The Government's Authority

Often times, society becomes frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the government. Angry for interfering, raising taxes, denying welfare, and the reasons continue; today, dissatisfaction stems from the decisions of the governments. As Christians, we recognize and respect the actions of the government, but easily become infuriated with their social mandate. For instance, the recent fiasco of homosexual marriage. Throughout America, citizens consider it the ultimate authority of the government to create laws and enforce their legislation. Instead, in accordance with our beliefs, Christians comprehend that God is the creator of all things. Therefore, God determines the laws and the governments serves as the enforcer of his declarations. This does not require a kind of Puritan, "Scarlet-Letter" government, merely the recognition by the government of God's supremacy. 

First of all, God created mankind in possession of a conscience, a set belief which determines right and wrong. This is described as natural law. It is the "physical and moral laws revealed in general revelation and built into the structure of the universe (as opposed to the laws imposed by human beings)" (Noebel 285). The government derived its basic laws from their belief of right and wrong- it is wrong to steal, murder, and rape. These corruptions are universally viewed as wrong, but yet the origin of these senses are ignored. Furthermore, the government enacted laws for the betterment of society and understood the most basic principles of right and wrong as the determiner of this. For instance, in Romans 2:14, Paul explains "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law themselves, even though they do not have the law" (Noebel). In the midst of evil and sin, the law is still recognized as true and therefore "the general revelation of natural law is grounded in God" (Noebel). The government cannot create this natural law described and therefore cannot be relied upon for moral decisions. Moreover, the government cannot pretend to legislate morality when it denies the evidence of absolute morality. The government attempts to deny the natural law evident within its citizens in exchange for the cultural preferences and political correctness. Finally, the government cannot be the ultimate authority for creating laws as it did not initiate the principle aspects of society. 

In addition to natural law, the government also lacks the authority of the revelation of God within the Bible. Instead, in American government this principles are mocked and deemed sexist, prejudiced, and narrow. However, the extension of natural law, which speaks of an omnipotent creator, is the declaration of laws for mankind to follow. The government does not have the capabilities or sadly, the desire to enact these laws. Within today's society, demanding its citizens to adhere to Biblical legislation would be basically impossible, but that does not remove God's power to set up laws. Moreover, God uses the Bible to "flesh out that skeletal framework, telling us what God considers moral and lawful" (Noebel). God's laws remains profound, applicable, and righteous. Despite society's exaltation of homosexuality and encouragement of sex, God still declares them "abominations" and their will be consequences to face. (Noebel 286) The Bible provides a practical way for Christians to uphold the will of God and therefore the government cannot dictate the same morality as God. 

The government's power does not extend as far as the laws of God. He remains supreme and absolute, even in the midst of cultural contradiction. Therefore, His laws surpass and overrun the simple, complicated muddle of the government's laws. Indeed, humanity is subjected to divine law which is "any law that comes directly from the character of God via special revelation" (Noebel 286). Although it is difficult to remember the absolute authority of God, in decisions regarding law, this is necessary. Furthermore, "governments exist not so much to create laws as to secure laws- to apply divine law to general and specific situations and to act as an impartial enforcer of such laws" (Noebel 286). The government cannot possess the authority to decide issues regarding adultery, homosexuality, and crimes against God- it is impossible and impractical. The government does not have the ability to declare a man righteous and therefore cannot be viewed as the ultimate authority regarding laws. Finally, God desires that "the responsibility of governments is to encourage people to obey divine law by punishing wrongdoers and protecting those who live in accordance with God's laws" (Noebel 286). 

In conclusion, this does not deny the government the authority to make laws regarding the economy or the military. Merely, it recognizes that God's law is much greater than the desire of the government or the dictation of cultural beliefs. Law transcends the flux of culture and the complexity of society; it speaks to the power and will of God. 

