Can you prove it?

Some people want proof that the Christian view corresponds to reality… What type of proof would be valid?

If you mean evidence from laboratory experiments, what science consistently shows is that:

• We have no experimental evidence that something comes from nothing.
• We have no experimental evidence that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis remains unproven).
• We have no experimental evidence that highly complex systems arise spontaneously from simplicity without guidance.
• We have no experimental evidence that sustained order naturally emerges from total chaos without external input.

All known experimental evidence points in the opposite direction.

If you want proof from logic, we can reason that:

• If the human mind is purely the product of blind chance and undirected evolution, then we have no ultimate reason to trust our conclusions as reliable indicators of truth (a point made by thinkers like Alvin Plantinga).
• If there is no meaning or purpose to anything, then debate, opinions, or moral judgments ultimately have no binding significance.
• If we operate only from what the human mind can perceive or reason, then there is no ultimate guarantee that our thoughts correspond to reality (thus the need for divine revelation paired with human investigation).

If you mean proof from history, scholars widely agree that:

• The Bible provides an accurate historical record of events, geography, cultures, languages and archeological data, aligning with other authoritative records. The evidence shows it is deeply rooted in real history, contrary to the claim that it is merely myth.
• Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person.
• He was crucified under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate in the first century.
• His earliest followers were utterly convinced he rose from the dead, providing strong evidence of his claims, and many endured persecution and death because of this belief.
• The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the Bible (his story) have had an unparalleled influence on global history, shaping law, justice, science, philosophy, art, literature, education, healthcare, and more.

Taken seriously, these historical points provide a foundation for the Christian claim that Jesus is God, arguing also for the Bible’s trustworthiness and thus its thesis statement: “In the beginning, God created…”

When applied to questions of ultimate origins, evolutionary theory functions more as a belief system than as observable science. Microevolution (small changes within species) is well-documented, but questions remain about how entirely new kinds of life (macroevolution) arise and how life itself began. Similarly, beliefs such as “matter is eternal” or “the multiverse exists” cannot be proven; they are philosophical extrapolations from a belief system. Many leading atheists admit their position begins with a prior commitment against God. Believing in eternal matter is no less a leap of faith than believing in creation ex nihilo.

On the other hand, design is evident everywhere in the universe. Intelligence gives order, meaning, and purpose—matter alone cannot. At every level, even down to the cell, life is built on information. The genetic code, for instance, is not just biological—it is linguistic. Richard Dawkins, though an atheist, acknowledges that DNA functions like a code: “What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, not warm breath, nor a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions...” At the heart of biblical creation is not merely matter, but the spoken word. “And God said…” introduces a universe built through divine speech—through information, intention, and order.

Interpreting our Experiences

It is interesting to see the conclusions people draw these days from the news or from their own experiences and then, claiming to understand the motives of others, make broad generalizations and theories about society, culture and even history. This may be partially due to the immediate access most people have to the news and how that is shaped by the biases and perspectives of those channels we choose to use to receive that news.

Books are also being written at a furious pace about our personal experiences and how these have shaped our understanding of reality. And, of course, we can't deny the experiences of others because we have not walked in their shoes. We must be gracious and sympathize with the challenges they have faced, acknowledging their reality is not necessarily accepting their reality as mine. But, in the name of compassion, we must let it impact us at least at an emotional level and let it begin to shape our interactions with people who have experienced something similar. Are you struggling with keeping all this together? Are you trying to absorb all these experiences into your thinking and live in a manner that allows harmony and congruency between conflicting ideas and experiences? Really, I'm struggling with this myself.

I was reading a post the other day and comparing it to my current studies in 1st Timothy. You can read the post here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/08/dogma-drives-the-christian-life

But it is a good reminder of several things...

