looks like I have a few minutes before I run out to Supercomputing 2008, so I guess I'll raise one of the "big problems" for which I first started this blog: the need for faith.

Depending on whether you're primarily Reformed or Methodist in your soteriology, we may disagree to the extent to which free will plays a role in our decision to follow Christ, but I think it is generally agreed that at some point it is just that: a decision. The problem I have is not with the decision, which I think is correct, but the quantity of evidence we find necessary to make that decision.

In business, I teach Six Sigma, and generally expect my students to demand a 95% confidence in the evidence used to back up any improvement efforts they make. This level of confidence is certainly not a universal requirement; in Physics, I understand that 99%+ confidence levels are typically required.

My "beef", however, is that confidence levels like that aren't generally available to me in real life. Whether we're talking about the origins of man, the reality of miracles, or some other question of faith, we find that the evidence is is never sufficient to give me that elegant 95% confidence level.

Saying this is probably going to irritate some of my fellow believers. I hear from people all the time about a sequence of events that persuades the speaker beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they say is true. Generally, I will often agree. Despite this, however, I find an annoying lack of hard proof; if someone really doesn't want to believe, they aren't forced to do so.

More and more I'm finding this to be true: that God goes out of his way to not force us to believe. Think about it: how hard would it be for Him to raise a dead man again like he did for Lazarus? I'm not talking about someone drowning in icy water for a few hours: I mean well and truly dead. He did it in a time when people would be impressed, but not overwhelmed; and today, when real proof would overwhelm skeptics, he doesn't do it.

This is just a brief thought for now, as I have to fly (literally); but as I find more examples of God's frustrating decision not to prove things absolutely, I'll send them your way. Stay tuned.

Christian Nationalism

It's Veteran's Day here in the US, a day to remind ourselves of the price paid by the many members of our armed forces. He's Canadian, and I'm a US citizen, but I think that Illiad said it far better than I could in his cartoon. The next time you're in an airport and happen to see a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine waiting for a flight, I suggest you shake his or her hand and say "Thank You." From what I can tell, it's the least we can do.

Having said that, and recognizing the incredible price that these men and women have been willing to pay for my nation, I must admit that I find the whole concept of Christian nationalism somewhat troubling. I have a lot to say about the baggage we often pile onto the gospel, and by grace I hope to do so. For now, let me just say this: the gospel is not an American construct. The gospel isn't even a Western idea. It's God's idea.

Don't get me wrong, I am grateful to be an American. I also believe that Christians should be committed citizens of whatever nation they live in. I must remind you, however, that in the grand scheme of things, this nation (and indeed the whole earth) will pass away. We hold dual-citizenship with a kingdom that will never fail.