One in a million or one of a million? Part One

The world is riddled with views of how existence is; as you can see above. So, everyone is faced with making a choice, conscious or not, of how existence is composed. Or said differently, whether you think so or not, you have a worldview. Do you believe that there is no God? Then you're an Atheist. Do you not know if we can know if there is or isn't a God? Then you're an Agnostic. Or perhaps you believe God made the universe and then just sat back and watched what happened. If so, then you're a Deist. There are a plethora of views that you can hold, but you can only hold one. I know this is not a popular opinion nowadays, but truth is not biased towards uniformity. So therefore, I cannot be either. And there are tons of bright people who believe in these worldviews and they believe in it sincerely, so how can they be wrong? So, out of all of these opinions which one is true? Let's take a very brief survey on how we can arrive to the answer.

Regarding the first question, "how can they be wrong?", there are two false assumptions made in this extremely popular question. First, there is the assumption that sincerity equals truth. Just because a person believes a lie sincerely does not make a lie less of a lie. If one were to take a math test, and write down that x+4=7, x=5 they would be marked wrong, right? But if they were to tell their math teacher that they really believed that x is equivalent to 5, would the teacher excuse their mistake and void the correction? No, the answer is still 3, thus making the answer wrong. This brings us to the second false assumption. Just because a person is very bright, does not mean they cannot be wrong. Let's say the person in the math scenario had written multiple positional papers on mathematics and received awards for doing such, would they all of the sudden be right in the equation? No, the teacher would respond to their sincerity with, "show me how it is 5". This would make the sincere test taker explain his/her position. Let's push this even further. Perhaps this test taker writes down a ten page proof of how this equation comes out to 5, the teacher would just have to subtract the 4 from both sides of the equal sign to conclude the equation. So, just because there are bright people who hold a certain view point and can argue about it, does not make them right. So,what about our second and deeper question. Which world view is correct?

Consider the following descriptions of each world view:
Atheism holds that there is no God.
Agnosticism maintains one cannot know if there is or isn't a God.
Pantheism believes that everything is one with an impersonal (something without a will, emotion, or thought) force called God.
Panentheism thinks that everything is literally in God.
Deism holds that there is a God but He is not interacting with His creation.
Theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is involved in its history.

Though there are many arguments for each lets focus on one question, "why is there something rather than nothing?". This question is not a problem for Panentheism, Deism, and Theism. It is a major conundrum for Atheism, Agnosticism, and Pantheism.

First, the most popular form of Atheism is Materialism, which states that there is nothing outside of this universe. So for them the question is answered either:
A) The universe made itself.
B) The universe always existed.
C) Nothing made the universe.
D) Something made the universe.
Now, the first option is the position that Stephen Hawking takes. But this view is impossible, because for something to have been made from it's self would indicate that it already existed before, negating the necessity for it to make it's self. The second option is impossible because science shows that the universe had a beginning. The third option is absolute nonsense and only Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss believe this. This only leaves us with the fourth option, something made the universe.

Second, Agnosticism can't even ask the question since no knowledge is obtainable, thus it is untenable.

Third, Pantheism can't answer this question because, how can something without a will choose to create something? This could only happen if an outside force made the Impersonal Force create it, which just passes the buck back to the same question.

So, it is either Panentheism, Deism, or Theism. For that we will investigate in Part Two.

Mirror mirror in the crib.

    My baby boy is one of the best things that has ever happened to me. It is strange to know that a person will look up to you for not only support and guidance, but virtue (integrity, love, work ethic, patience, etc...). This little person is utterly hopeless without his mom and dad, for now. However....

    This child of mine reveals in me parts that I wish did not exist. Though it's true that, "As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend" (Pr. 27:17 NLT), God is refining me more through my baby. As most parents would admit, or so I have found through a poll I conducted, they have became furious with their infant child, at least once. I have felt this more recently than I wish to admit. 

     It is frightening to see this part of you rise up towards a person that is absolutely dependent on you for love. I am finding out that God uses children to expose in you character flaws. Now, I am not saying that I have given into any frustration, please hear that, but that I have felt them. So, here I am a man of God, who has been given a wonderful gift and an amazing responsibility, broken down by a person who cannot even walk or talk. As Paul said, "What a wretched man I am" (Ro. 7:24 ESV). But here is a smidgen of hope...

