The Art of Debate

I enjoy art fairs. I prefer art fairs which have more artistic artists as opposed to art fairs which fall more under the category of craft fairs. I enjoy looking at the the amazing ability and creativity of the painters, photographers, and others; and sometimes I see some pieces wonder "Why would anybody want to buy that?" I really like looking at the jewelry, but almost all of it is out of my price range. . .

I was recently at one of the biggest art fairs in the country, which is actually multiple fairs held simultaneously. We spent the better part of two days looking at the different booths, and saw some amazing artwork. At one booth I found some reasonably priced jewelry and was planning on making a purchase. The vendor had other ideas.

My husband was with me and wearing a shirt which read "Dare to be Lutheran". Apparently upon reading this, the vendor wished to engage in a religious debate. As I perused the gems and inquired of prices, the vendor began this conversation:

"Do you think I could dare to be Lutheran?"

"You could," my husband responded. Meanwhile, his parents had fled the conversation

"What if I dared to be Buddhist?"

"That might be a problem," my husband said, as I wondered what the vendor was driving at.

"What if I dared to be Baptist?"

"That might be okay."

"What if I dared to be Catholic?"

"That might be okay."

I attempted to deflect the conversation by asking about the merchandise. He brushed me off with some non-committal answers and then finally cut to the chase.

He informed us that he was Buddhist and that they were taught things without "all the dogma." He said that as a Buddhist one could believe whatever one wished. At this point it seemed that he was attempting to drag us into a conversation ridiculing us for believing in doctrine, theology, and closed-minded ideas. He then commented, "We teach critical thinking. You ever hear of that?"

At this point, I bit my tongue, put down the necklace at which I was looking and said, "I'll think about it, thank you," as we walked away.

Now, one might say that we did not "Dare to be Lutheran" or make a proper Christian witness. One might say we should have engaged in debate with this man. Maybe. Maybe not. In this case, it seemed he wished to cut us down to size. He was likely not interested in hearing what it meant to be Lutheran. The statements on my bitten tongue regarding critical thinking being a hallmark of Christianity would probably have fallen on closed ears.

If I were brilliantly witty, I may have been able to win him over with a convincing discourse; however, as I tell my students, there is a difference between arguing and debate. Debate is two opposing sides working to present their respective positions. Arguing is two opposing sides talking past each other. One is mental, one is emotional. Love and Logic talks about frontal lobe (the reasoning lobe) thinking vs. brain stem (fight or flight) thinking. It seems to me that to continue the conversation would have been two brain stems trying to reason together--not profitable. Speaking of not profitable, I hope the vendor did not engage all those who came to his booth in the same manner, else he would have lost more sales than just mine.

Planned?

I have always been pro-life; over the years I have refined my position. When I was in junior high, I had a crush on a boy in my class. I knew he was adopted, but it never hit home to me until he casually mentioned that his mother could have aborted him instead of giving him up for adoption. That first solidified my pro-life position.

When I was younger I thought it was not great, but marginally acceptable to abort a baby if the life of the mother was at risk. Then I met some wonderful people who proved that one can work to save the life of both mother and child is the best option, and let God determine the outcome.

Recently I was mortified by my doctor. I took a pregnancy test. She came in, told me that the results were positive, then asked if this was planned. This question caught me off guard, as I wasn't sure what to say. It was not a matter of consciously trying, so I responded that it was not planned. Her next question was, "Do you want to continue?" Um, excuse me? Talk about being caught off- guard! I was hard-pressed to avoid saying, "Well DUH!" Later, I did make a comment about when the Lord choooses to send a gift, it's His timing. I don't remember exactly how I said it, but that was the main point.

I have mentioned this to other women who said they've had similar experiences, although mostly when they were older and considered an "at-risk pregnancy." Another person told me that OB-Gyns in Minnesota are required by law to inform the woman that she has two options--continue or not.

