Click to access on-being-a-church-member.pdf

MY ILLNESS 5-9-20

Politics and My Worldview

I have previously written three essays on my general worldview.  My feeling is that there are three main questions that a person’s worldview should answer.  Firstly, where did I come from?  Secondly, why am I here?  And thirdly, where am I going?  If you are curious, those three essays give my answers.  One may classify this essay as part of the answer to the second question.

If you have read some of my writings, you may be asking yourself why such a deep thinker as Dave/Doc Dave/Granddaddy would deal with such a mundane topic like politics.  Everyone knows that politics can be corrupt, subjective, and divisive.  Politics are also confusing because one never has all the information and what he does have is changing.  It may be a fool’s errand to even write about it.  But I am looking for the human being who does not have a political opinion.  That opinion may be well-thought-out or haphazard; it may be a daily fine-tuned process, or it may just come out of hibernation during certain falls of the year; it may be inflexible or adaptive to new input.  Historically, we have seen politics that kill and heal.  Politics can make politicians who are revered or who are revolting.  For some of us, politics is like a hobby.¹ But there is a possibility that, in the future, politics will take on a more serious role for all of us.  So, how does all this fit into one’s worldview?  Let me revisit the second general question: Why Am I Here?  The answer has many components; politics is just one of those components.

Jesus was talking to a crowd on a mountainside.  He said, “You are the salt of the earth.” and “You are the light of the world.”² One might ask, “How can a human being be salt and light?”  Both word pictures imply that people can be something and that people can do something.  Both are positive.  Both also impact others. The number of ways in which a follower of Jesus will manifest being salt and light are many, but one of them is relating to government.  I think that man would be happy if God just kept His nose out of it, but the Creator chooses differently. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”³ The Bible does not say much about the method of how those “governing authorities” got there to begin with.  Those of us living in the USA get them by an election which basically is who gets the most votes with electoral college votes determining the presidency.  We have a method in choosing and we have a responsibility to obey those chosen.

So, back to the salt and light concept in relation to politics.  Salt has a preserving function, a maintaining function, especially in olden times when meat was salted.  In politics, what is worth preserving?  The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rule of law are good places to start.  Did the Constitution need to be amended?  Yes.  Do laws need to be fine-tuned and new ones established?  Yes.  Can bad laws be enacted and require some salt?  Yes.

Now, light is different.  Its main function is to eliminate darkness, physically, mentally, and on a lower level of importance, politically.  I am not claiming to have the light for all these places of darkness, but I know the One Who does.  And based on the Matthew passage, He wants His people to be involved in that process.  Light also is intimately connected to truth.  Truth is not a popular topic nowadays, and it is getting to be an unwanted restriction for modern man who prefers “his truth.” Examples abound of people regarding truth as not real or not worth seeking out.  Striving for truth and even yearning for truth has never been easy, but integrity has never been easy either.  I do not know anyone, including myself, who always shows integrity and always has a handle on truth.  Even the best among us have their lights flicker; the “maybes” overwhelm us, and we have to fight to remember that there is right and wrong, there is truth and there is falsehood.

Now, back to politics.  For the Christian believer, there is the realization that we live in a post-Christian nation, or rather a post-nominal-Christian nation.  Whatever the stage, at least there was a notion of separation of Church and State, which was originally designed to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around.  Even during the founding of the United States, there was the sense that freedom could not be simply be defined as “don’ts,” but rather by the “do’s” found in Biblical principles of love and sacrifice.  These principles enjoyed a level of respect that has pretty much evaporated.  So, when the believer is faced with a slate of candidates for political office, there is usually not the “Christian choice” vs. the “anti-Christian choice.” He or she is just faced with a choice.

We most often have to struggle with being in the uncomfortable position of pragmatism⁴.  We would like to have a candidate who loves Jesus, who is unquestionably qualified, and who is a person of integrity.  But we always get someone who is less than the above.  We are also handicapped by the fact that we do not have divine insight.  God is sovereign and we are not!  I remain a conservative in politics, as well as in theology, finances, grammar, and manners (the spoon and knife to the right and the fork to the left).  I believe that God has provided and conserved a governmental structure that has protected the Church and the freedom of religion.  I prefer what is in place vs. endless possibilities; I prefer what has worked pretty well vs. experimentation.  As one reads Romans 13:1-7, one realizes that God is not passive in ordaining governments and rulers.  It behooves us to strive after His model, in spite of the fact that history is full of aberrances.

Fortunately, we are not left without some guidance in choosing our worldview and our leaders.  Thinking in Biblical terms–I will not give specific references, but they are available upon request– what does a believer look for?  Bulleting my thoughts may help (the order is arbitrary).