      Before I knew Jesus, I was not a man at all. Now, I do not mean I was monstrous or anything dramatic, but merely a boy. I ran with my desires/away from responsibility: drugs, drinking, and dreams. I was emotional, irrational, and impractical. If I were to stay in that state there would be no way that I could have the life I have now (not to say that my life is ideal for everyone, just perfect for me). Thus, it can be said, and I believe it is the case that, Jesus has made me who I am. Therefore, if Christ has done this so far then I know He will do more in me. So, for my son's sake I keep in mind the saying "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (italics added, Phil. 1:6 NASB).  

Fear, Want, and Love.

      I recently became a father, which forces a man to see the world through a microscope. And in that microscope are your fears and doubts, slowly consuming everything else like a virus and its host. Before I became a father the thought of my wife dying during labor was small, or the thought of losing my son was close to none. Yet, our son, Josiah Oliver Acheson, was born five weeks premature and my wife's condition was not so well. It was not a good feeling to be so helpless, but it was a lesson to be learned. See, I have been a dad for only four days, three hours, and eight minutes; but I have witnessed a glimpse of what my life could be like, and how easy it can be to fall into a very real trap.

      I saw my son covered in tubes, my wife bleeding more than usual, and my boy in a  plastic box that was helping him breathe. In those moments I wanted to do more, but I couldn't. If I had to, I would have sacrificed anything for them. As I looked at my son, resembling a lab experiment, I started to fear his future. I began to wonder if he was going to be a drug addict like some of those in my family, if he was going to be a rebel like I was but not snap out of it, if he was going to give into the depression that runs in my family, etc... But something resounded in me, like a throb to let me know something was wrong; it was Matthew 6:34, "So don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today's trouble is enough for today." I then realized that here I am, looking at my son who is in trouble now and I am worrying about what he is going to be like when he is 16. He needed me then and he will need me then. A father's fear is a burden that is heavy, but his love needs to be strong enough to carry that burden.



       When I look to see what I need to be as a husband and a father I look, as a man should, to God. What does He show us?

• He gives discipline (2 Chronicles 34:22-25)
• He tells the truth even when it hurts (Luke 22:34)
• He does what is necessary, even if it is painful (John 3:16)
• He serves (Matthew 20:28)

See, there are things out of my control, wifes health, babies health, etc... But there are things in my control. As long as I do my responsibilities and love those who God has given me to care for, I can sleep well and live peacefully.

A Foot in the Mouth While the Other's on a Hill.

Arguments. They fuel distinction and dissention. But they, like scolding metal pressed under a hammer, bring out impurities. Many times, marriages fail because a false emphasis. That is, they focus on the fact that they are fighting not how they are fighting. Yes, a red alert to a marriage is how often these fights occur, but that’s another topic.

            My wife and I recently went up to Show Low to visit my dad and to escape the life sucking heat the sun empties on Phoenix. During that time, we had some rough spots, mainly me being irresponsible (forgetting to take the dog out before a three-hour car ride, “genius”) and even insensitive (yes, a man being insensitive to a pregnant lady is a shock). And I am sure that there are many marriages that run into those little tiffs. But here is the marriage saving tip: learn how to fight. See, Rissa could have easily said, “that’s it! I am moving back to my hometown. I can’t believe I married such a (chose your insult) …” Or I could have said, “…. You are (chose a critical comment)”.

            See, my innate default when it comes to conflict is to be a…. turtle.

I naturally hide in a shell quiet and “safe” while the other is railing they’re judgements at me, in what seems to be a worthless pursuit. But then, like a turtle, I snap out and lunge for an artery while the “opponent” isn’t expecting it. By the time they realize what happened, I am back in my fortress of solitude. Now I am quite aware that this is cowardice, I am not defending this trait…. God made me that way… just kidding. But here is the thing, I have had to learn to shed myself of that shell and be vulnerable to criticism, because that helps bring out the impurities (a work still in progress). And I have had to learn to listen without thinking about my case I need to build…. I just need to listen. There are many different forms people learn to take, perhaps you are a gorilla (you tend to explode any chance you get) or a fox (you hide and passively attack) etc. … These are ways in which people learn to “cope” with conflict and they are all damaging. They all breed the four horsemen of divorce:

·         Criticism (“you are always…” “you are such a…” “you never….”)