In 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul shows us that his experiences (or testimony) do not provide the framework for understanding the faith. Rather, the faith provides the framework for understanding his own experience. The post-modern (or post-Christian) tendency is to interpret everything in terms of our personal (or our group’s) experiences. But this is folly and leaves us nearly blind to the realities of life and the bigger picture of Who God is and what He is doing. When I see myself first as an American man or first as a member of any group instead of first as an image bearer of God, fallen and yet redeemed by Christ, then I have made my experiences or my community more important than the reality of what God has established and what He has done in Christ. But when I honor who God is and what He has done first, then I find myself in the place He has put me for His purposes and for His glory, not mine. This then allows me to appreciate my suffering as a tool to learn dependence on Him, my work as an opportunity to participate in His redemptive purposes, my relationships as a molding process toward godliness, my physical and material blessings as a gift from His hand to in turn practice generosity with others.

Paul’s experiences do not provide the framework for understanding the faith. The faith provides the framework for understanding his experience.

Paul summarizes this well in his letter to Timothy. Even when Timothy was struggling to deal with false doctrine in the church in Ephesus, establishing godly leadership, programs to care for the needy, to develop focused vision and godly character in a dramatically secular culture, Paul reminded him of his overriding priority to honor God first. First Timothy 3:16 is a hymn to honor Christ’s identity and His work, the centerpiece of the faith, not our own experience.

My identity and faith must be first in Christ, anything else is insufficient for understanding who I am, why I am alive or how to live moment by moment.

Are you interpreting the faith (Christian life and practice) based on your experiences in life, your interactions with the church or individual Christians, your suffering or your disappointments? Or are you interpreting your experiences in light of who God is and what He has done in Christ for a world in desperate need of Him?

Society - 11 years later

A few days ago I found my notes on "A Healthy Society" which was the basis for many of the posts I wrote on this blog in 2010. You might read the original post titled Society part 1. But now, after 11 years, I see a much deeper application of these ideas which addresses the current trends in our society, the dangers of an unhealthy society and the potential for healing in broken societies.

The current challenges are very complex, but at the root it is essentially a breakdown in both the family and the church which has left the government (or the secular, non-familial community) as the primary building block for all of society. We can dig into this more and recognize that the family was the first to be attacked by our society, destroying the role of the father, then the mother and even the role of gender as a defining element of being human. So, for some, this means that the traditional family is only "a relic of an oppressive construct" even as studies show that children with both a mother and father have the highest potential for emotional, social and economic stability. Our deepest human desires center on fathers who are present and engaged at meaningful levels with our mothers and with us. And we know, looking at the spiritual impact of this shift, that our experience with our own fathers is one of the greatest influencers of our view of a heavenly Father. Does my father value me or not and why? This, above everything else, provides me with my identity as a person.

Of course the impact of these realities regarding the family have metastasized into a social and political nightmare that is not just unhealthy but incredibly destructive. In fact, now we are even encouraged to ignore the science which identifies the human distinctions between male and female and applaud those who have challenged and "overcome" these distinctions to become "something new". Those who are unwilling to recognize the "power and beauty of these transformations" are viewed as oppressive and unloving while those who suffer severely from these transformations (against all wisdom) are ignored.

In my original post, I noted that "there is no circle/community in a healthy society which primarily honors SELF. The individual is very important in a healthy society but he or she always exists in a community where God, parents/family and others are honored." The trend that is resulting in the destruction of the family and the church as primary building blocks of society seems to place self at the center, the place of utmost honor. However, it does this in a way which is quite deceptive because it provides no context for the individual apart from political connections. There are no meaningful relationships which give the self identity except those relationships outside the family or the church. This is furthered by new fissures and fractures within the church that serve to promote a new concept of the self outside the identity that God has given us or our shared identity in Christ.

Now, not only is honoring our parents (by honoring their role and responsibility) and honoring God (through the worship and service of the church) minimized, but also the societal and political constructs no longer protect the value of the individual and his or her foundational relationships which provide each one with identity and purpose. This essentially leaves us with no purpose at all except for trying to define ourselves or redefine ourselves and demanding that everyone recognize this self-imposed identity. Self has truly become the center but is now the center of an empty and meaningless universe because there are no meaningful connections.