Feminism: A New Definition for Equality

Women fought for equality. They demanded suffrage. They demanded fairness. They demanded respect. But, does the ERA promote any of these rights? In today's society, women have achieved basic equality; of course, prejudices and sexism will continue to arise as we live in a malicious world. However, woman have already been granted the same privileges and rights as men. The ERA simply attempts to condemn the lifestyle of traditional families and destroy the distinction between man and woman. In order to respond to the question of Feminism and the ERA, Christians must look to the definition of gender in the Bible and respond accordingly. 

God created male and female equal. He offered no superiority to gender and declared His image manifest in each person. To be sure, today's society would not view God's actions as equal, but God did not create one gender; he created two, distinct genders. As such, male and female are designated different roles and tasks within the world. Males are set up as the head of the family, the provider, the warrior, and the protector. On the other hand, women are made to give birth, to nurture, to uplift, and to help. These qualities, although seeming confining and discriminatory, actually define the best characteristics of each gender. God's calling for our lives are not regulated to the spheres of 'homemaker' and 'worker', instead these roles normally apply to the attributes of male and female. I fully believe in women's ability to work and possess a career. But, I also recognize God's command for women to submit to her husbands and respect their authority. Relationships are built upon compromises; my aforementioned statement does not imply my belief that women are not incapable of intelligence, strength, and fortitude, merely that God intended the man to lead the female. Certainly, the woman aides the man in this role and provides encouragement and compassion throughout trials. The dynamic between husband and wife requires courtesy and understanding in all actions and decisions. God did not create genders in order to punish or subvert woman; He intended to portray the beautiful relationship and union of man and wife. This gift would be casually dismissed according to today's standards. 

Instead, Christians must be ready to respond to the dilemma of feminist activist with courage and educated, respectful opinions. The ultimate goal of feminism is the equal treatment of woman- something the Church should also be striving toward. In focusing on this particular element, the Church and Feminists would be able to foster a relationship based on fair treatment and justice. By stressing the difference of men and women and not the superiority of men over woman, the Church can spread its lights much further and wider. Presenting the Feminist movement with female figures such as Ruth, Esther, Mary Magadelne would allow the Church to show a their vision of womanhood and the strength God gave to woman. Even more so, the Church needs to explain their belief in the different roles of man and woman. In a positive, open-minded discussion, Feminists and the Church can begin formulate solutions based upon a revived vision. 

The ERA is unsuccessful because it condemns the role of woman as mothers and caretakers and attempts to place them in the front lines of combat. By demanding complete and total equal treatment between man and woman, the ERA defies the natural differences in temperament and physical characteristics. It attempts to deny maternity leave to expecting mothers and would promote same sex bathrooms and prisons. Not only does this legislation denounce privacy, but it reveals society to be blind to the natural contrasts between man and woman. Obviously, bathrooms should be separated by sex because of modesty and respect for each gender. In attempting to improve equality among men and women, the ERA instead prompts inequality. Women deserve maternity leave to care for their children and the opportunity to remain at home, instead of fighting in the workplace or the war. Radical Feminists celebrate rampant and casual sex- ultimately destroying the beauty of virginity and the blessings of strong relationships. It is short sighted and intolerant. The ERA merely serves as legislation to condemn the traditional home and foster extreme ignorance and foolishness within the workplace. 

Sexist and Homophobic?

As a community, Christians have failed to approach these issues with kindness and compassion. Instead, Christianity is now contaminated with the stigmas of sexism and homophobia. We have been unable to share our beliefs in a way that speaks truth and mercy; now, we are characterized by picketing and stupid slogans. Although the Bible does not give us a definite step by step outline, God already revealed to us how these issues should be treated- with prayer, love, and wisdom. A clear answer is not always available, but Christians should rely on the Bible as their instructor. The Bible does not advocate sexism or homophobia, yet, Christians must be ready to give an answer that is not socially acceptable. As to the claim that Christians “are sexist and homophobic”, I would state that although some Christians are, but the Bible does not teach us this. 

