WHO KNEW WHAT MARY KNEW (Another Look at a Popular Holiday Song)

With all the hubbub over the classic holiday song, Baby, It's Cold Outside, it's easy to forget another Christmas offering that has been the subject of derision in recent years.

We're speaking, of course, about the iconic Mary, Did You Know? This hauntingly beautiful song, written by Mark Lowry, has been covered by dozens of artists over the years such as Kenny Rogers, Cee Lo Greene, and Pentatonix. It has become a staple of most modern holiday albums. It is a poignant song about the fact that Jesus was not just an ordinary baby, but none other but the great I AM. At its core, it highlights the deity of Christ, a central doctrine of the historic Christian faith.
Why do some feel it is their life mission to snipe and point out the flaws in such a moving tune?

Yet, snipes come. And surprisingly, most of the vehemence comes from Christian circles. Theologians smugly smile and point out that Mary did indeed know how special Jesus was. Most trot out doctrinal distinctives the same way they point out how silly it is to have three wise men at the manger when every knowledgeable believer knows that there were more than three wise men and they did not show up until two years later at Joseph's house. Others are a little more blunt, saying, "I hate this song--of course, Mary knew!" There's even a post that questionably changes the lyrics to read, "Mary freaking knew. . .that her baby boy. . .would someday walk on water . . ."

Yes, Mary knew. Maybe not every specific detail of Jesus' life and ministry (since they had not happened yet), but yeah, she knew that Jesus was not just a baby in the manger. Nobody disputes that.

What the "Christmas critics" don't seem to get is that the question, "Mary, did you know. . ." is a rhetorical one. Like an interviewer who asks a marathon winner, "who got to the finish line first?", the singer of this song is not fishing for information, but reinforcing what is already known. He or she is not interrogating Mary, but reminiscing with her.

And really, most importantly: the song isn't for Mary. It's not about her or what she knows or knew or anything. It's not actually asking Mary if she knew.

It's asking us if we know.

Did we know that the Baby in the manger that we so casually reference every December is none other than God in human flesh? That He came for a purpose, a reason, a terrible, tragic, exciting, blessed mission to save mankind from sin?

And does knowing this make a difference in our lives? In your life?

The problem is, a lot of people don't know. And a lot of people who do know, don't really believe it.
As we prepare for Christmas, may we realize that the little baby in the manger is indeed Lord of all creation and that He is the great I AM: God in human flesh.

Do you know?

YEAH, I HEARD THAT (A Christmas Meditation)

I love Christmas. I like the festivity and the fun and the warmth and the music and so on.

And obviously, I believe that Christmas is a time to celebrate the birth of my Savior. That's the big reason for the season, the thing that puts the "holy" into this holiday. As many have observed, you can't have CHRISTmas without CHRIST.

So quit trying to pour cold porridge on my celebration.

Yes, I know Jesus was not born on December 25. I am aware of modern research that places the manger in a cave, or a roof, or a tent. I know the three kings weren't kings, there weren't three of them, and they arrived much later. I know there was no innkeeper, lowing cattle, or little drummer boy.

Furthermore, I know about the history of how December 25 was originally a pagan holiday and that many of the customs and traditions and symbols of Christmas were actually borrowed from these pagan practices.

And don't even start telling me about Santa Claus.

The critiques come from many sources:

• The guy who comes to my door and recites all this stuff in hopes of causing me to forsake my un-biblical traditions and embrace his system.
• The atheist/agnostic/liberal skeptic who smugly expounds on these things so that I will awkwardly admit that my faith is silly.
• The otherwise Christian expert whose mission in life is to make sure every single jot and tittle are precisely lined up according to their own infallible scholarship.
• Sincere people of every stripe who traditionally resist anything that is traditional.

The fact is, I can knowledgeably expound on most of the Christmas objections. Most believers who attend Bible believing churches can respond to these observations. It's not "new." Facebook posts announcing "13 Startling Things You Didn't Know About Christmas" are usually rehashed content from years gone by.

So why, in spite of everything, do I really, really like Christmas?

Christmas is a recognition that God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, became a human being. He lived a sinless life, He died to pay the price for my sins, He was buried, and He rose again three days later so that, by trusting Him as my Lord and Savior, I can have a brand new life and day-to-day relationship with Him.

No, there is nothing in Scripture that calls upon us to recognize the birth of Jesus. But the importance of the Incarnation is stressed. For example, 1 John 4:2-3 says, "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,  and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God." Do we need to hold a Western world style "birthday party for Jesus" to celebrate His coming? No. Do we need to recognize that He came? Oh yes!

So yes: I'm celebrating. All the festivities and fun and warmth and music are ultimately in recognition of the First Coming. The world may celebrate in ignorance, but like Paul in Acts 17, we can show them Who and why we are throwing the party.

If you have serious problems with Christmas, I would be the last to talk you out of your convictions. Richest blessings on you. But I want you to know why I'm celebrating.

And if you're just cranky and you want to unload your Christmas critique, I would ask you to quit trying to dampen my joy.

Because it's safe to say, I've probably heard it all before.

NOVEMBER MUSINGS: EPILOGUE: THE MORNING AFTER

Yeah, I know: I said "November Musings" would be over with my last post. Consider this post a postscript, an epilogue, a sequel.

Donald Trump is now the President-elect. After watching the news coverage, seeing the victory speech of Mr. Trump, the concession speech of Mrs. Clinton, and checking out social media commentary, I feel compelled to offer my own observations, warnings, and exhortations. These are "raw" thoughts, so if they lack a certain subtlety and refinement, well, that's the nature of politics.

1. One of the consistent themes in the news coverage was the sense of surprise."Nobody expected this." "How could the polls be so wrong?" With all due respect to our professional pundits, they began Mr. Trump's candidacy with dismissal. They continued it with the narrative that Mr. Trump only had a small, narrow minded bunch of supporters. But in my decidedly un-scientific observation, Mr. Trump's base was a lot larger and more diverse than the pros admitted.

2. I appreciated the gracious words of Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton in their respective speeches. I especially want to commend Mrs. Clinton for "practicing what she preached" in accepting the results of the election with class and dignity.