But, there is always hope! Our first hope is forever in Christ, who is our peace. He is able and willing to address the deep needs of our heart for identity and purpose. He is able to heal the hurt that seems to consume us, even when no one else is willing to identify that hurt. The next step, however, is to restore the role of the family in our own relationships. How am I honoring my own parents, even with their faults, and recognizing the life and value they have given me? This can be very painful, but it is the first step to forgiveness and healing in my own life. How am I taking responsibility as a father for the spiritual and emotional health of my wife and my children? Am I doing this with the understanding that I am under the authority of Christ and must submit to Him in my own heart in order to care for those around me? Am I willing to do what is right and do I have the courage to stand for truth and address with grace the lies of the world in my own life, in my work and all my conversations? It is only when we address these issues that the church will have any hope of restoring its influence for good in our broken society. It can then defend and support the values of the family because the families within the church understand and live out the values that honor God and truly value others. When the family and church take again their proper role, society is transformed and government takes its proper place and influence for the good of every individual. It is at that point that society can again honor others, giving the individual the value that God has given them as made in His image, responsible to care for others and accountable to our Creator and the purpose He has given us.

Jesus' words in Matthew 22:37-39 again take a deeper meaning, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind... Love your neighbor as yourself." These commands free us from the emptiness and slavery of self-definitions and establish meaningful relationships which give us both identity and purpose.

Meditate on it day and night

“Meditate on it day and night” (Psalm 1) - this is a reference to continual thinking, processing and discussion over a lifetime as you dig deeper into the symbolism and ambiguities of Scripture in light of the bigger picture of life. This means that any one part of Scripture, taken as a single entity, can lead us the wrong direction because it is so different from our current perspectives and cultural orientations. We tend to ask the wrong questions and come to the wrong conclusions because we are not thinking in the same direction, have not processed it adequately, want to fit it into our current theories or simply don’t have enough information. There is a compelling need to see the full scope of the Bible and its story of God in relationship with humanity in an intimate and personal way. This Story becomes my story because I see myself in the struggles, the failures, the rebellions of others. This is a very helpful, transformative and hopeful process when it develops in us a profound sense of humility, responsibility and fear of God.

But, this phenomenon of “letting this story become my story” is also happening in the postmodern, post-truth world. This extreme version is called “narratology” and can be a very powerful and sometimes very subversive tool for creating a new thought process in others. It began with Satan in the garden of Eden when he told Adam and Eve a story that they adopted as their own. But, as it was only part of the truth, it led them to disastrously wrong conclusions.

Which stories are you listening to these days? Are there cultural stories being told that are focussed primarily on emotional connections? Are there stories being told which are intended to make you feel guilt or shame? Are there stories that purposefully ignore the issue of original sin or emphasize our differences as the root source of conflict? Are there stories that blame certain groups of people instead of our individual (or humanity’s) rebellion against God? Are there stories which make God in man's image instead of man in God's image? Beware of these stories! These are usually meant to manipulate and always point us in the wrong direction even as they contain elements of truth. These stories lead us away from recognizing and honoring the image of God in every person. They lead us to think we have the answers ourselves apart from our repentance and God’s forgiveness. These stories lead us away from the sufficiency of Christ and into slavery and hatred. They lead us to depend on religious, philosophical, financial, works based or even political solutions to society’s struggles. They lead us to manipulation and fear-based control of others. But in the end, it is me who is deceived.

This brings us back to the original idea, “Meditate on it day and night.” Unless we let God’s Word impact every area of our thinking, asking to “be transformed by the renewing of our mind”, we may be trapped in the same way that Adam and Eve were trapped. Every morning my prayer is, “God, open my eyes to see as you see, to love others as you love me, to reject the lies of a broken world so that I can honor you and value others.” I don’t have all the answers, but I know where they can be found and they are not in the ideas of those who do not know God and have no desire to honor Him. Truth is always rooted first in God’s revelation through His Word and confirmed by the leading of His Spirit at work in my heart. “Your Word is truth.”