This got me to thinking: How many pregnancies are truly planned? There are those pre- and extra-marital relationships which result in "unwanted" pregnancies; however, there are those instances inside the proper boundaries of marriage where a pregnancy isn't "planned". It happens. The marriage rite addresses procreation of children. Even the child's verse says, "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage." Laura Ingalls Wilder mentions in The First Four Years that Rose was not planned, yet even she knew that it comes with the territory. Yet today's doctors are required to tell women that if a baby is not planned, not obsessively anticipated, it doesn't have to be part of love and marriage.

It flows from our post-modern thinking, I guess. Marriage is being redefined. Sex is separated from marriage. Babies don't have to be an outcome of sex if anyone doesn't want them to be. It makes me quote Lost and Found: You see the kids are wild, we just can't tame them, do we have a right to blame them?
We've done our job well. Remove everything from its intended purpose and what's the result? I think we're seeing the answer.

A Tale of Two Weddings

Let me preface this post by saying that if you were in attendance at either wedding, my goal is not to offend; however, rather I am merely pointing out the BO elements therein.
I attended two weddings on two consecutive Saturdays. There were commonalities between the two. Both weddings were in churches. The bride and groom at both are Lutheran. Each had four clergy members participating in the service. The brothers of the grooms were the best men. There were some things which during each wedding which clearly pointed to the character of the couple getting married.
Here is the deviation: one wedding was Christ-centered. One wedding was human-centered. One preacher spoke of how the focus couldn't be on the wedding couple lest it become too overwhelming for the couple. He turned the focus around to Christ and how the focus was to be on Him throughout not only the wedding, but the marriage as well. One preacher spoke of the wedding couple. Christ made honorable mention as the third leg of "a three-legged stool."
At one wedding we sang the Te Deum, and we sang a hymn asking Christ to bless the couple and their life together. At one wedding we heard the bride's father and uncles sing about "My Girl", a song all about the bride. Did I mention that the father and uncles were dancing and wearing sunglasses?
All in all, the two weddings were completely opposite of each other. Isn't Christ the point?

In Old News. . .

Via the "I Wish I Had Said That Files" comes my take on the over-commented, over-played, over-blogged case of Carrie Prejean. I've come to the conclusion that Perez Hilton has become a byword. (According to my 10th edition of Mirram Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, a byword is "one that personifies a type.") In this case, he--or at least his actions--personifies the type of person who is zealous towards his cause, and will defend anyone who contradicts that for which he stands. There are many people as such. The reason he has become a byword, however, is that he embodies the contradictions of postmodernism. The Life Sherpa said it best:

"[Miss California] promptly got stomped on by the Politically Correct Liberal
Action Tem. The team motto: 'We respect your right to express an
opinion--as long as that opinion is the same as ours.' "

I have a feeling we're going to see more Perez Hilton questions in the future regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, and all those things of which Christians are opposed. I guess we shouldn't expect to win any beauty pagents any time soon.
By the way, anybody know who DID win?

'Cause Your Mamma Don't Dance And Your Daddy Don't Rock-n-Roll

An Ohio boy may be suspended from his Christian school if he takes his girlfriend to her public school prom. The Christian school forbids dancing; therefore, he would be in violation of his school's handbook which says that rock music "is part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people's hearts and minds."
I'll grant you, there's something to be said for some of the rock music which is out there. If one can actually understand the lyrics, there are some songs which are not edifying. On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians who imbibed in rock when they were young, and have grown up to be responsible members of society and the church. I admit--I still "rock out" to Queen. I don't necessarily hold to their life philosophies, but that doesn't stop me from the clap-clap-stomp sequence at a baseball game.
As for the prom--sure there will be rock music and other temptations. Drinking and driving, renting a hotel room after prom with the girlfriend. These are problems associated with proms across the country. Is it because the kids listen to rock-n-roll that they are tempted to drink, even though they are under 21? Is it because of a bass guitar and a drumbeat which tempts a couple to have post-prom sex? I venture to say that is not the case. It may be that there are lyrics which encourage behavior; however, the decision is the student's decision, and the upbringing is what guides the behavior. Sure, even good Christian kids make mistakes. Whatever happened to training a child in the way he should go? Christian adults need to give the children the tools they need to do the right thing rather than shelter them from the world "out there".
Another aspect of this story does bug me. What sort of witness is this school making? They have the American right to believe, teach, and confess what they want. On the other hand, how does it look when they are threatening to suspend or expel a student for doing what high schoolers do? Maybe they should be commended for sticking to their beliefs. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the freedom of the gospel.