3.The popular vote shows a razor thin support for Hillary Clinton. Take note: roughly half of the citizens of our country voted for Mrs. Clinton! I strongly dislike the demonizing of the voter. Intelligent, passionate, patriotic citizens supported Hillary Clinton and they cannot be casually dismissed or ignored. We may disagree on issues, but now is the time to address the concerns in a way that unites us.

4.Take note: roughly half the citizens in our country voted for Mr. Trump! I strongly dislike the demonizing of the voter. Intelligent, passionate, patriotic citizens supported Donald Trump and they cannot be casually dismissed or ignored. We may disagree on issues, but now is the time to address the concerns in a way that unites us.

5. (Yes, the previous two points were identical).

6. I'm already seeing opinions around Facebook, particularly from these political opinion "papers," that are heralding the doom of our country. As I mentioned in a previous post in this series, the disaster scenarios that are often predicted by opponents rarely come to pass. Relax folks. Don't leave the country, don't hang your heads in closeted anger, and, whatever you do, don't take a page from the opposition and start digging up conspiracies and voter fraud.

7. Several conservative Republican sites are already gloating. Even Mrs. Clinton's delay in giving her concession speech has been characterized as "cowardly!" Good grief. It's over. Even athletes shake hands after a hard-fought match.  Not to overuse an Anchorman line, but, please, for the good of the country, "Stay classy, conservatives." As I've already pointed out, half the country chose Hillary Clinton. That's a whole lot of people to be against.

8. Finally, a personal note: someone recently said that I was trying to be "politically correct." Them's fightin' words! If you knew me, I mean really knew me, you know that I have very strong political opinions. And I'm not ashamed to tell you that most of my opinions are right (well, I meant as in "correct", but yes, on the political spectrum as well). But as I think I've mentioned in previous entries, I believe how we argue our position is also important. No longer do I feel the need to blow up my opponents when they are wrong. Do you really want to listen to or work with someone who calls you a "cotton headed ninnymuggin?" or characterizes your views as so much "feldercarb?"

9. (on the other hand, I wouldn't mind engaging in dialogue with anyone who can tell me the source of "cotton headed ninnymuggin" and "feldercarb.")

Well, there it is. The real conclusion to my "November Musings" series. And guess what? Jesus is still King of kings and Lord of Lords! Pray for the President-elect and pray for our country. Let's turn now to lighter things. . .

#

NOVEMBER MUSINGS #5 LAST THOUGHTS: MY CODE

As I write this, our country (USA) will be electing a new President in a little more than 48 hours. The two leading contenders are Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump. And to hear supporters of both candidates say it, this will be one of the most important elections in our history.

But regardless of who wins (and trust me, barring a third party upset of epic proportions, one of them will win), one thing that will not change is my code. I don't remember when I came up with this, but a few administrations back, after carefully considering what the Bible had to say about my attitudes toward the government, I came up with some principles that would govern how I speak to and about our elected officials (it references the President specifically, but can apply to any kind of leader).

Word of warning: it's easy to follow this code when the President in office is "good" (read, "a President I support"). The challenge is with the President of a different party, or one that makes unpopular decisions, or that gives evidence of doing things that may not be good for the country. But as I study the Bible, I find the principles are not labeled with a D or an R. If Paul can pray for the cruel, pagan tyrant named Nero, do I have a reason not to pray for a President for whom I did not vote?

A couple of quick disclaimers: 1) I am not perfect and at any given time, I have slipped and violated my own code. I don't offer this as judgment, merely as aspiration.  2) We're still friends, whether you agree with me or not.

This will be split between "My Code" and "Guiding Scripture

My Code
1. I will refer to the President as "President Name" or "the President." I will avoid using just the last name unless the context of the reference calls for it.

2. I will avoid the use of pejorative nicknames for the President. While well done political satire and humor has its place in our history, I will continue to disapprove of proverbial "cheap shots."

3. As much as possible, I will give the President the benefit of the doubt.

4. I will not automatically believe every bad report about the President, unless there is clear and compelling evidence to support it. I will not entertain news of failure unless it can be objectively verified.

5. I will celebrate the victories and wins of the President that are for the good of the country (not just for the good of the President's party).

6. I will exercise my right as an American citizen to "speak truth to power," to speak against policies and practices that violate my convictions or that I feel are contrary to the best ideas of this country.

7. But when speaking in disagreement, I will always temper my comments with respect and consideration to the man or woman holding the office.

8. I will pray for the President, for his or her success, health, safety, protection, and that he or she would seek and heed the wisdom of God.

Guiding Scriptures:

1 Peter 2:13-17 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, ¹⁴ or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. ¹⁵ For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— ¹⁶ as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. ¹⁷ Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

1 Timothy 2:1-2 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, ² for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.

Romans 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. ⁴ For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. ⁵ Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. ⁷ Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Acts 23:1-5 Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” ² And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. ³ Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?”⁴ And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?”⁵ Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’"

Also see 1 Samuel 24, in which David, presented with an opportunity to kill Saul, refuses to harm the Lord's anointed.

Thanks for reading the "November Musings" series, one of my rare forays into politics. If you have not already done so, make sure you vote and pray. And remember, on Wednesday, November 9, I predict that Jesus will still be King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

#

NOVEMBER MUSINGS #4: QUICK THOUGHTS BEFORE NEXT TUESDAY

As I type this, there is only one weekend between me and Election Day. So I want to use this post to share four quick thoughts about what could and should happen on Tuesday and beyond. No major theme here, no in-depth analysis, just shooting through my keyboard. As always, whether you agree or disagree, be nice.

1. No candidate is going to "save" America. There are dozens of reasons why the grand promises of the would-be POTUS fail to materialize, most of them out of the control of the candidate. When Secretary Clinton or Mr. Trump make these sweeping pronouncements about what the next four to eight years will be like under their watch, I just smile.

2. The horrible things we think the opposing candidate will do to America will likely not happen either. Again, there are dozens of reasons for this, but gloom and doom predictions rarely persuade me as to my voting preferences. Nuclear war has never happened, guns have not been confiscated, and, as of this date, I am still free to worship in the church of my choice. Please understand, I am not blind to the issues or concerns that face our country. It's just that, if I had a proverbial nickel for every celebrity that threatened to leave the country if (fill in the name of candidate) won the White House, I'd be able to buy a nice dinner for my wife. Maybe things won't be spectacularly rosy under one administration, but I doubt it will be a total disaster under another.