If you want to learn a bit more about Jewish Meditation Literature, see the Bible Project's video on this topic at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhmlJBUIoLk

Discrimination and gender identity

Ok, I know this is not in line with my usual topics! But it is an important issue because it is central to human rights, education and especially to viewing others with compassion and love. Everyone bears the Imago Dei whether they realize it or not. So, in that sense, it is very important to talk about.

In the US there is debate in 2021 about new proposed legislation, commonly termed the "Equality Act". You may or may not agree with the premise and I don't dismiss your opinion. But it is also important to think and discuss such things beyond the political or economic implications in order to think more deeply about how such ideas are good (in the deepest sense) and how they contribute to or detract from human flourishing in a global and timeless, universal sense.

I read recently a piece by the Washington Post titled "Dozens of LGBTQ students at Christian colleges sue the U.S. Education Dept., hoping to pressure Equality Act negotiations". You can find it here. This article provides a perspective on a situation where those outside of a biblical worldview might respond with “How can Christians possibly think that discrimination against those in the LGBT community is right or acceptable?” And, speaking from a biblical worldview, I completely agree. But there are at least 2 serious incoherencies that the article is unable to identify.

The first is that the so-called Equality Act ("equality" is another topic for another day) is purported to be the best solution because it would restrict or terminate state funding for any universities which hold to a biblical and historical view of marriage and sexuality. But in fact it is not the best solution. No law will terminate discrimination nor will it give people new values or motivation for caring for others or valuing people for who they are. Laws do not change beliefs, they simply reflect the beliefs of those who vote for them. (They may not even do this well because people may be uninformed or deceived regarding the intent or outcome of the law.) Of course this does not excuse those who have been cruel or uncaring to these students who felt discriminated against in these universities! Very few will nor have excused their unkind words or unhelpful actions. But we have to ask ourselves, “Are there individuals who have been discriminated against because of their views on gender or sexuality at non-Christian universities? Was that discrimination a result of government funding or the written policies on behavior or dress codes at those universities? Would limiting or terminating state funding at state institutions solve these cases of discrimination?” The answers are obvious. So, the only possible and logical conclusion is that financial or legal punishment of a university for its standards of behavior and stated views on marriage and sexuality does not benefit anyone who claims to be discriminated against because of their sexual views.

The second is that the Equality Act creates new victims of those who are trying to be a blessing and support to current victims of a destructive social narrative and furthers the damage to those currently victimized by this destructive narrative. Is it true that a man can be a woman? Is it true that the very nature of my identity can and should be changed by social constructs or by how I feel about myself today? If so, then we are living in a social mirage where nothing is real or as it seems. Is it fair that those most vulnerable in our society, those suffering from gender dysphoria, children and teenagers, those suffering from sexual or emotional abuse resulting from dysfunctional family contexts should be lied to about the value and the nature of being human? Our value does not lie in our sexual orientation, what we do or how we think. Our value lies completely in being made by our Creator who loves us and made us for a purpose. When we attempt to destroy or redefine our identity, the image of God in us, it only results in tragedy, unrealistic expectations of ourselves and others and, eventually, self-loathing. It also promotes a society which does not value human life, does not value the mothers and fathers responsible for creating human life or value the children who are best able to flourish in a home with both a mother and a father who love them most and know them best.

