Monday, September 17, 2012

Happily Ever After

Once upon a time, there was a man named Joe.  Joe was a healthy man.  He was always very careful to eat his vegetables, and he exercised every day.

Joe lived on a street with nineteen other people.  These nineteen people were all very unhealthy.  They only ate things that were fried, and their couches had permanent indentations proving that exercise was not a regular habit for them. 

Every morning, Joe would wake up and go for a run in the cool morning breeze.  It was his way of energizing himself- waking up and embracing the challenge and joy of a new day.  Deep breaths of cool, fresh air, a light sweat, the thrill of blood moving glibly through his veins- he loved it.  If ever one of his neighbors happened to be outside (which, of course, wasn't often) he would greet them with a cheery “Good Morning!”

The nineteen other people on the street hated Joe.  Every morning, as he ran past their living-room windows, it reminded them of how unhealthy they were.  Soon enough, they decided to do something.

Joe's neighbors complained to the government.  They marched up and down the street (well, they would have marched if they could have) waving signs that said “We are the 95%”.  They sent letters saying, “save us, government, from this cruel man who takes care of himself without thinking about the rest of us who are so miserably unhealthy!”

The government, of course, was eager to oblige.  The government loves helping their people.  The government cares.

So the “Health and Wellness for Everyone Act” was passed.  The government decided that, in the interest of helping people, the very healthiest people in the nation would have to give some of their health to people who weren't so well off.  This would make life better for everyone!

Now Joe, of course, kept on exercising and eating well.  But he noticed that he was no longer improving at his workouts.  His runs became more difficult every morning.  Soon, he was barely able to pant past his neighbors' houses.  They all laughed at him.  They weren't actually feeling much better, but at least he wasn't feeling better than they were.

Joe was heartbroken.  No matter how hard he tried, he only got in worse shape.  Finally, he gave up.  He joined his neighbors in the ranks of the couch-potatoes.  He traded in his kale chips for corn chips.

Soon enough, the health of the neighborhood deteriorated to worse than it had ever been before.  Eventually, everyone died of heart attacks.  And the government continued to help people happily ever after.



THE END

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government cannot produce any wealth of actual substantial value.  By its very nature, government exists on the industry of others- real producers of wealth.

When we consider, then, the state of the economy, we need to remember that creating more government jobs actually only extracts more from the national economy.

There are two ways to pay for a government expense: the first is by direct taxation, which should only be done to fund Scriptural and Constitutional programs.  The second is by indirect taxation- inflation, which is always theft.  It waters down the national money supply, and devalues the wealth of the people of the nation.

Free money from the government is an illusion, for two reasons- first, what the government pays for, it likes to think that it owns.  Second, the government is getting that money somewhere- either someone earned it, and the government took it, or the government printed it, thereby stealing it from the national economy as a whole.

So when the government pays welfare checks, medicare, unemployment, or anything else, what is actually happening is that the federal government is transferring money from one American to another American- by force.  In effect, it's stealing from Joe to give to his neighbor.

When this happens, it destroys the incentive to productivity.

The incentive to productivity.

To say it a different way, when the government takes from the rich to give to the poor, it subsidizes poverty.



Many a sign in a park warns visitors not to feed the animals- or they might not learn to feed themselves.  The same holds true of people.

Scripture says that “the worker's appetite works for him, for his hunger urges him on.”  When the choices are work, steal, or starve, work seems like the best option.  There is a strong incentive- hunger- that causes people to want to work.  But when the choices are work, let the government steal for you, or starve, suddenly the path of least resistance leads right over our fellow Americans.

And we don't care.

The objection may arise:

“But taking 30% or even 50% or 70% of a rich guy's millions of dollars will still leave him with plenty enough to survive on.”

True, but taking 100% of that rich guy's millions of dollars will not be enough for the consumers to survive on.

We're $16T in debt.  How's that take-from-the-rich-to-fund-our-programs working for you?

More importantly, though, is the fact that suddenly we've given ourselves the authority to decide who has made too much- who it is right to steal from- who we bleed to keep the rest of us going.

Where did we get the right to take 30%, or even 20% of his income, when we aren't willing to pay the same amount?

By what standard is that OK?

The final thing I want to address is the idea that- well, hey, you're supposed to be a Christian!  The Bible would want the rich guy to give to the poor, right?

Absolutely.  The Bible also says “Thou shalt not steal.”  We don't have the right to take from Joe.  If he wants to give, fine, but stealing from him in order to satiate our arbitrary goal of “fairness” is, quite simply, wrong.

The socialistic view of prosperity is unsustainable.  When 50% of your city is on welfare, as I've heard is the case where I live, that means that half of the people are living off of the labor of others.  Add to that the number of government employees, and the picture becomes frighteningly lopsided.

The path that we are on is unsustainable.  If we do not have a major, major repentance in our country, we must collapse.  Our economy is beyond the point of bandages.  $16T in debt should shock every American.  It's coming, folks.  Atlas is shrugging.  As far as I can see, we have three options.