·         Defensiveness (you build your case)

·         Contempt (you harbor ill thoughts)

·         Stonewalling (you become unresponsive, you remove yourself emotionally and conversationally, you give the cold shoulder).

But the thing is, the Bible tells us exactly how to behave, “So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” Eph. 5:33 NLT. So what does this look like when it comes to fighting? First, let’s look at what it doesn’t look like (based off stereotypical behaviors in studies on gender conflict).

Men:

1.      Love doesn’t assume a powerful stance, don’t try and make her respect you. That is not your role.

2.      It doesn’t recollect all the “good” things you’ve done for her and the family (let’s face it, you probably haven’t come close to the word “sacrifice”).

3.      It doesn’t assert your strength, either physical or vocal.

4.      It doesn’t neglect (drinking, drugs, friends, video games, or T.V.)

Women:

1.      Respect doesn’t put down your husband.

2.      It doesn’t bring up their sins.

3.      It doesn’t use mind games or passive tactics.

4.      It doesn’t gossip.

Now, those are very general assessments. And obviously no one fits those to a tee. But here is the way you should fight based off psychological studies and Eph. 5:33:

·         Listen (one person has the floor and does not use criticism, no “you..”, just “I feel”, while the other say’s nothing)

·         Understand (the listener, when the time is up, reiterates and summarizes what the “floor owner” just said)

·         Validate (the listener then validates the other’s feelings “I can see how… makes you feel…” then offers their solutions on how they can change that behavior)

*Then the roles change*

See, fights in marriage (if done biblically) are like struggles in life, they only make you stronger and holier. As Paul says in Romans 5:3-5, “We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope of salvation. And this hope will not lead to disappointment. For we know how dearly God loves us, because he has given us the Holy Spirit to fill our hearts with his love” (NLT).

A Big Mouth is Easier to Trip Over

[1]

A Big Mouth is Easier to Trip Over

“I do”. Cue music. Enter happiness. Escape misery. You are now a beautiful couple, destined for grace, abundance, and bliss. Right? That depends on who/what you are saying “I do” to. Let me explain, in the early 1900’s not being married was quite rare, and divorce was even more seldom. Per the CDC, from 1920-1940, divorces were marginally low. [2] The primary reason was early Americans’ view of marriage was quite conventional or even “traditional”, whatever that means. They exalted the institution of marriage as something sacred and righteous, which it is, and did it mainly because that was the norm. But the problem was they did not necessarily say “I do” to that person opposite of them, in front of the “man of the cloth”, but to being married in general. Sure, they stuck it out in regards to not really getting divorced, but that’s all they did, they endured. Cue 1945-1967. A general diagram from the CDC shows a horrible phenomenon.[3]

A tremendous growth in divorces occurred. Now there are many factors at play, I am sure. But let me propose the core facet: the philosophy of marriage changed. They went from dehumanizing the composition of marriage to the other side of the pendulum: over-legalizing it. Or alternatively said, they went from making it an obligation to a contract. In the 1950’s marriage became nullifiable just off the basis for being unsatisfied with the other partner. That is to say, “You are not giving me what I want, so I am leaving”. A contract.  But the honest, correct, and Godly view is relationally focused and in the middle of that pendulum. It’s not an obligation, it’s not a contract, it’s a commitment.

            My wife and I are babies in the matrimonial world. But we have experienced so much in that little amount of time. And we have stayed true to each other because of one simple truth: I said yes to her in all that she is and she said yes to me in all that I am, no more and no less. I did not say yes to the things she can give me. I did not say yes to the concept of marriage. I said yes to the loving, honest, feisty, God-honoring, family oriented, woman she is. I said yes to her failures and short comings too. I don’t expect her to have it all together, I don’t expect her to respond to every situation ideally. I don’t expect anything from her. Here is why.