There is another issue that is less important but no less valid. Consider for a moment my options when choosing a university or a coffee shop or an online vender. It might be wise for me to do some investigation to see if their values agree with mine or if they don't. If I plan to spend money, especially several thousand dollars at a university, I would want to know who is benefiting from my investment and the educational philosophy that guides their teachers and course content. If I don't agree with their values or don't want to advance their values with my hard-earned dollars, then I will choose somewhere else to spend my money. There is always another option! Let me be clear that I still am not condoning anyone's unkind or discriminatory actions or attitudes as individuals. But I am always discriminating against certain businesses or organizations because either I refuse to read their material, promote their ideas or buy their products. Is this wrong? Absolutely not. Did these students have a choice about where to go to school? They are free to choose just as they might choose to go to McDonalds or to Chick-fil-A. So I am a bit confused as to why, when they knew the values of their chosen institution, they are not abiding by the agreements they signed to honor those values before they spent their money there. This is similar to nearly every other case of supposed gender identity discrimination when trying to place blame on institutions and not on individuals.

Is it right to deny valid funding or accreditation status for those universities whose values and programs are in line with and serving the needs of thousands of students and American citizens? I don't believe so. All organizations have values and they are entitled to those values when they are not purposefully destructive, promoting hatred or violence against a group of people. When we assume that value statements promote hatred, we are actually doing ourselves a disservice by intentionally or unintentionally interpreting beliefs as aggressive when they simply define boundaries. When I say "You are not my wife" I mean this as a boundary which defines reality, not as an aggression against anyone who is not my wife. If they misinterpret this as hatred, the problem lies with them and not with me. Of course, truth can be communicated in unloving or harsh ways, but truth is always the most loving and helpful for us because it helps us truly understand ourselves and the world around us.

I am currently on the board of an international organization and helped to develop recent additions to their Statement of Values. All board members, staff and volunteers must sign off on this every year, which is a normal procedure to ensure that the values of the organization are understood and will guide beliefs and actions within the organization. I should also mention that this is an organization that serves the educational needs of Christian families in a global context, so everyone involved already has an understanding of these truths. Here are the 2 statements:

• The Bible upholds the value of the individual as well as biological gender, both male and female, as stewards of the image of God. We hold to the biblical and historical definitions of gender as essential to a healthy understanding of our God-given identity (Genesis 1:27).
• The biblical definition of marriage, exclusively between one man and one woman in a committed, lifelong relationship, is the only relationship within which the gift of sexual intimacy is properly expressed and where children are best nurtured and prepared for life (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6, Hebrews 13:4, Ephesians 6:1-4).

If you want a statement from me, I will provide it here. But I warn you that taking it out of context is lying to yourself and lying to others about what I have said. Here it is:

• I am unwilling to sign any document or knowingly support any project or organization that promotes the fallacy that men can be women or women can be men. I will not lie to myself, our society, our children or further complicate the suffering of those with true gender dysphoria by claiming otherwise.

One more thought for us. Relationships can be difficult, irregardless of our values. Christians are called to the 'ministry of reconciliation' as described in II Corinthians 5:17-20. This is not an easy calling but it is essential for me to understand this as it relates both to those within the church and outside of it. Sometimes reconciliation is really hard in my own house between my wife and me because we are so different but have most of the same values. Sometimes reconciliation is really hard with those who have no idea of their value in God's eyes because our values are so different. But working in both these settings and everything in between is a moment by moment task that brings glory to God and a deeper purpose to my life as a follower of Christ. "We love because He first loved us." (I John 4:19)

If you are interested, you can find a good article on other potential impacts of the Equality Act here.

Recognize and evaluate assumptions

 How do I recognize and evaluate my own assumptions?

This is a question which I believe has always been important but is becoming important in a new way now. Having worked in education now for so many years, the importance of critical thinking has continued to receive more attention. However, critical thinking in public conversation seems to be highjacked by a tendency to ignore our own assumptions and to devalue the thinking of others. This is sadly not accomplished by reasoned arguments but by emotional reactions and even attacks on the other's person or character. Unfortunately, this may be partly due to the social media phenomenon which moves us away from personal relationships and accountability where people would value the relationship as much as the content of the conversation.