First of all, homophobia must be clearly defined because in general, the word is tossed about without any genuine meaning. Homophobia is the extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuals; not the disapproval of their lifestyle, but the legitimate fear of homosexuals. Christians do not despise or become terrified by the thought of homosexuals, that is merely a stereotype. However, the much larger issue is how do we treat homosexuals with regards to our faith. It is a cliche and often considered trite Christian saying, but I feel that it is applicable- “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” Homosexuality is a continual sin, comparable to alcoholism or fornication, and must be treated as such. Of course, society’s mandate accuses this statement to be cruel and politically incorrect, but as to not get into an argument on the legitimacy of homosexuality- we will leave that aside. God grants love and mercy to every person willing to except his grace- this includes homosexuals. Furthermore, as Christians we cannot go about screaming about their damnation, to do so is unbiblical and unhelpful. Instead, by forming genuine and respectful relationships with the homosexual community will provide greater opportunities for ministry. I know this sounds naive. But, I truly believe Christians must begin to develop a new approach to homosexuality (not a new doctrine) and therefore extend God’s love to all. Indeed, Colossians 3:23 tells us “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” We are not to judge. We are to be respectful and shine the light of God’s goodness. Let that be enough. 

Now, as to the issue of sexism. Christianity has been accused as demeaning and subjecting women to the desires of men. Many have even used scripture references in order to prove their point. However, multiple flaws exist within their argument. Firstly, God created man and woman in the image of God- therefore equating them to His glory. The Bible does not preach the inequality between man and woman, and even more so- suggests woman to be the completion of man and the giver of life. Yes, woman are generally depicted as mothers and wives, but it is only in our society that this role has been diminished. God granted the glory of life to woman. Furthermore, God did not make man and woman to the same, but that does not make them unequal in power. Instead, God calls each gender to different roles that emphasize their different gifts. Woman have the natural ability to nurture and comfort- mothering highlights these attributes. God did not demean woman by granting her the ability to bear children, indeed God uses female characteristics to describe himself. In today’s society, any word or action can appear sexist, so naturally God’s elevation of mothering is horrible. Finally, God depicted many strong females throughout the Bible such as Rahab, Esther, Ruth, and Mary that defied expectations and relied upon God for strength. As Christians, God did not call us to disgrace genders, but to uplift the different abilities God has granted us. 

Government Interference: Who are the real parents?

As I began to write this blog, I was reminded of the spanking fiasco. The debate remains unanswered. Is spanking bad? The answer to this question, although a simple yes or no, extend to a person's particular beliefs on child rearing. Thus, the essence of parenthood is making difficult decisions regarding the treatment of your child. Within this example lies the opportunity for flexibility, if a parent takes the punishment of spanking too far and begins to abuse their child- other forces must take action. Overall, I am against government interference with regards to parenting because it contradicts the beliefs and functions of the government and attempts to promote a utopia in America. However, exceptions due exist and demand attention- it is here that government interference moves into a gray area. This grey area should be reserved for the protection of children and solely used to insure health and happiness.

The function of the government does not extend to pushing personal agenda and mandates into the lives of everyday citizens. In today's society, the government has assumed roles it was never designated for and subsequently has amassed debt and dissatisfaction. In the case of parenting, the government is attempting to administer subjective tests that deny the power of the parents and relegate children to particular spheres. The government is under the misconception that it is its role to decide what is best for a particular person. This, however, is a violation of our rights as Americans. We are entitled to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If raising children a particular, not politically correct way is your desire, then you should be able to raise a children as you choose. The different bills making their way into government, the Pre-K Act and the Education Begins at Home Act, is "intruding on parental autonomy and authority and it's not necessarily accurate or welcome information" (Effrem). Of course, today's society finds the government's actions beneficial and therefore good and refuses to acknowledge the rights their are losing. Needless to say, in its attempt to regulate school lunches and early education, the government is basically stripping parent's of their rights and placing children under the supervision of the state. Not only is the government therefore manipulating the next generation of children, but their are establishing disconnection between the relationships of children and parents. These new initiatives overstep the bounds of government in an attempt to force health and education upon children. Although health and education are not bad elements, the government cannot be the 'parents' of children- it is not their role.