3. Whoever is elected is my President, whether they got my vote or not.  I've actually had people get mad at me for saying this. "He's not my President," they announce.  Ummm, yes he is. Defiantly proclaiming that the new President is "not my President" or refusing to accept his or her position in the Oval Office is really no different than threatening to leave the country if the opposition is elected. It solves nothing, it changes nothing.

4. I'm a bit of an idealist, so I think this is a good time to remember that we are one nation, under God. If we let this election continue to negatively divide us, we've lost something far greater than our guy or gal being in the White House.  One of the most disturbing elements of this election is the candidates declaring their contempt for the voters that are for the opposition. That's not cool. If, as the experts are predicting, this election is close, then theoretically half of the voting population will be on the "other side." That's when we realize that we are still American citizens and the President has the responsibility to work with all of us, not just the ones that voted for him or her.


In my next (and possibly last) installment of "November Musings," I will share my personal philosophy of how we should treat the President--any President. I've used this "code" for several administrations and it has served me well.

Until next time, remember that on November 9, Jesus is still King of kings and Lord of lords!

#

NOVEMBER MUSINGS #3: WRESTLING MEMORIES

Why do I seem to have such a problem with this election? I think it has to do with professional wrestling.

I better explain.

When I was a lad, pro wrestling was a staple of our Saturday afternoons. Wrestlers would travel to a city, put on their show, and then head off to the next one. In our area, the local channel had a show called "Championship Wrestling," which featured these contests. The wrestlers would be interviewed between matches and promote their next battle to be held at the fairgrounds or gymnasium. Championship Wrestling was "must see TV" for our family over the weekends.

I kind of suspected the made-up nature of the contests (could a human body really get pummeled into near unconsciousness, then get up a minute later and fight some more?), but I didn't really care. As a young comic-book geek, these were real life superheroes battling it out. There were the good guys (faces) and bad guys (heels). The faces would be good sportsmen, fighting hard, but following the rules. The heels, naturally, cheated and were arrogant, mean, and nasty.

A typical scenario was during a tag team match. The good guys being pummelled by the bad guy as he desperately reaches out his arm to tag his partner, who was also reaching out. Just inches away from deliverance, but they can't make contact. But then something happens and the face outside the ring unintentionally commits a minor infraction (it has to be minor, because,as a good guy, he follows the rules). The ref rushes over to him, turning his back to the wrestlers in the ring, and begins lecturing the guy about the rules. Meanwhile, the other heel enters the ring and joins his partner in beating the tar out of the good guy. The face outside the ring desperately tries to explain to the ref what's happening, the crowd is yelling and screaming for the ref to stop the carnage, the announcers are shouting into their microphones atop the card table set up at the side, while the ref continues to chew out the good guy outside the ring.

Oh the humanity!

Face vs. face matches were good to watch. Though no less choreographed, they tended to focus more on technique then annihilation. And after the match, the good guys would shake hands with each other. You could feel the mutual respect oozing out of them as they spoke to the interviewer afterward. Face vs. heel matches, on the other hand, usually ended with the good guy offering a handshake to the bad guy, only to have the bad guy respond with a sucker punch or kick in the stomach.

(Tim, what does this have to do with the election?) Stay with me....

As professional wrestling got bigger and more popular, I noticed things changing. In today's matches, I'm just as likely to see the good guys double team a bad guy as the other way around. There's still the arm straining moment of the tag, but if they can't make contact, and if they can get away with it, the face is more than willing to infract a rule or two to help his partner. Faces are just as rude and arrogant as their heel counterparts, and if I had children as young as I was "in the day," I would be embarrassed to hear the language they use in the pre- and post- match interviews.

Yes, there are still faces and heels, good guys and bad guys. But since their is no real distinction in technique or persona, the only way we know who's who is, well...marketing. Since the face cheats, uses foul language, and does not show respect to his opponents, all that's left is to promote him as a face (which the big pro wrestling organizations do quite well). And in the world of professional wrestling, even that can change, with good guys becoming bad guys and vice verse.

Which brings me to my election point: I honestly cannot tell the face from the heel. Yes, I know that issues are important and there is much at stake, so we should ignore the personality of each candidate and focus on what is truly important. After all, if we elect him or her, then untold disaster will befall us, so isn't it worth putting up with less than graceful conduct in order to ensure a victory?

When I was in my teen years, I gleaned a piece of wisdom from (believe it or not) a comic book. I don't remember the title or issue number, but I remember the dialogue. The young sidekick seemed to support a move against the villain that would have helped the cause, but was rather underhanded. He reasoned, "But if it stops the bad guy, isn't it worth it?" The hero replies, "I believe it's important to win. But we still need to be the good guys when we do it."

Marketing and political campaigns do not persuade me. Promises don't sway me. Lofty vows of grand change if elected or ominous warnings if the other person is elected don't carry any weight with me. As long as the candidates do the same stuff in the same way, I have a problem.

I guess what I'm looking for is a face.


#

NOVEMBER MUSINGS #2: THAT TAPE

In this valiant attempt to bring clarity to the November presidential election, I struggle with a lot of things. I've already shared in a previous post about my overall struggle regarding the real potential to tick everyone off. But the other challenge is that there are so many elements on which to shine a light, which one do I tackle first? Let's go to the tape. . . .

The tape, of course, is the revelation that Donald Trump bragged to (then) entertainment reporter Billy Bush about his ability to "have his way" with women (yes, I'm being diplomatic about something that at best was a rude, crude description and, at worst, an admission of possible assault). The exchange was caught on tape and recently released. Mr. Trump has characterized it as "locker room talk" and apologized. Many GOP lawmakers, evangelical leaders, and a host of others have repudiated the candidate. And, of course, in late breaking news, a few women have said that Mr. Trump's statements were not words only, but actions. To be fair, their accusations have not been substantiated, and Mr. Trump denies them, but they are certainly a cause of concern.

Three trains of thought come to mind:

We can't easily dismiss the claims against Donald Trump
So why did this 11 year old tape take so long to surface and why did these women wait until now to reveal Mr. Trump's treatment of them? First of all, regarding the women, it is not uncommon for a victim to remain silent. Some of it is born out of fear, some of it is embarrassment, some of it is a certain amount of self-doubt (did I somehow encourage this? was it my fault?). I would hope we've come far enough of our understanding sexual assault that we not dismiss these accusers out of hand. And I have to admit (with my limited knowledge), nothing the women have said so far sounds in-credible. It all sounds very consistent with Donald Trump's public personality and, yes, with his "locker room talk."

