Seth & Aubrie

The Christian is the real radical of our generation, for he stands against the monolithic, modern concept of truth as relative. But too often, instead of being the radical, standing against the shifting sands of relativism, he subsides into merely maintaining the status quo. If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross, and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong—including man’s inhumanity to man.

The God Who is There, Francis Schaeffer

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

"What is abortion?"

The "Pro-Choice" crowd wants to keep abortion legal.

One would think, then, that it would be simple for them to define this act they want to keep beneath the sanction of the law.

And yet, sometimes, they struggle to put into words what exactly an abortion is.

Maybe because even defining an abortion in any terms not laden with euphemism is disturbing.

Aubrie and I recently approached a crowd of abortion advocate demonstrators to ask them to define an abortion. Watch their response.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Shallow Optimism


Does it ever bother you when art intended to cater to Christians is covered with smiling faces, blue skies and labels such as "uplifting and encouraging"?

Is it somehow anti-Christian to overflow with joy or bask in the beauty of a sunny afternoon? Is the Christian life devoid of uplifting and encouraging news? Of course not. What bothers me is that we---speaking collectively on behalf of American Christendom---focus almost exclusively upon the good news to the exclusion of the really bad news.

What is the bad news? The bad news is that man is lost. The Fall, an event which really happened (not merely a tale composed to convey some religious truism) dealt a major blow: fixing a massive gulf between man and God, ushering chaos into the world with divisions between man and other men, man and nature, man and himself, etc.

This bad news must not be overlooked; for, without it, there is little meaning to the good news. What does it mean to say man is "saved" if he was not first lost? What does it mean to say man can be restored to a relationship with his Savior if we don't understand the depth of the division?

And yet so many songs, books, screenplays written specifically for those working from a Christian world view eschew this critical theme. Listening to Christian radio, for example, one will quickly be convinced that Christians are to be happy, cheerful people whose days will be filled with rainbows---but, it is rare to hear artists singing of the "bad news" to which all men (not only Christians) can relate.

Indeed, man's lostness is something all men experience---not only Christians. For, while not all have placed faith in Christ, all have fallen. Because of this, oftentimes those who do not profess Christianity nevertheless capture so well in their art what it means to be lost. I think, for example, of Carolina Liar. Both the lyrics and music video of "Show Me What I'm Looking For" capture so well the one side of what it means to be fallen human---namely, that we are lost in the truest sense of the word.

In Art and the Bible, Francis Schaeffer refers to this as the "minor theme" of the Christian world view: "the abnormality of the revolting world." In short, there is something wrong with this world. The Fall is felt by all. The unredeemed perceive their meaninglessness and see themselves as truly dead. Even the redeemed are fraught with defeat in the midst of battling their own sin.

But, that is not the whole story. There is also what Schaeffer calls the "major theme": "the meaningfulness and purposefulness of life." All is not absurd. There is truth grounded in the God who really is there (not merely in our imaginations). Veritable morals do exist. There is meaning. This is not shallow optimism---"this optimism has a sufficient base. It isn't suspended two feet off the ground, but rests on the existence of the infinite-personal God who exists and who has a character and who has created all things, especially man in His own image" (Art and the Bible).

Schaeffer argues that both of these themes ought to be present to some level in Christian art. To focus solely upon man's perceived meaninglessness is to champion despair. However, to ignore the minor theme is to create a baseless romanticism which, while playing to our emotions, remains simply that: romanticism which is the stuff of dreams, not the real world.

Indeed, it is destructive to dwell solely upon man's lostness without leading to redemption. Imagine, for example, how it might alter one's experience of watching The Dark Knight to see the Joker embody man's lostness without any champion of goodness (Batman) not only fighting but ultimately conquering him in the end? One would be left with the impression that there is no hope for man. As it stands, however, we are terrified by the evil present in the Joker, but it is that terror which makes the salvation so meaningful.

However, while we should not dwell solely upon man's lostness, we ignore it at our peril. Consider many of the sermons being preached from America's pulpits. They champion "steps to success" and our best lives now, but how often do they speak of the fact that apart from Christ we are doomed? While that may not feel like our best lives now, it is indeed the lives real men living in this real world lead.

If we hide the bad news and simply tell people that God makes us happy and that he can do the same for them, not only are we diminishing the greatness of the good news, but we are also exchanging for the real Christian message something which is of little use: a baseless romanticism which has little resonance with the real world.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

The Lengths to Which Some Go

I appreciate logical consistency. Sometimes, though, the desire to be consistent with one's pet views may lead to conclusions which are humorous, baffling---or even terrifying.

I recently posted a survey on the Created Equal Facebook page asking the following question: When it comes to killing toddlers, are you pro-choice or anti-choice?

The options:
- Pro-Choice: I trust people to decide for themselves.
- Anti-Choice: I oppose killing toddlers.

Normally, this is a question upon which abortion advocates and opponents are united. While they disagree on the value of life in the womb, most agree that it is wrong to kill born children (exceptions include Peter Singer of Princeton).

Admitting that common ground, however, is a dangerous step for the abortion advocate---for it does not take long to get from "it is wrong to kill toddlers" to "it is wrong to kill the preborn."

Because of this, many who would personally rise to action if someone were actually to dismember a toddler will say on paper that they are "pro-choice" when it comes to toddler killing. In an effort to be logically consistent with their views that a mother should have the "right to choose," they open their world to endless atrocity.

This is what is currently taking place with our toddler-killing survey. While it seems unimaginable that some individuals would actually say they "trust people to decide" whether or not to kill their toddlers, five individuals have already voted this way.

These five individuals find themselves in a dilemma. Their intuition tells them that it's wrong to kill toddlers. Yet, they also yearn to be logically consistent with their abortion advocacy.

They have to decide between the two. And, he and four others have chosen logical consistency, which is to advocate not only for the abortion of the preborn but also for the termination of the born.

Current tally: 52 to 5. Anti-Choice is still ahead, but those 5 votes do terrify me.

** This article formerly contained a quote from an individual who'd made the following comment on the survey: "If you vote anti-choice, you hate women." What I did not know was that this comment was meant as satire and the author thereof is pro-life. I apologize for what was my mistake.