            When you think of the word integrity what do you think? When I think of that word I imagine a man in a suit with a noble posture. Integrity, in laymen’s terms, means to do what you say you’re going to do. Now, if we were to be held exactly to everything we said- I mean to the letter- we would choose our words very carefully, right?  Well, why don’t we? I remember being at the court house for a family member and listening to the Latin American judge offer wisdom to a Latin American teen. And after a long diatribe, the judge stopped talking and said, “real men choose their words carefully, stay away from the chatterboxes”. I thought about that for a while and did an inventory on myself and came to the uncomfortable conclusion that I talked too much. I over committed myself. I didn’t think before I agreed to something. Which in turn may suggested not only an immaturity but a lack of integrity. So, I worked on that, it has been an ongoing process. But here is my point, when I said "I do" I effectively said, “I take you as you are, not as you should be” and to expect anything more of her lacks integrity. But here is the other part, I made vows….

“The first to speak in court sounds right, until the cross-examination begins.” Proverb 18:17 NLT

---

[1] http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/startracks/071008/kate_hudson2.jpg
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_024.pdf

[3] Ibid. 8.

Through the Bullhorn

Through the Bullhorn

I remember growing up, being a riotous child, my father would often have to get my attention. He had various avenues for doing so. If he wanted me to “dig my own grave” and let me realize it, he’d be silent. Or he would let my mother pinch me, if I was mildly acting out in public. But the most memorable, and frightening, was the snap of the belt… that’s when you cease all movement. Our God, like my father, has various avenues at getting our attention. He can be silent (look at some of David’s Psalms), He can be a calm persistent voice (1 Kings 19:12), or a loud bullhorn (Paul on his way to Damascus). But, God will get our attention, you can bet the bank.

Our American lives are filled with motion, noise, distractions, and rare little prayers. And with that, God is jealous for the time we spend on other things. Now this may seem like a given, but it’s a lot more prevalent then we think. Let’s look at two examples. First, we have the Christian named Phyllis who goes to Church once a month. Phyllis works full time as sales associate, has two kids who have hobbies, and attends a book club every Thursday. With parent teacher meetings, after school events, homework for her book club, quotas to meet at work, she just feels like she doesn’t have time for anything else. Second, we have a Christian named Terry who is very involved with his church. Terry is a IT tech at a major corporation, volunteers as a teacher on Sundays, is on the deacon board at church, and has a family of four. Terry feels good about what he does, but feels like he can do more. Both of these people, in this fictional example, have one thing in common: they are focusing on what they do, not who they do it for. Paul says, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” 1 Corinthians 10:31 (NIV). The question is, “am I living this out”?

I recently, received a bullhorn call from God. Where I was forced into looking at one issue: do I find my worth in what I do or who God is. And I found myself saying yes to the former. Throughout my walk with Christ I elevated Christianity over Christ: first, while in school it was theology, second it was ministry. And with all of that my worth was as a potential pastor, not as a child of a loving God. See, back to my examples, many ministers won’t identify with either Phyllis or Terry separately but rather combined. We pour our hearts into ministry and become enveloped by its importance, like Terry, but are like Phyllis in where we lose time in communion with God. So, what can we learn from Paul’s bullhorn experience with Christ? Let’s look at Acts 9:3-9

As he was approaching Damascus on this mission, a light from heaven suddenly shone down around him. ⁴ He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?”

⁵“Who are you, lord?” Saul asked.

And the voice replied, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting! ⁶ Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

⁷ The men with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the sound of someone’s voice but saw no one! ⁸ Saul picked himself up off the ground, but when he opened his eyes he was blind. So his companions led him by the hand to Damascus. ⁹ He remained there blind for three days and did not eat or drink.

First, God let him think. He was there for three days without any answer from God. Jesus interrupted Saul (Paul’s name before his conversion) and all his plans, then just left him to reflect. Talk about torturous! Second, Paul repented in verse nine: he… did not eat or drink. Paul didn’t just reflect, he reflected on himself. And sometimes that is not a fun task. So, when God shouts through the bullhorn, we need to take time to reflect and repent. And I bet when you do that, like Saul did, you will find that your worth is in God and God alone.