We can pretend like it's all not real- call it a conspiracy theory- trust that the tree that our forefathers planted will continue to shade us even though we are no longer willing to water it- and wake up homeless and enslaved in the nation that stands among all the earth as the last bastion of Christianity, prosperity, and freedom.

We can repent and reform, cry out to God like Nineveh did, turn from our wicked ways, stop with the games and the politicking, and maybe- just maybe- pull our nation back from the brink.

Or we can take cover and hope that after the facade comes crashing down there will be a remnant left to pick up the pieces.

But until we pay the piper, there can be no happily ever after.



Saturday, September 8, 2012

Doing the Impossible/Possible


Some of my favorites from a recent photo shoot.  Thanks to my sisters for doing all that picture-taking!

In these photos I'm doing a move from P90X2 called the Impossible/Possible. 


Fun stuff.  I wrote a post on Biblical principles of physical fitness once- you can read that here.

So what are you doing to be a good steward of the body that God has given you?

The passage in the picture below is such a good reminder for me when it comes to physical fitness.  The body will pass away, no matter how well you take care of it.  So while it is good to be a good steward of the body that we've been given, it's not good to obsess over the flesh- whether it's exercise, or diet, or style, or whatever, if taken to a point of idolatry it all becomes vanity.

May God give us the wisdom to find a balance between care for the body and care for the soul that is pleasing to Him.


Friday, August 10, 2012

Magic Mike and Male Modesty


 Recently a film by the name of Magic Mike opened to rave reviews.

The film is about male strippers.

The audience for Magic Mike? 73% female

Cue thinking face.

"Well if that don't just speak for itself."

Let's look at Genesis chapter 3, verse 21.

"And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam's wife, Eve, but told Adam that, since Eve didn't struggle with lust, the principle of modesty didn't apply to him, and so he could continue to wear his fig leaf."

Wait, what? Your translation doesn't say that?

*searches madly*

OK, so where'd we get the idea that girls need to, you know, wear clothes, but guys can show off their sculpted physique with impunity?

I don't know, but I don't think that we got it from The Bible. We hear plenty of exhortations directed to Christian girls, warning them, pleading with them, to be modest, to embrace purity, to think of their brothers, to, you know, wear clothes. Rightly so, for Scripture directs exhortations to modesty directly to the ladies (1 Tim. 2:9), while nature testifies to the powerful attraction that the feminine form has to men- for good and for bad. Furthermore, our culture viciously pulls women towards "strutting their stuff," so the exhortation to remain covered rarely comes amiss for young ladies in my generation.

But when was the last time that you heard a sermon on the way guys dress? It seems that for some reason we have assumed that girls don't struggle with lust. At a deeper level, it seems that while we know that the Bible has something to say about how women dress, we somehow conclude that It is silent on the male wardrobe. This is a glaring inconsistency in our orthopraxy.

We all know that men and women are different, that we struggle with different things. I believe that lust, however, is not a gender-specific crime. While we may struggle with different kinds of lust (I don't remember hearing any man say that it was his wife's muscular physique that first drew him to her), I see no Scriptural justification for saying that anyone is free from the temptation of lust.

This would, it seems, contradict the common idea that most girls don't wrestle with lust. It's a widespread perception, but I've been reassured by multiple sisters in Christ that this is simply not the case.  If there's any doubt left, I think the 73% female audience of Magic Mike speaks for itself. I've seen plenty of conversations on the internet about [insert name of handsome actor of choice] which, if spoken by men about women, would be at the very least a toeing of the lust-line which Christ forbids us to cross.

Guys, our sisters in Christ do struggle with this, and it's time that we man up and start loving our sisters in Christ by the way we dress.


The Biblically-informed masculine wardrobe is important for a deeper reason even than consideration for our sisters who struggle with the same sins that we wrestle with: that's what we see in God's Word. God clothed Adam and Eve with the same thing- there's no distinction made there that I can see. 

Other Scriptural principles should also tie in to our understanding of the way we dress. What are we drawing attention to by our clothing choices? Are we finding our identity in our physique, or in our relationship with Christ? Are we loving our sisters in Christ by keeping them pure and encouraging them to focus on their Celestial Husband and their future husband?

The bottom line for me is this: whence cometh this double-standard? What is the Biblical foundation for this distinction? Or is it signed with the classic signature of humanism- arbitrariness?

"Did we make this up?"

Guys, Keep Your Shirt On 

Literally.

I tease, but I'm serious. Next time, before you rip your shirt off and show your sculpted abs to the world, take a moment to consider what God thinks about your clothing choices. When you squeeze yourself into that compression tee that emphasizes those pects of steel, stop to look in the mirror and see what your attention is first drawn to. Before you put on those skinny jeans (why in the world are you wearing skinny jeans?) think about the message that you're sending.  When you slip into your Speedo, please don't. I'm just sayin'.

Just as it's not my place to tell a girl which skirt is too short or which top is too tight- that's between her, her family, and God- so it's not my place to dictate your poolside attire.  If this post succeeds in making you stop and think for a moment about what Scripture has to say about men's fashion, I'm more than happy.