Now, in order to evaluate my assumptions and the assumptions of others, we must learn to ask good questions. Here is one to begin with. Is critical thinking important? And, if true, is a growing ability to think critically necessary for everyone in a society? I don't want to make this assumption without a way to back it up, but I have found no valid rationale for answering these in the negative. Certainly there are differing values about education and beliefs about what type of education is important and who should be educated. But if a community values education for its members, and not simply a process of indoctrination and behavior modification, then critical thinking is an essential ingredient of that process. The elements of education would be to develop an understanding about how we learn, what is valuable to know or do and why those are valuable for the individual as well as the community. The product would then be a member of that community who understands the values of that community and is able to contribute in meaningful ways to improve and even to lead that community through its internal and external struggles and successes.

If we take a look at a particular example, we can see a deep divide between critical thinking and non-critical thinking in relation to assumptions. This example is taken from the Smithsonian Institution in its recent "guidelines for talking about race". You can read more in the Newsweek article, but I will not post the "guidelines" here. Go to https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333 My comments will deal with the "guidelines" themselves and not the article about the guidelines by Marina Watts. Note that these were later removed from the display.

After reading the content, my first questions should be "What are my assumptions about this information? and How do these assumptions impact how I read and interpret this information?" Only after doing this, can I begin to ask questions such as "What assumptions does this information make? Are these valid assumptions, providing proof of their validity? Why or why not?"

In a brief examination of my assumptions, I must recognize several things. First, I come from a background of European immigrants to the US around 1900 who worked hard to make a living and did not depend on a government or system to supply what they did not earn themselves. I also must recognize that my constant and intense exposure to the Bible has set a standard for my thinking about life which is not common to the majority of those in the US, although a biblical perspective has had a major impact on the structure of American society and government over the last 400 years. I must also recognize that my experiences and education, living extensive periods in 4 countries, an intercultural marriage, work in ministry and education and much more, gives me a different view of life than many of my peers with a European ancestry. I recognize that I am opposed to ideas which set one system of values above another simply because they come from a group that is different than me. I am also opposed to the idea that the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any set of values makes that people group of less or more value. Finally, I am strongly in favor of the idea that when a group holds a particular set of values, those must still be questioned and never assumed to be "right". This is because I believe in a God who provides absolute standards against which all human values can be evaluated, not for the advantage of one group over another but for the blessing and benefit of all.

But now I will also need to evaluate the assumptions of the authors of these "guidelines" and possibly the assumptions of those in the Smithsonian Institute who allowed the publication of these "guidelines". I hope I am not too critical here, so I encourage you to evaluate my perspectives and share yours! We cannot learn and grow in our understanding if we are unwilling to consider other perspectives - especially of those who disagree with us!

Let me first examine the title. It reads "Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States". So, the information which follows is ASSUMED to be authoritative and somewhat complete on the topic. In addition, since it is provided by the Smithsonian Institution, the reader would ASSUME that it is not only authoritative but historically accurate and based on quality testing and peer-review, otherwise it would have no place in an institution of such quality. But we can see from a cursory reading of the information that this is not the case, nor is any proof or reference to academic studies provided for our consideration. 

Actually, the title is quite confusing when we ask ourselves a simple question such as "Is the color of one's skin a major determining factor of their values and culture?" A simple study will show that values are determined by the family background, education, social structure and language of each person, not their skin color. We must also recognize that many values shift over time for both individuals and people groups. Further complicating the issue is the increasing multiculturalism and cross-cultural relationships within our society. If a person has a French father and Indian mother, their values will be different than a peer with a Nigerian father and German mother. Which of these 2 people is white? How has their "whiteness" impacted their values and culture? "Whiteness", if there is such a thing, has no significance here at all.

Another problem with this title is the phrase "in the United States". We would ASSUME that the author knows at least something about people of European ancestry currently living in the United States. But this is not evident in the document. The first clue is that the designation of "white culture" is used in place of a more descriptive and precise term such as "European culture". This would at least provide a distinction between the more individualistic values of western society from the more collectivist values of African, Asian or Middle Eastern societies. But, of course, there are varying degrees of so called "whiteness" in all of these societies and significant differences in values between each of the European countries (many of which do not match these "guidelines").