Which leads us back to the tape. What was on the tape was disgusting. Deplorable. Degrading. We can dismiss it as "locker room talk," but let's face it: the behavior it describes and even the language that is used is unacceptable.  But some of my conservative, Christian friends have said, "it's not that big a deal. Why are we condemning him for something he did  eleven years ago? He has apologized, so we should forgive him and move on."

Yes, I agree whole heartily we should forgive Donald Trump. But "moving on" might be a little more complicated. I can forgive the drug addict who steals my electronics to feed his habit. But I won't leave him unsupervised in my house. I will look for signs of continued drug use. I will love him and encourage him and rejoice in his victories. But unconditional forgiveness is not blindness. Or naivety. Yes, I forgive Donald Trump. But it took him eleven years to "confess" his sin (and only because the tape surfaced) and there have been no indications that he is a different man than before. Maybe he is. But we only have his public personality to evaluate and they suggest (not prove) he may have the same attitudes toward women as he had eleven years ago. Moving on is not so simple.

This could be a set up
But let's take a look at the other side of the coin. Aside from his "locker room" tape, there is no solid evidence to substantiate the claims of Mr. Trump's accusers. And while I prefer to give victims the benefit of the doubt, yes, some women do lie. We cannot blindly reject the idea that this could very well be a set up. NBC has had the "locker room" tape for eleven years, but during the entire run of the hit series The Apprentice, it never saw the proverbial light of day. While there are certainly legitimate reasons why the alleged victims may not have spoken out for eleven years, the fact is, they are only speaking out now, during a critical election season. The timing is more than convenient. Saturday Night Live brilliantly nailed this in a sketch portraying the Clinton campaign celebrating, with Hillary Clinton unable to contain her delight over this damaging revelation.  So there exists at least the possibility that these allegations are unfounded. Until more substantial proof surfaces, the question will remain unanswered.

What all this says about media and society
However, another troubling part of this whole thing  is the sudden focus on morality in our society.  Hey, I'm a stuck-in-the-mud, old fashioned values, Bible-believing Christian, but I get a little distressed when I hear representatives of the liberal left pontificate about the terribleness of Donald Trump's tape. Whenever Christians speak out against sexual situations or obscenity on television or movies, they are widely condemned as prudes, Puritans, or Pollyannas who want to destroy our civilization by imposing their narrow view of what is right or wrong in society. Meanwhile, we are treated to all types of  depictions of immorality, a great deal of which involves the degradation of women. It seems more than a little, I don't know, uhhh--hypocritical?

And then there are the athletes and celebrities who make fun of Donald Trump by saying that he's probably never been in a locker room, because men don't really talk that way in locker rooms. I beg to differ. The expression "locker room talk" existed before Donald Trump's apology and has always meant the kind of crude, bragging conversations that usually center on women. In some cases, it's little more than tall tales, but regardless, some men really do talk that way.  Let's tone down the feigned shock. If every newscaster or celebrity had tapes of their off-camera words and deeds, it would be quite a revelation to a lot of admirers.

And yes, NBC fired Billy Bush for his role in the "locker room" tape, but I noticed it did not prevent them from putting him on the Today Show in the first place. Only when they were stuck between exposing the "terrible immorality" of Donald Trump and showing their own media personality involved in the same thing did they take action. What else could they do?

Suddenly, prominent people who have never regarded the Bible as anything special are pulling out quotes to inform us all what "good Christians" should think about all this. While I'm glad to see anyone reading the Bible for guidance, I fear that many of these folks don't really give a flying care about what the Bible says; rather, their main goal is to maybe point out what they perceive as hypocrisy among Trump supporters. Where is the tolerance? Where is the very Biblical and Christian virtue of forgiveness? And that is an ongoing irritation, not only in this campaign, but in society overall: people who don't believe the Bible trying to convince the faithful about what the Bible says. Just something to think about.

Please do not take my comments as a rejection or endorsement of either candidate. Like many Americans, I'm struggling with this election. These posts represent what one of my teachers called, "thinking through my keyboard." I welcome your comments, but name calling, foul language, or general mean-spiritedness will not be allowed. Good points made logically and consistently (with maybe a dash of humor) goes a long way, even if you disagree.

And remember: no matter what happens in November, Jesus is still King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

#

NOVEMBER MUSINGS #1: WHY AM I CONFUSED?

I did not want to chime in to the rumblings of the 2016 Presidential race.  For one thing, I have some very well defined convictions about politics and Presidents in general that would most certainly irk people on both sides of the political spectrum. For another thing, this contest in particular is so explosive that I feel like anything I say will provoke the ire of the devoted of both parties. And finally, I make it personal mission to avoid irritating people, even if I profoundly disagree with them. I would prefer to engage in intelligent dialogue with someone who disagrees with me and depart as friends than have someone call me names, then stomp off.

So there you have it: irksomeness, ire, and irritation. You've been warned. I think this will take a few posts, since I don't want to overwhelm you with everything at once.  And now is probably a good time to remind you that the opinions are mine alone and do not always reflect the views of my church, its leadership, its staff, my friends, family, the dog, my daughter's cats (who live with us and about whom I am tempted to fire off a blog or two), or any political party. I'd also like to remind you that your comments are welcome, but rudeness, crudeness, foul language, name calling, etc. might get you deleted. My blog, my rules.

And now that we have the disclaimers out of the way. . .

I've been asked how a "good Christian" could possibly support Donald Trump. The question has been asked by liberals, conservatives, non-Christians, and atheists. It's a frequent subject on social media, with some writers going so far as to indict the whole of evangelicalism and even Christianity as a whole. The outrage over the so-called "religious right's" backing of Mr. Trump was happening long before the revelation this week of a crude recording, but it certainly intensified with the tape. "How can you, a 'good Christian,' possibly vote for this man?" the pundits cried.

In an upcoming blog, I will address the recording and what it says about our society, but for now, let me establish that I have not thrown my support to Mr. Trump. People ask me who I'm voting for and I just shrug and say, "I honestly don't know." I think framing the debate in terms of what a "good Christian" should do or think is misleading. Saying someone should reject Donald Trump because a "good Christian" would reject him carries about as much weight as saying a "good Christian" should reject Hillary Clinton. I've heard both. And, to be blunt, it's just so much noise.