Furthermore, the desire for government regulation and control stems from a hope that humanity can achieve a perfect society on earth. This defies Christian doctrine and speaks to a hope that is fleeting and impossible. Due to people's dependency on the government for happiness, American society has allowed the government to destroy their rights and privileges as parents. As Christians, we must understand that the government is made up of mere man and is therefore as corrupt as we are. Therefore, our trust and happiness cannot be reliant upon the government's benefits, but on the glory and power of God. The government is not in possession of absolute truth or wisdom and thus we should not trust them to make decisions in the lives of our children. First of all, it is contradictory for the government to speak of tolerance and liberty and then attempt to kidnap the lives of our children. Furthermore, the government is removing society's ability to work hard and persevere in order to achieve our goals. They are simply attempting to 'hand out' happiness.

                   Finally, the government is not useless and in order to protect children, the government must interfere at some points. The government's priority should be the protection of the children and in the areas of abuse, neglect, and other examples of torment- the government should step in. However, it should provide a stricter system of comprehending which people are in vital need of assistance. Otherwise, people's dependency on the government promotes laziness and dissatisfaction. The limit to be drawn on government interference is not a simple answer, instead the government should be reminded of its function, its bank account, and its abilities in order to begin interfering. Especially in the area of parenting, the government is overstepping and removing the rights it guarantees to its people.

Death of a Salesman

Biff Loman is considered a disgrace. At the age of thirty- four, Biff has been unable to procure steady employment; he remains confused, conflicted, and lost. Yet, Arthur Miller chooses to portray Biff Loman as the manifestation of the true American Dream. Distinct from society, Biff Loman's American Dream diverges from the corporate world and is found in the utter freedom of farming. His dream is defined by a passion for the outdoors, for the beauty of nature, and for adventure. Furthermore, Biff's dream is considered a pure and traditional component of American society- it is capitulated by restlessness and a thirst for adventure. Perhaps Biff's dream is revealed most clearly in his observation of the sky, he states "I saw the things that I love in this world." (124) Nature instills within Biff a kind frenzied reverence. However, Biff's relationship to his dream remained complex and puzzling until the end of the play. He struggles to ignore his love for farming and instead attempts to replace it with the corporate business world and the idea of 'success'. Biff fears the consequences of attaining his dream and thereby the retreat from the approval of society and his parents. Likewise, his dream is not financially reliable and this also increases the discouragement of Biff. The complex relationship Biff forms with his American Dream serves as the definition of his strengths and weaknesses. As Biff comes to understand his dream, in turn the audience comes to comprehend Biff's motivation for his dream. Not only does the dream incorporate physical labor and the outdoors- which appeals to the character of Biff, but it speaks of freedom and adventure. More importantly, the American Dream of Biff is a direct contrast to that of his father's; Willy's infidelity and subsequent actions portray the traditional American Dream of financial stability as false and shallow. Therefore, Biff's inspiration for his unique American Dream stem from an awareness of the dissatisfaction of Willy's dream and also a love for the outdoors. Unfortunately, Biff is discouraged from his dream by his parents who represent the typical response of American society. His mother cries "Biff, you can't look around all of you life, can you?" and Willy shouts "Biff is a lazy bum" (24). Biff responds to the accusations of his parents and therefore realizes "I suddenly get the feeling, my God, I'm not gettin' anywhere! What the hell am I doing, playing around with horses, twenty- eight dollars a week!" (31). Sadly, Biff is blinded by the pressures of society to be financially successful and secure a prominent job; he demeans himself and declares his dream foolish. Biff reduces his dream to money and ignores the passions of his heart. Luckily, Biff realizes the lies and deceit surrounding the voice of society and the truth and humbleness found within his own American dream.