So, we already have many reasons to doubt the validity of the content. But when we take a look at the content itself, we begin to wonder "How could this serve to significantly describe any group based on color? and How could this provide a foundational context for talking about race?" The only possibility is if these guidelines somehow transcend skin color to describe a group of people (whether caucasian or not) and classify these values in a category called "whiteness". This begins to lose all meaning because it is really not about color at all but something else entirely. Another follow-up question might be "What is the motivation or agenda behind providing such misleading information?" Let me provide just one observation.

In the first category, rugged individualism, it is said that in white culture "individuals [are] assumed to be in control of their environment, 'you get what you deserve'". I would recognize that no one is fully in control of their own environment, even if they think they are. Our skin color has no influence on the actual control of our environment, but this is not really what is being communicated here. So what is the author trying to communicate? I believe the statement has more to do with how one interacts with their environment and the responsibility they might, or might not "own" in order to change their circumstances. If you feel you have no control over your level of education, your job prospects, your relationships, your personal contribution to society, then you are less likely to try to change it, believing that your actions will have no impact on the outcome. If you feel that your actions do have some impact or that the more effort you put into changing your circumstances, the more likely they are to change, then you are more likely to try. We can also examine the statement "you get what you deserve" and try to think of what other options there are to this perspective. Here are a few: "You don't get what you deserve. You get what you don't deserve. You don't get what you don't deserve". None of these statements are always true for any group of people or for any individual. There are statements that could be shown to be more true, such as "Many people get what they earn but few get what they deserve." Is this closer to a "white" assumption, as described by the author? I don't think so - this assumption still has nothing to do with the color of one's skin but rather on their family background and their perception of reality.

But all this begs the question, "What is the purpose of providing such misleading information?" This is much harder to evaluate without knowing the author, their background and their personal values. Without that information, we can easily move to more dangerous and uncertain conclusions. But I believe I am safe in assuming that there is a serious misunderstanding of how multiple cultures and value systems have contributed to American society and how all of us, from every background, have benefited from this blending and exchange of cultural ideas. We learn the most from those who are most different from us. It is not clear to me if the author is judging "white culture" as bad or good and maybe that is not the purpose of these "guidelines". However, I am making the assumption that whatever the author assumes "white culture" to be, its values are ASSUMED to be different than the values that are held by every "non-white culture" - whatever that means!

I might make some further assumptions in the form of questions, and these are a bit more disturbing. Who is the intended audience for these guidelines and why? Is it possible that the intent in these guidelines is to divide and alienate people of one skin color from another? Is it possible that the color of one's skin is so important that there are people who would reject the values others hold simply because they have a different skin color? What is the purpose of promoting any division between groups within a society except to gain political power or material advantage?

What are your assumptions regarding these "guidelines"? How does your background and experience influence those assumptions? Are you willing to evaluate your assumptions as they relate to this information? Why do you believe (or not believe) that this process of critical thinking is important in developing an understanding of our world and how we interact in our society?

Society - Haiti

As I consider the natural disaster in Haiti this month, several things come to mind. Most of the e-mails I have received focus on the desperation of the people without any means of helping or supporting themselves, the terrible loss of life (and miraculous rescues) and the huge response of the global community in sending food and help. There have also been reports of people arriving with nothing in their hands, expecting to help but becoming a burden to others because of their own need for food, water and shelter. Fewer e-mails speak of Haitians waiting quietly and patiently in a long line at a newly opened community water source, or large groups of homeless singing together from dusk to midnight to pass the hours of darkness.

The questions I've been asking are: If I have nothing in the world, what do I really need? And what are the steps to rebuilding a society with millions of people and no means of auto-sufficiency? Haiti has a population where the average person makes less than $3 per day and only 50% can read. To add to the difficulty of their current situation, about 300,000 orphans are now dependent upon what their society can provide until they are able to make their own living.