Donald Trump speaks to many issues with which I agree. Secretary Clinton speaks to many issues with which I disagree. Oh that the choice would be that simple. Mr. Trump verbally expresses his support for my faith, while Mrs. Clinton has verbally denigrated the things in which I believe. I wish the decision rested solely between the candidate who says, "I'm for you, Bible-believing Christian," and the candidate who says, "I'm against you." Simple. Easy peasy.

Except, from what I've observed, Mr. Trump is the kind of person my dad warned me about. My dad and I did not see eye to eye on Christianity and he was pretty sure that this young teenager was turning into a wild-eyed fanatic. And he would warn me about how I'd be walking in a strange area and somebody would come up to me and start talking about the Bible or Jesus and, like a man in a trance, I would follow him, whereupon I would be robbed, beaten up, or worse. My dad's opinion of my naivety notwithstanding, I got the point. People will say or do almost anything to ingratiate themselves. I've seen candidates for local offices suddenly become active church members, only to vanish after the election. I've been invited to pray at secular gatherings, just because the host wanted "the Big Guy upstairs" to smile down on the proceedings (which often involved alcohol).

The tipping point to me was the speech at Liberty University, when Mr. Trump referred to "Two Corinthians." Yeah, it's a minor point. And yes, I've heard some preachers use that terminology. It's not like the original Greek designates the correct usage of the name of a book. It's not really that big a deal. Except, well, it was a large, evangelical student body. Most Bible-believing Christians would use the designation, "Second Corinthians." Unless they were not that familiar with the Book they were quoting or the audience to whom they were speaking. At that moment, I felt like Mr. Trump had asked someone on his staff to find a Bible verse he could use for his speech. But contrary to my dad's assessment of my ability to spot a con artist, I felt like he was trying to win me over. It didn't work. And adding that to the rest that was said and the rest that would be said, I have to say I cannot whole-heartedly support Donald Trump.

But that doesn't mean I'm voting for Hillary Clinton either. I don't have time to list everything, but her social/political stands alone often run contrary to my own beliefs. Nor is she attempting to spin those positions to assuage my concerns. With Mrs. Clinton, I feel as though I am a non-entity, a throw back to the dark ages. Bible-believing Christians will be tolerated, unless they get in the way. I have a problem throwing my hat in the ring with someone who, to put it simply, is against most of my convictions.

So what's a "good Christian" supposed to do? I don't know if "good Christian" always applies to me, or even if it should apply to me at all. While I am not ambivalent about the Bible and the Christian faith. I'm not as certain on the instersection of faith and politics. Yeah, if they violate the Scripture, it's easy, but if both go against it, then what? Hopefully, I'll be addressing some of these questions in future posts.

And one final word: no matter what happens in November, Jesus is still King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

#

OF EASTER AND EGGS

He is risen!

He is risen indeed!

Yes, it's Easter time, a glorious season to remember and celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What a great thought: Jesus, Who is God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, died to pay the price for your sins and mine, then three days later, He rose again, so that by trusting Him as Lord and Savior, we can have eternal life and a day to day relationship with Him.  What's not to celebrate?

Not so fast, there, Skippy!

About this time every year, I start getting emails, seeing Facebook posts, and reading blog entries that try to dump cold water over my Easter enthusiasm. I'm not referring to skeptics or cultists who either try to deny the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ or who try to show that historic Christianity has it all wrong, but they alone have the truth. No, I'm talking about those self-professed paganism professors who not only know the detailed sinister origins of Easter, but can show you the insidiously evil function of every symbol traditionally associated with the holiday (and if they seem eerily familiar, it's because they also come out in December to let the air out of Christmas).

These folks, to various degrees, feel it is their duty to point out that eggs and rabbits were used in ancient fertility cults and therefore, should not be used by Christians. Even the holiday known as "Easter" is named after Ishtar (or variations thereof) and has nothing to do with Jesus, so churches that celebrate Easter are, in essence, denying the faith.

I don't have the time or patience in this blog to specifically address the specific arguments against Easter eggs or anything else connected with it. I just want to leave a couple of thoughts (with the usual stipulations that the views expressed here are mine alone):

1. How is the hard-boiled egg that sat in my fridge the night before suddenly transformed into an instrument of paganism when I put some food-coloring on it? Doesn't that seem like an inordinate amount of power to give to something that will eventually be chopped up and put in a salad?  Using an egg does not mean I'm engaging in pagan rituals any more than saying, "It's Thursday" means I'm revering Thor, the god of thunder for whom the day is named (sorry Chris Hemsworth fans).

2. I know this stuff. I know about the eggs, Ishtar, bunnies, and the spring rituals. I'd venture a guess that most educated Christians have heard about all this. But when I get to the end of a rich, full Sunday of remembering and rejoicing in the resurrection of Christ and celebrating the life He gives, I'm not thinking about what ancient pagans did. It's not even on my radar. And while the unbeliever may not be contemplating the truth of Scripture while engaging in egg hunts or gathering with family for dinner, he is likely not thinking of paganism either.

I'm not trying to argue for or against Easter celebrations by Christians. . .or anyone else. I commemorate Jesus' triumph over death because He saved me and I love Him.  You can argue all you want about whether or not the organized Church should have "Christianized" a pagan festival, but the fact that, for millions of believers, Easter means the resurrection of Christ, I'd say the process was successful.

Agree or disagree, I welcome your comments, but be nice. If you want to "egg" me on, I might just delete your comment and that's no yolk!

.

THINKING THROUGH MY KEYBOARD: SCOTUS & SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (breaking news)

June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court has struck down all laws banning gay marriage.  The President has made a brief statement. The analysis has begun, but if the mainstream networks are any indication, there is much rejoicing over this landmark ruling.

So here I am, thinking through my keyboard again, and wondering, "What's next?"  Before I get to my random thoughts, just a couple of disclaimers:

• These thoughts are random, and raw, and unrefined. They are initial thoughts as they come to my mind. I'm sure some in-depth analysis will follow later, so please be gentle, especially if you disagree with me.
• These thoughts are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily represent those of my church, its leadership, its members, or those of my friends, or neighbors, or associates. As always, if pregnant or nursing, do not take...ooops, sorry, got carried away with the disclaimers.