• Honesty
• Protecting of pre-born life
• Maintaining God’s definition of marriage, not man’s
• Elevating the traditional family
• Maintaining that people are accountable for their actions
• Working for one’s own well-being is normal and expected.
• Government functioning to protect us from bad people
• Encouraging charity
• Sacrificing for others is noble.
• Truth in the sciences is to be pursued

So, there you have it: an overview of politics contained in a worldview that answers the question of “Why am I here?”   If the reader is not a Christian believer, the above may sound too restrictive and old-fashioned.  Certainly, everyone is free to formulate his/her own approach to living and to living with the reality of the limitation on one’s time.  The above is my answer to a profound question on how to then live.  What is yours?

1. A process in which a person invests a lot of time, derives pleasure, and is hopelessly convinced of continued improvement. It is poorly understood by those who do not share that particular interest.
2. Matthew 5:13,14
3. Romans 13:1
4. In philosophy: an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application. My Definition: what works the best or who fits the best

On Being Created

or

Why Am I Here?

For you astute observers, the title is reminiscent of an earlier essay entitled, “On Creation.”  In it, I made the profound conclusion that if there is creation, there must be a Creator. It was in that essay that I slew the dragon of evolution and explained why dogs wag their tales.  For the next few pages, I would like to discuss the fact that since there is a Creator, He must have made something for a purpose.  In 1643, a group of theologians gathered at Westminster Abbey in London and wrote a lot of things¹ (all proof-read by their wives, I am sure) about that purpose.  They liked questions and answers; and one of the bigger questions (thus the term, Larger Catechism) was: “What is the chief and highest end of man?” Well, they took the answer right out of my mouth when they concluded: “Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully enjoy Him Forever.”

For clearer orientation, this essay is the second in a series of three in which I am attempting to present my worldview using the context of three questions: “Where did I come from,” “Why am I here?” and “Where am I going?”  For the honest post-modern person, the answers are: “I do not know,” “I do not know,” and “I do not know.”  For the Biblical Christian, the answers to those questions are infinitely voluminous and are filled with faith, hope, and love.

Genesis Gets Us Started

 As if the whole Bible were not pesky enough, the book of Genesis is even peskier for modern man and woman. They have to do something with it. Some ignore it as a strange fairytale. Some have even spent years trying to discredit it.  Some (like me) have concluded God can get things started in whatever manner that He chooses.  Part of that conclusion is the simple understanding that He is God and I am not.  This is called sovereignty, and it is sobering because sovereignty requires a Master over a dominion and a dominion to submit to Him.  If only we would realize that God’s sovereignty is full of love for His creation and particularly, for His creatures.

I think that Genesis 1:28 helps in determining “Why am I here.”: “And God blessed them (referring to Adam and Eve).  And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”  I admit that this is very homocentric.  God was extremely satisfied with the pinnacle of His creation of “them” and with His job description for “them.”  Spoiler Alert: Adam and Eve did not agree with that job description; they had a better idea.  Every person since has struggled with that “better idea” versus the “best idea” of how we are to live.

To Glorify

Be patient.  We are getting close to answering the question of “Why am I here?”  I spent my professional career as a physician; but I also knew some engineers, attorneys, mechanics, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers.  But a career only answers the question of “What do I do?” and in a very limited way, because I was also a son, brother, husband, father, grandfather, and friend.  Now, I agree that a career can be a calling and a provision from God, but the “why” is still there, unanswered.  Who would have thought that a group of men from England in 1643 could help with the answer?

Let’s see if there is a connection between Genesis 1:28 and to the verb, to glorify.  The dictionary (I like dictionaries) defines it as “bestowing honor, praise, or admiration.”²Unfortunately, it left out the word “obedience.”  If there is a God, and if He created, and if man is the pinnacle of His creation, and if God wanted man to do something, then we should do all the dictionary things, but most importantly, we should do what He commands, i.e. obey.  The “subdue” and “have dominion over” of Genesis is a high calling, and we could just stop here.  But the reality is that modern man (and I suspect all that preceded and will follow him/her) have struggled with God’s command and expectation that we are to subdue and have dominion.  Those two concepts make us feel uncomfortable, much like other uncomfortable terms that we would prefer to side-step like leadership, faith, discipline, study, accept correction, and purpose.  The real problem is not so much the thinking that man, because of his being just another animal, has messed things up and will continue to do so, but rather the thinking that God really should have more carefully thought through this. He could have done a better job.