Due to the complexities surrounding Biff's American dream, Arthur Miller brilliantly reveals his main theme through the character of Biff. Basically, Arthur Miller attempts to reveal the shallowness and falseness of the preconceived idea concerning what the American Dream should be. Biff stands as the redeemer of the American Dream. Through Biff, Miller reveals the importance of happiness over financial security, of truth of lies, and the journey over the end result. Even more so, Miller does not disgrace the occupation of a salesman or a businessman; he merely suggests that a dream cannot be dependent upon the views of others. A dream must bring individual happiness and cannot be based upon laziness or the idea of status. Because of Biff, Arthur Miller redefines the American Dream and changes it into a manifestation of personal happiness and hope. Biff serves as a foil to Willy and therefore casts Willy's aspirations as the corruption of the American Dream- Miller spits on the lie of success insuring happiness. Through Biff's questioning and searching, Miller develops the theme that a dream is not automatically known or promised. Instead, Miller suggests a dream is part of a progress as Biff cries "I tell ya, Hap, I don't know what the future is. I don't know- what I'm supposed to want" (30). Miller reveals the warped perception that American has instilled within itself and Biff describes the necessary uncertainty of finding a dream. Moreover, Miller promotes the inward journey and self-discovery involved in the aspects of a dream. Finally, Biff's ultimate realization concerning his dream climaxes as he shouts "Why am I trying to become what I don't want to be? What am I doing in office, making a contemptuous, begging fool of myself, when all I want is out there, waiting for me the minute I say I know who I am! Why can't I say that, Willy?" (124). These inspiring words speak volumes as Arthur Miller drives his point home; the American dream is defying the definition of a dream. A dream reflects the innate being of a person and the American dream is forcing people into lives they despise. In conclusion, Arthur Miller portrays the deeper meaning of a dream and the importance of searching for it through the character of Biff.

My 'American Dream': In a word, my dream is different. A constantly changing and evolving idea that prompts hope and encouragement for my future. The very best aspect of my dream is that it is the essence of unknown and for me, this is the greatest gift. There is no pressure, no standards, and no timeline. It is merely an idea. My dream is to live a life defined by compassion, adventure, and passion. It is not a career or a lifestyle, but simply a desire to live fully and freely. As a Christian, I believe my dream speaks of the love of God and the blessings of humanity. God granted me the gift of life and I intend to honor that. This may sound cliched or repetitive- but that is the beauty of my dream: it really does not matter. I intend to pursue my passions regardless of the boundaries set in place by society and ignore the stigmas attached to my dreams. Perhaps I will be a mom or maybe a world- renowned Archaeologist, but most importantly my dream is to live a life filled with hope and joy. Hope and joy that do not depend on the trivial circumstances, but on the grace and glory of God. Basically, my dream is uncertain and I truly love that part of my dream. A couple of things I do dream on doing 1). Traveling, a ton 2). Finding a job I could go to for a million years 3). Get married 4). Dye my hair a weird color 5). Keep old friendships and make new ones 6). Most importantly: Shine God's love and mercy. Ok, so maybe I do have a few set goals. However, right now I simply want to dream!

Walkin' Around Issaquah

I put on my tennis shoes and reached for my hat. I was ready to go, ready to dive into the past and produce wonderfully profound revelations for the future, instead I realized I lost my camera. My frenzied search produced nothing but frustration and the necessity to take off my jacket. Eventually, I found my camera hidden in an obscure drawer, but nonetheless the camera provided my first realization. Life does not behave according to my desires and because I tend to live with a strict schedule and attainable goals, I easily become annoyed by anomalies. And as I stepped out of my door, I looked at my life, my attitude, my character and I realized I was not proud of the person I was becoming. It was a sobering thought and I struggled to discover why I was so disappointed in myself. I looked at the past year and mulled over what I had done or learn- it yielded some surprising and silly thoughts. 1) I adore quotes (especially cliched ones) 2). C. S. Lewis is my main man 3). I am not a party person 4). My greatest enjoyment is talking with friends for hours 5). I hate physics 6). I have begun to question my dream to become a doctor 7). This year was not at all what I expected 8). I tend to cowardice 9). I have a thing for staircases 10). I have strayed from God. Upon my last realization  I uncovered the source of my despondency, in the midst of school, friends, and sports I had neglected God. I then proceeded to rationalize my actions, repeating meaningless excuses that serve no purpose, but soon I let the weight of this statement hit me. It was saddening and discouraging to fully view my sinful nature; but then it was almost as if God spoke to me. He whispered I am not finished with you yet. In this moment, I found hope and came to the most important revelation God doesn't ask that I fix myself. He merely desires to heal me, be with me, and love me. I try so hard to make myself into a good Christian girl and quickly become disenchanted with the impossible task I've set before myself. I so often decide that reading my Bible and saying a nighttime prayer determines my status as a 'good Christian' and forget about God altogether. Instead of allowing God to work within me, I section His power off, limiting His plans to small portions of my life. I believe this occurs because of two reasons- firstly I am questioned very little about my faith and secondly I do not passionately love God. Thus, I formed my New Years Resolution. I want to fall in love with God. It doesn't have to be dramatic or inspiring; simply I hope to have a true and steadfast relationship with God. In order to do so, I plan to prayer much more (whether it be spontaneous or a specific time), to read my Bible (but not as a chore), to find a devotional that encourages me to spend time with God, and to surround myself with loving and genuine friends. But throughout this year, despite failures and trials, I will remember He is not finished with me yet and hope in the woman God created me to become. 