Here we go

1. The Supreme Court is not Lord, Jesus is Lord.

2. What will change for the church?  Nothing. We will still meet, we will still pray, we will still study God's Word, we will still tell others about Jesus. This has been true of the church throughout history, regardless of the political environment in which she has lived.

3. We are still commanded to love our neighbor. I know we haven't always been good at that. I think one of the takeaways of the SCOTUS decision is that the church will have some serious discussions on how to love our neighbor in word and deed, while not rejecting our Biblical convictions. The critics say we can't love the members of the LGBT community without surrendering those convictions. I think it would be cool to lovingly prove them wrong.

4. I still can't find an example or commendation of same-sex marriage in the Bible. There's a ton of stuff about traditional marriage, but nothing on same-sex marriage.  Just pointing it out, folks.

5. I'm not a slippery-slope, "the sky is falling" kind of person. I rejoice in being a Christian in America, where I still have the right to believe and practice my religion the way I choose. That being established, is there anyone out there who does not think this ruling will have both subtle and profound political and social implications on "religious freedom" in the future?

I know some of my friends and readers may disagree. That's fine. Keep the disclaimers in mind as you comment.  And remember, disrespect, foul language, overt hostility, and so on will likely result in a deletion of your comment. I love smart people who disagree with me, but I've had my fill of the spew of cranky critics.

THINKING THRU MY KEYBOARD: THOUGHTS ON THE DUGGARS

You've no doubt heard the story of Josh Duggar from 19 Kids and Counting, how at 14, he inappropriately touched his younger sisters and how his parents dealt with it in house, not notifying the authorities for 16 months (and after the statute of limitations had expired). And now that a magazine has obtained previously sealed records and exposed it for all the world to see, there are cries for 19 Kids and Counting to be cancelled. At post time, TLC has already temporarily pulled the show from its lineup.

To think through this, let's agree on a couple of basics:

• Child abuse is never okay. It's never justifiable. It is wrong.
• The parents should have reported it immediately.

While the overwhelming majority of reasonable people will agree on the root-level basics, the water gets a little murkier when we get into the details. Sadly, it seems, anybody suggesting some alternate viewpoints on the murkier details is liable to be flamed themselves. I'm going to trust that my friends, colleagues, and those who know me will understand that I'm stimulating discussion, not justifying abhorrent behavior.

• At 14, Josh Duggar touched his sisters inappropriately. He did so on three occasions. As we already established, that was wrong. But there has been no indication that he has ever done it again. In fact, there is no indication that it was ever an issue in the Duggar household past that time. So is it fair to call the 14 year old boy an "evil monster" or "horrible predator" and demand that he fully disclose and carry that label with him for the rest of his life?
   
• The parents were negligent in not reporting this to the authorities. Yes, I agree. But being familiar with Child Protective Services (or whatever it is called in your locality), I can understand their hesitation to let the state step in. This would take a whole series of blogs (and I'm still collecting some data), but CPS is not always just and fair in their actions. And sometimes, Christian families get hit the hardest. Please don't shoot me and start demanding my evidence for that yet (this is a work in progress!), but it's not hard to imagine Josh in jail, the parents prosecuted, and the kids scattered to foster care by a crusading case worker (and in a late breaking development, a 9-1-1 call has surfaced from a social worker who was allegedly denied access to a Duggar child. Social Services will not comment, but why a visit now?)
   
• What is an appropriate punishment for the Duggars? After over a decade, comments have suggested anything from imprisonment to castration for Josh, prison for the parents, and forced restitution to the victims. There is outrage that they "got away with it" and therefore, there needs to be punishment. Which leads us to the next thought....
   
• This is a theological point, for Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God: does Jesus love Josh Duggar? Is there no grace or forgiveness for the likes of him? Or did he commit an unpardonable sin, for which he will forever be damned to hell? Is there no healing for the girls or are they required to go through the rest of their lives as "victims," as if their forgiveness of their brother and their moving on with their lives is a bad thing?
   
• A lot of people hate the Duggars. But something I noticed is that most people who hate the Duggars, hated the Duggars before this scandal was revealed. Like the Duck Dynasty family, the Duggars have been blasted for their Biblical worldview, their social/political views, and their lifestyle choices.  And I think this is telling: reading the comments, there is almost an "Ah hah! Gotcha!" glee that has nothing to do with child abuse. A dear friend of mine inadvertently made this point when she said that members of the Christian right would not hesitate condemning this if it was somebody we already hated. Yes, that's right. And with this scandal, haters of the Duggars jumped all over it.
  To be fair, some researchers have serious and well-thought out Biblical disagreements with the Duggars' particular brand of Christianity. I respect that. But often, the critiques of the Duggars start with statements like this: "Fundy Christians with lots of kids...that's bad." "Fundy Christians who denounce liberal ideas...that's bad." "Fundy Christians who are  uneducated hicks from Arkansas, no less! That's bad."  Haven't our liberal/progressive friends taught us that referring to "those kind of people" is the worst form of stereotype? Criticizing 19 Kids and Counting for a variety of reasons isn't new, we just need to be honest as we comment.

Let me state again: child abuse is reprehensible. And failing to report abuse is wrong. But there are answers we still don't have and questions that need to be asked. And like any controversial issue, we must often examine our own biases, our own values, and our own world view before trying to work through a very sad, very tragic, and a very explosive situation.


And once again, let me remind those who comment that name calling, foul language, and excessive ad hominem arguments are not allowed. I love smart people who disagree with me, and civility, sound reasoning, passion, and maybe a touch of humor are preferred.

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG (part 1)

It was parody song genius Weird Al Yankovich who said it best:

"All you need to understand is everything you know is wrong."

I've always been one to stand for his beliefs while respecting other opinions. I honestly do not mind if someone challenges my philosophy, because a) the truth has nothing to fear and b) I might just learn something I do not know, thus giving me the opportunity to adjust my beliefs and be the better for it.  Mostly, I could hold to my views because I knew there were like-minded people who also held the same views.