So, the commands to “subdue” and to “have dominion over” are not “animal-phobic” or homocentric; they are theocentric.  We are to discover our role of obedience in this process…the general role of God’s people and the specific role of God’s person.  Quite simply, He wants us to do some divine work.  This is where the enjoyment happens.

To Enjoy

How does one enjoy God? Did I say previously that I like dictionaries? So, here is “enjoy”: “1: to have for one’s use, benefit, or lot.  2: to take pleasure or satisfaction in.”²When one talks of enjoying a p(P)erson, there are a few prerequisites like, like first of all, being introduced,  like learning likes and dislikes, like pleasing, like planning time with, like trusting and being trusted.  Now, I feel a thirteen-week Sunday School lesson coming on, but I will restrain myself and simply say that it is an “en-joy-ment” to know, to love, and to serve the God of Genesis 1:28.  It is an understatement (and maybe bad theology) to say that I have had the very God of creation for my “use, benefit, or lot” or to say that I have taken “pleasure or satisfaction in” Him.  But the believer’s enjoyment in his/her God is that and so much more.

If you know my recent past, you might ask did I (and Nancy, by the way) enjoy chemotherapy, pain, isolation, and getting stuck in various places?  Well, I and she did not enjoy the process in a purely dictionary sense. During that season of our lives, it was not the time to sit and ponder on the wonder of waves crashing, birds flying, mountains soaring, and dogs wagging their tales.  But it was the time to sit and ponder on the wonder of God making us more like Jesus (i.e. His sanctifying us).  I enjoyed getting better, but I more enjoyed the focus on how to better live the life remaining on earth and thus, to better prepare for the life not bound by earth.

If the reader of these twelve hundred or so words is not of faith in the God of creation and of recreation through the work of Jesus, the words will remain just that…words.  But if the reader is honest enough to ask the questions “Where did I come from?” “Why am I here?” and “Where am I going?” he/she might hear a whisper of answers.

So, I know why I am here; I was created and created for a reason.  One small, personal reason is to write these three essays (the third to follow, D.V.).  One large, universal reason is to “glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.”

1. The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Larger Catechism, The Shorter Catechism

2. The Meriam-Webster Dictionary

The intent of this essay is actually for personal reasons.  For several years, I have been wanting to organize some thoughts on the topic of eating animals.  The impetuses for this come from the professional challenge of counseling patients on sound nutrition (especially expectant mothers) using evidence-based information, from friends and family choosing a non-animal diet for various reasons, and from a desire to be true to Biblical revelation.  What the Bible has to say about this topic will be the thrust. If you read this, it is obvious that another reason for writing this is to share any insight that I might have. “Sharing” can so easily be tainted with a desire to argue or to manipulate; as a Bible student and teacher for around fifty years, I so badly want to avoid those traps.

Let us start with some defining concepts.

Vegetarianism: “The practice of consuming a diet that does not include the flesh of animals and is mainly composed of plant parts (such as leaves, roots, fruits, nuts, and seeds), along with fungi, and sometimes eggs and dairy products.” ¹

Veganism: “A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.” ¹

Pure definitions are helpful, if not necessary, for communication on this topic; but they do not get to the motives.  The motive may be simply nutritional, it may philosophical, it may be spiritual. Motives may be neutral, but in the philosophical and spiritual arenas, they may not be benign.  Spiritual motives for any activity can be difficult to express unless they are disciplined by a canon, “A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.” ¹  So, let’s get into the canon of the Bible and my understanding of how it impacts this discussion. Continue reading →

Let us set the stage.

The USA has just completed the mid-term elections of 2018.  A few of the races had margins of victory that were clear and decisive.  Most were very close; and as I write this on the day after, a few are still undecided.  If we just look at the majority of races, the worldly wisdom tells us that the electorate (and thus the nation) is equally divided and that the wounds are incurable.  We are told that there is an unprecedented animosity and an irreparable division.  There is the hint, if not outright declaration, that both sides (let us call them world views) are co-equal in responsibility for the chaos.

We are living in a post-Christian society.  Some may argue that the USA was never Christian but simply theistic.  But even the broader sense of theism can now be put on the shelf of history.  The inescapable result is that the concept of antithesis is lost.  There is no right or wrong. There is no narrow path of discipline, only many wide paths of personal preference.  There is no concept of the requirement of roots for production, just an expectation of the fruit thereof.  The authority and privilege to lead others is no longer earned, but leadership is now determined by power.  The philosophy of the age is simple hedonism.  There is no argument against hedonism when the creature assumes the authority of Creator. If there is no Creator, then, personal comfort and anarchy are the only disciplines. Continue reading →