Call Day

Call day at the seminary. The angst is over, but then again it is just beginning. I remember call day 10 years ago and when the congregation location was read, I thought, "Where's that?" Ten calls days have now passed. Graduates from St. Louis and Ft. Wayne have been sent across the country and around the world. Now a new group have been assigned, they are looking toward graduation, ordination, installation--and then, the immense task before them. There's only one thing wrong with the church today: It's full of sinners. As a wise pastor perpetually repeated, "They are sheep." I think of what these men may face in the parish. Maybe the angst hasn't subsided quite yet, or maybe it has morphed into apprehension.
Theories are fairly easy to handle. It's that whole "putting in to practice" thing which is a challege. Sitting in the church as the whole congregation boldly sings Easter hymns to raise the roof is quickly replaced with sitting at home watching the news which informs us that 17-year-olds may now buy the "morning after" pill.
The Lord is still Lord of the church, and he knows the men who will be "in the stead and by the command" and serve His people. Regardless.

"I Protest!" He Said Revoltingly

Warning: the statements you are about to read may be considered radical by those who are radical.
We wonder what kind of environment we will leave our children. We will leave them the environment we create for them.
The lesson is simple biology. There is a male and a female, they mate and produce offspring. Humans must be the exception to the rule. There are still male and female humans; it’s just mating and producing offspring aren’t what they used to be. In times past, humans married to make it official: the expectation was that only after this step was procreation acceptable. Sure, there were aberrations from the start—Lamech and his two wives, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters, Judah and his daughter-in-law, and the list goes on.
Yet what of our children? Society has created new rules for marriage. Don’t bother: move in together, try it out for a time. If you have kids, so what? If you plan to make it legal, you can always change your mind. There will be no fault, no blame, just a judge who will help you split the assets equitably.
These new marriage rules even fudge when it comes to male and female. That’s just a trifle. If you want to go male/male, female/female that’s fine. If you want some combination—well, that might be taking it a bit too far. . .for now. . .we have to have morals, after all.
Then there’s the whole mating part. Why wait for marriage since it’s outmoded anyway? Embrace your sexuality. We’re all to sexy for our [insert noun here], so if you got it, flaunt it. Email it. Kiss your date goodnight somewhere other than the lips on the first date, even if you are only a pre-teen who still thinks you can be Miley or Selena in a year or two. Experiment. Please your partner or significant other as necessary. If it feels good, do it, is our mantra. Spouses are so passé.
Don’t forget about the offspring part. We no longer need offspring on “baby come when ready” terms. If the baby comes when the mother or father is not ready, kill it. If the baby cries too much after it comes, shake it to death or drown it (this, ironically is still illegal in most states). If the baby doesn’t come, manufacture it in a test tube, Petri dish, and surrogate womb. It still does take two to tango, so if half of the components are not available the natural way, beg or borrow the necessary components. No thought of the children who have to accept that they may never know their paternal inseminator, maternal donor, or even the reality of their conception. How does one think a child will react to this when he is older? Children have many familial issues growing up to begin with. How might this effect them?
It seems to me that global warming and cooling are not the only environmental issues we need to consider when pondering our children’s future. More importantly, we need to consider the familial environment we want for them. We can’t connect the dots whichever way we desire, for our sake and theirs.