But there is a phenomenon sweeping through American Christianity that has more in common with Weird Al's song than my own stand on the truth. For lack of a better term, it's the "Everything You Know Is Wrong Syndrome." And what is surprising is its source. We as Bible-believing Christians expect our beliefs to be put down by the atheist, the skeptic, or the far-left theological/social liberal, but many of today's contrary voices are coming from within the evangelical culture itself. Otherwise good, knowledgeable, legitimate proponents of conservative Christianity are taking up positions contrary to what is often believed within those circles.

"OH, come on, Timotheous!" you may say. "There have always been various views on, say, the rapture. What makes your view right and all the others wrong?"

That's a very good question.  And if those who want to discuss the rapture, whether it's pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib or even if there is a trib or if everything is post-millennial, want to sit down with their Bibles and notes and discuss it, I'm all for it. Over the years, I have enjoyed, yeah and verily thrived, on such dialogues. In the end, I never changed my esteemed colleagues' views, nor did they change mine. But we both gained a greater understanding and appreciation of the other's position.

But within the "Everything You Know is Wrong Syndrome," the rapture debate goes something like this: "The pre-trib rapture is a late invention of the church and not a single reputable Bible scholar holds to it."  In other words, you may be in one of those churches where you were taught that there was a pre-trib rapture, but...everything you know is wrong!" End of discussion, debate, dialogue, examination, and so on.

Another example is origins. For some time, it was pretty much a given that evangelical Christians believed in the Genesis account of creation as opposed to evolution. Even those who adopted "accommodation" views (gap theory, day-age theory, and so on) were still convinced that it was God, not random chance, that ultimately brought the universe into existence. But lately, the buzz is that reading an actual week-long creation into the first chapter of the Bible is actually inconsistent with what the Bible really says. Genesis 1 and 2 is simply a metaphorical story that really has nothing to do with origins. You may believe that God created the world in six days, but...everything you know is wrong! While we're used to the secular scientific community and media saying that to evangelicals, it's a little disheartening to hear evangelicals saying it to other evangelicals.

Theological issues, moral issues, and even practical issues are all being summarily dismissed under the syndrome. For example, if you are a pastor, you may think that part of your calling is to bring a sermon. But, according to some very good people I admire and respect,...everything you know is wrong! The sermon is irrelevant, outmoded, and dead (open mic Q & A, anyone?).

So why is there this growing shift among church people to revise long held stands? I think in the case of the sermon, it's an honest and sincere attempt to help equip God's people more effectively. I don't think eliminating the sermon is the way to do it, but at least we can agree on the need and the goal. We can discuss the matter at length, but if the attitude is "everything you know is wrong," then the dialogue ceases.

In some instances, particularly with moral issues, the world has been successful with brow-beating Christians with labels such as "ignorant," "narrow-minded," and even "bigoted."  So who really wants to be stuck with those labels? I want my worldly friends to say, "Yeah, he's a Christian, but he's so open-minded and tolerant."  I want to sit with the cool kids, so I'm going to adopt their point-of-view, even if it means cutting down my fellow believers.

There are other reasons for the "Everything You Know is Wrong Syndrome."  Sadly, some Christians are lazy and uninformed (yeah, that's harsh) and so they don't know enough about their own belief systems to take a stand.  I think other evangelicals are just tired of fighting. I think in this case, the critics are right: we've sometimes fought the wrong battles in the wrong way. In our quest to hate the sin and love the sinner, we've ended up being against everything and not figuring out just what it means to love.. We've come up with pat answers to hard questions and left some hurt people in our wake. And when those who struggle with sin, wrestle with doubt, or suffer with issues leave the church, we react in surprise.  So in our quest to not hurt anybody or not offend anybody or not diminish anybody, we allow ourselves a way out and end up abandoning the views we've long held.

There's got to be another way. I'm going to periodically address some of these issues, not as an "expert," but as a fellow traveler.  But my motivation is a simple one: can someone maintain an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian faith and still engage the issues which so many categorize as "everything you know is wrong?" I'm going to try. And I may end up ticking everyone off. But if I can get people talking again, maybe we can figure some of this out together.

I have a list of items, and I would like to hear your suggestions as well, plus any comments as we go along. But as always, please remember to keep your comments respectful and clean, or else I will exercise the power of the delete button!

AN OPEN LETTER TO CARTOON NETWORK

Dear Cartoon Network:

Many years ago, I heard that one of the perks of basic cable was this channel that ran many of the classic cartoons I grew up with. Sadly, by the time I joined the 21st century and got hooked up, many of the "oldies but goodies" had been replaced with more modern stories and original programming. My visits to Cartoon Network became very scarce. Then came the programming block known as "Adult Swim." My periodic visits to CN slowed to none.

So imagine my surprise--well, not "surprise", more like "oh really?"--when I heard about Black Jesus, described as a hard drinking, weed smoking, obscenity spewing take on the Savior of the world.  I watched the trailer for the series, complete with bleeped parts, and wondered, "did anybody at Cartoon Network think this through?"

I mean, seriously!  After my initial revulsion, and after reading some articles and comments about the show, I understand the premise.  The title character is not intended to be the real Jesus (as if anybody would mistake him for the genuine article). Instead, he is a crazy homeless man who thinks he's Jesus.  I get it.  The plot line of someone thinking he is the Son of God has been done in books, plays, tvs, and movies.  When done well, the device can call attention to the role of religion and identity, the plights of the mentally ill, and society's reactions to those who are different.  But based on the trailer, I feel as though Black Jesus totally misses the opportunity to explore these weightier issues.

I haven't seen every representation of "disturbed man thinks he's Jesus," but in the ones I have seen and remember, the deluded individuals tend to almost out-Jesus Jesus. In other words, they take the meek, quiet, loving stereotype of Jesus to the nth degree, making him almost super meek, super quiet, super loving and gentle, with pious platitudes and all.   Black Jesus, on the other hand, is crude and foul mouthed and violent.  Aside from self-identifying himself as "Jesus," there is nothing in his actions, attitudes, or speech that would identify him as Jesus. Little kids certainly are not going to want to be around him. He is a stereotype, not of the Lord, but of a hardened gang banger or street thug. The opportunity to comment on bigger issues is lost.