It's not easy. I'm not exactly disappointed when someone compliments me on my physique, and I can tell which shirts best showcase the gun show attached to my shoulders. Just as lust isn't something that only guys wrestle with, so vanity isn't a women-only crime. We may not spend an hour fellowshipping with our makeup kit, but how many hours have we spent with our dumbbells?

(This from a guy who loves to work out and spends an average of an hour and a half exercising daily- sometimes more. My problem isn't with fitness- it's with priorities. I'm making confessions here, too- investing too much time in my temporal body to the detriment of Kingdom pursuits is something that I struggle with on a daily basis.  But if our exercise is done with a Kingdom focus, to better prepare us to serve Christ, and in such a way as wisely makes use of God's time, I'm all for it.  If it's a matter of doing curls for the girls, we'd be better off kissing the dumbbells goodbye.)

This shouldn't be a burden for us.  It shouldn't be something we're paranoid about.  It shouldn't steal our joy.  Nor does it mean that we need to look like unkempt wimps. Scripture says that "The glory of young men is their strength."  It's good for us to be strong, capable, ruddy, even handsome.  Intentional or apathetic ugliness is no virtue, and learning how to dress well and carry ourselves attractively is a worthy pursuit- insofar as we pursue it to honor Christ with our bodies.  But we must do this to call the focus of others to Him- and not ourselves.  Can we not look firmly strong and masculine without highlighting every muscle and sinew?  Isn't this what we have asked the girls to do for so long- to look feminine without accenting every curve?

Come on, guys. We're men. May it not be said that we were too weak to conquer our own vanity- that we weren't willing to wear a looser shirt out of love for our sisters and obedience to our King- that our identity went no deeper than a layer of muscle just beneath our skin.  

The body will pass away.  Being the sexiest man of the year lasts for exactly one year.  It's really no achievement to catch the eyes of girls- plenty of guys can do that.  In fact, being a "heart-breaker" is exactly opposite to the exhortations of Scripture.  If we really love our sisters in Christ, our desire will be to help them focus on Christ- not to get them to focus on us.

Girls, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.  Do you agree with my premise?  If so, what are some of the specific ways that guys can be more thoughtful of you in the way they dress?  What are your greatest stumbling blocks?  Maybe some examples of movie characters or public figures who did or didn't act in a modest way, and how they did or didn't?

Guys- man up.  God's Word has something to say about everything, and our clothing is no exception.  Do we have the strength of character to set aside the temporal pleasures of the praise of men and instead strive to please our King?  Or do we love ourselves too much to make that sacrifice?

Just For Fun

Explain in one paragraph or less why one may, when surrounding or inhabiting a body of water, wear (or not wear) clothing which one would never consider appropriate in another context, and which indeed might be referred to, in other contexts, as underclothing?

Monday, August 6, 2012

The Gift

Over the course of the 18 years of my life God has blessed me with six wonderful younger siblings.  He has also seen fit to bring into the world some brothers and sisters that I never had a chance to meet- children who, though never brought, writhing and crying, into this world, were still, for the precious few weeks of their enwombed lives, my precious siblings- a gift of God.

It's a wild thing knowing that for some weeks at certain periods of my life I had another sibling on this earth- a sibling whom I never met, whom I never even saw.  I don't know if this sibling would have been a rambunctious little brother growing up amongst perpetual swordfights, bandages, and dirt, or perhaps a little princess for my brothers and I to coddle and protect.  I don't know if this sibling would have been tall or strong or smart, what color his hair would have been, what his laugh would have sounded like.

I do know this, for each of them: I shall go to them- they will not come back here to me.

I look forward to meeting them.

A couple times, after these bittersweet moments of loss, we as a family commemorated the occasion by taking a balloon and tying little notes to the string.

We released it into the sky- a little farewell, a memorial, a funeral, a celebration.

So I have special attachment to this little project that I was blessed to score last week- a project that connects with me in a way that is more than coincidental:



I don't believe in coincidences.

As I think about this piece of music, it reminds me so much of our babies that we never met- the simple, childish expectation- the bittersweetness- the climax that just barely begins to explore all that the music could have been and then disappears, waiting to be discovered on another distant day- the incomplete beauty- the emptiness of a work that was never realized in its fulness, and yet was worth every moment of its short life, something that could have been so much more, and yet was perfect in its incompletion, in being everything that it was written to be.

So I dedicate this piece of music to those siblings whom I never met.

We'll meet soon enough, beloved.

The Gift by gabrielhudelson

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The Religion-Free Zone

There's a name for those people whose actions and ostensible beliefs are different.

They're called hypocrites.

Church & State- Episode 2b:

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

On Christians Coming Out Of The Closet

What exactly does separation of Church and State mean?  Can pastors endorse candidates from the pulpit?  Should politicians allow their religious beliefs affect their political decisions?  Should Christians keep their faith to themselves, relegating it to the personal aspects of their lives?

Or should Christians just grab their Bibles and come out of the closet?

That's what I explore in this episode (and part 2- stay tuned) of Church & State.