Three Problems of a Naturalistic Explanation of Biology

 Evolution is the basis for the Secular Humanist's stance on biology. No God, no creator, and no recognition of design- describes the important tenets of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, Secular Humanists would be left without an explanation of the origin of the world, especially without a God. Evolution backs atheism; neither belief could exist without the other. However, evolution is filled with questions and problems that scientists are unable to comprehend; let alone answer. Three problems with evolutionary principles are the ideas of mutations and spontaneous generation, along with the evidence of fossils. 

The biggest problem pertaining to mutations is the idea that mutations are not considered beneficial. Genetic mutations manifest themselves in disease, not in the creation of a physically superior being. Yes, humans adapt in order to survive in their environment, but not in such vast degrees as evolutionists claim. Darwin himself admits that he "did not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of structures which, as far as we can... judge, are neither beneficial nor injurious" (Noebel 183). Evolutionists are left with the problem of explaining mutations that are useless or as I stated before, harmful. Mutation provides the explanation needed for adaptation and thus survival of the fittest, but we cannot find genetic mutations that actually aide the human race. Finally, if a organism was to mutate, how would it procreate? It is difficult to find a mate when you are a outsider, a freak. Micro- Evolution does occur- humans adapt in colder weather or their skin does not burn as easily- but this does not accurately provide a hypothesis for monkey into man. 

             Another problem of naturalistic evolution is the explanation for the creation of the world; no scientist can accurately state where the universe originated. They say particles imploded, but where do these particles come from? Evolutionists attempt to back their argument with the idea of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous Generation is "the theory that non-living matter gave rise to living organisms" (Noebel 181). Not only is this idea illogical, it has been scientifically disproven by Pasteur in the mid 1800s. Yet, evolutionists cling to ideas regarding the Big Bang and the origin of the universe. Time is also used as evidence, but no amount of time can produce the impossible. Secular Humanists, although claiming their belief is founded in science, remain hopeful that new evidence will appear. Darwin himself did not consider spontaneous generation as adequate for explaining the origin of the world, but Humanists must believe in an explosion of matter or their worldview is inconsistent. 

                          Finally, the third argument against evolution is the problem of evidence. No fossil records have been found to support the idea of a monkey evolving into a man. But, Secular Humanists "claim that the fossil record provides an accurate historical account of the process of transmutation of the species, or macroevolution" (Noebel 183). The only evidence of evolution would be found in fossil records that remain invisible. For instance, early fossil records show complex life forms providing no example for the need of evolution. Scientists cannot find any fossil records of the 'pre-evolved' life forms or evidence of the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion is the "sudden geological appearance of most major groups of animals" (Noebel 170). But, no fossil record supports this claim. Also, no transitional forms have been found, which absolves the entire theory that man existed in different forms. The nonexistent fossil record is a severe problem for evolution as it devalues the concepts of transitional forms and the Cambrian Explosion, ideas that form the core of evolution.