Is Black Jesus satire or parody?  I don't know. I have seen some excellent and amusing sketches about Christians, Christianity, and even Jesus. I've also seen a lot that fall flat with Christian audiences. Why? Because the writers of these comedies go for the quick laugh by trying to make fun of a caricature.  They rely on exaggerated claims, half-truths, and prejudices and play these things for chuckles.  It works for audiences who don't really know the subject of the parody, but comes across as cheap and even mean to those who do. You may have the noble goal of lampooning society's attitude toward those who are different.  You may even believe that your interpretation of Jesus sticks it to church hypocrites. But unless you make it very clear that the "Jesus" of this show is a crazy, homeless man, it's just going to fall flat as "cutting edge" social satire or parody or even plain comedy.

Why use Jesus? My sneaking suspicion is that the writers and producers got together and somebody meekly raised his hand and asked, "Excuse me, but won't this offend Christians?" To which the head echelon chuckled and said, "Golly, gosh, yeah it will." I've already seen comments from supporters of the series lauding the show and chiding the faithful for their objections.  Cartoon Network appears to say, "Yeah, we're taking potshots at your Lord and Savior.  You got a problem with that?"

So, Cartoon Network, here's the thing: based on the trailer and the initial comments, I think Black Jesus fails as social commentary, fails as satire, and only succeeds in being deliberately offensive to the Christian community. I don't know your demographics to know how many evangelical, Bible-believing Christians tune in to Adult Swim. I'm sure the born again market won't be watching Black Jesus. I will not be watching and I will not recommend it to my friends. There will be an audience, but I doubt you will win any converts.

Sincerely,

Timotheous

RAMBLING THOUGHTS ON THE HAM / NYE DEBATE

With the upcoming debate between creation scientist Ken Ham and evolution scientist Bill Nye, I thought I'd share a few thoughts and opinions.  Just a couple of disclaimers before we begin: these are working opinions, "thinking through my keyboard" if you will. I'm always asking questions and pointing out things in an effort to get everyone to think, so before either side blasts away at what I say here, just calm down, read carefully, and respond constructively. Second, I am neither a professional scientist, nor a professional theologian, but I admit I've spent more time in the latter field than the former. If you want to parse Hebrew verbs and ancient Semitic literature types at me or you want to pick apart a cell or DNA strand, I'll need a bit of time to look it all up.

The debate has been heavily reported as a contest between "science" and "religion."  I think that is misleading for a couple of reasons.  First of all, this is hardly the first epic debate on this topic.  I had the privilege of attending a college that shared the campus with a prominent creationist organization.  We had a front row seat to see the so-called "creationist movement" in the early 80's, when names like Morris, Gish, and yes, even Ham were engaged in debates with evolutionary scientists. At first, the evolution profs would try to debate the merits of the Scripture, laying out alleged Bible contradictions and seeming moral inconsistencies, while the creationist profs would carefully bring out their arguments from biology and geology to show the inconsistencies of evolution and the strength of the creationist model.  After a short time (and widespread public response), the universities quit sending their scientists. 

Phase two (which I look upon as the golden era of debates) was when the scientists decided to get serious about debating science and not the integrity of the Bible.  These were great evenings of direct clashes between the champions of evolution and the champions of creation. And using the criteria of formal debate, I have to honestly say that sometimes, the evolutionists did a better job presenting their case.  But at some point, the evolutionary scientists decided that creation was only about religion and debating creationists about science was as absurd as an aardvark playing in the NBA.  Since then, the mantra of evolutionary scientists has been "science equals evolution. If it isn't evolution, it isn't science." Case closed.  So the reason the Ham/Nye (Hy? Nyam?) debate is getting so much attention is that we've forgotten the good old days.

The second reason the "science vs religion" moniker is misleading is because it suggests that science and religion are incompatible. They're not incompatible, they simply deal with two different world views.  Trying to line up the two to compare is well nigh impossible (no pun intended).  If Ham sticks to the articulation and examination of verifiable scientific facts and if Nye does the same, we're going to have a good debate.  If Nye trots out a list of Bible difficulties and how Christians are responsible for war, slavery, and the Tea Party movement, it will end, at best, as an exercise in condescension, and, at worst, a total confirmation of what the press is calling it: "science vs religion." If you want a good debate, it has to be "science vs. science" or "religion vs. religion."

While I feel the hype between "science and religion" is misleading, I think there is a more fundamental point that is being overlooked in this great, grand event.  You see, Ken Ham is what is known as a "young earth creationist." But as other Christian pundits have pointed out, there are other models of creationism besides "young earth." Theistic evolution, progressive creationism, day-age, gap--all of these are touted by some pretty knowledgeable people who maintain that evolution and the Bible are not in conflict.  Would not a debate between Bill Nye and a creationist scientist who is actually trying to make peace with evolution be a more interesting discussion? Maybe, but it ignores a pretty big difference.

Aside from the young earth model, most of the other theories of creation tend to focus on how to explain evolution in the context of the Bible.  It's almost as if the scientists who are Christians woke up in a cold sweat exclaiming, "the fact of evolution is so overwhelming, how can we possibly accommodate it?"  Solution: God used evolution to bring the universe into existence. Whew...problem solved! Yes, I'm grossly oversimplifying and I intend no disrespect to those scientists who hold to these models, but all of them, to one degree or another, inject an evolution element into their view.

The problem I see is that committed evolutionists are not as accommodating with creation. I can almost guarantee that the evolution scientist is not sitting up in bed saying, "the Bible is so compelling, how can we fit it into evolution?" To put it even more simply, evolution does not need God.  There is no mechanism of evolution that requires a Divine Being. You can assert that "God used evolution to create the world," but a committed evolutionist will just nod and smile and think, "evolution did just fine on its own." Even the hint of God is rejected, as we saw in the whole "Intelligent Design" debate  a few years ago. A theory as innocuous and watered-down and generic as I.D. was still soundly rejected because it included somebody bigger than you and I.  Evolution works just fine without any intelligent Maker, thank you very much.

Just for the record, I believe in an actual 6 day creation and world-wide flood (I no longer hold the view, however, that a young earth is the dogmatic essential to Christian faith. I may lean toward it, but I don't think it's a hill on which I want to do battle). And I am convinced, that even though evolutionism doesn't need God, so too God doesn't need evolution.  And maybe, in the long run, the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye isn't so much about science, but about competing world views: one in which God is irrelevant in life, the universe, and everything, and one in which He is central and supreme.