And the result? It's obvious that it will take between 3 and 6 years to restore what was their GNP, replace all the schools, homes and public buildings, and recreate a healthy and "normal" environment for Haitians in the Port-au-Prince area. But is that enough? I am not in favor of industrialization which creates new "needs" or dependencies, but there are basic societal improvements which lead to real positive development and an atmosphere of peace, security and confidence. Haiti is on record as one of the 2 poorest countries in the world. There are several causes for that but the primary ones are poor (and overpriced) education and a corrupt government that robs the people they are supposed to care for. Public education is mostly done in French, the official language, but 98% of the population speaks Creole every day. Can you imagine an educational career in a different language? The government initiated that travesty because the French had controlled Haiti from 1664 - 1804 and the language of the elite ruling class was French. Over the last 50 years 3 people have primarily controlled the country either as oppressive dictators or as greedy and embezzling presidents.

So one of the primary concerns for the establishment of a productive and peaceful society in Haiti is education. Not an education in French, not an education in modernism and liberalism with its accompanying dependence upon government, but a real and integrated education in Truth and in the God given rights and responsibilities of the individual and the family. With thousands of orphans and many more single parent families, the children and youth of Haiti need to know their individual value, their potential for life and learning, and their responsibility to be the future of their country, people with values and commitments and respect for others. They need to know how to read and write and use the resources of their beautiful country for the good of their community. Most of all they need to know how much their Creator loves them and about His unique purpose for each of them. So with millions of dollars pouring into Haiti, who is going to really do something of lasting value, something that will do more than just provide a few meals and some medicine? The great thing is that people are doing something! Anything, just to keep people alive, is far better than nothing at all but there is a long road ahead for the people of Haiti to have real hope for their future.

The family and society

So let's think about this model a little more. Maybe the family circle is the best one to begin with. This is actually the foundational building block of any society because it is the first set of relationships that any individual has. Those relationships, for good or bad, influence the character and the values of the person during the most impressionable time of their life; and this influence usually continues far into adulthood. That is why the definition of family is of supreme importance in any society. Historically, genetically (and according to the Bible in Gen. 2:24) a family consists of one man, one woman and their pre-adult children. Any society that does not work on this premise is extinct within one generation - talk about a practical definition!!

Now we need to think about the functions of the family. The family is the first and strongest demonstration to a child of what love, commitment and respect might mean. The mother and father demonstrate these values (or their absence) in unique ways to each other and to a child. But if these are not present in the family environment, then the child is unable to function in a healthy manner and may be unstable and insecure for most of their life unless it can be resolved in another significant relationship. The proper functioning of relationships is the key to a healthy society because society is the interaction of people. The struggle for survival, control or anything else without the tempering and ennobling qualities of love, commitment and respect end in fractured relationships and a fractured society.
It is disturbing to me to see the apparent 'commitment' to peace, prosperity, love, religion, education and even generosity in the American society with the plummeting commitment to marriage and family. This is evidence that we are not really concerned about quality relationships, just ideas that also make us feel good about ourselves.

The other primary function of the family is education. The parents teach communication and language use, views on work, play and learning while discovering interests and skills. The parents are also responsible for contracting with the church and/or public education system (government) for taking a role in the educational process. This contract and the continued involvement of the parents is the foundation of the child's lifelong interaction with those larger circles of society. Parents also model and teach values regarding time, money and other resources. These are the most important lessons that a child will ever learn and affects their approach to life and learning in every way. When the parents minimize their responsibilities here, the task is left to other care givers who often have no real interest in the successful development of the child (ie. the TV).
     - It is also important to note that the family is the one aspect of society that joins with others in the formation of churches and governments. Without the family, they do not exist!

The Bible has a lot to say about families, with good and bad examples, but there is only one of the 10 Commandments that addresses family interaction, "Honor your father and mother". The command is not to love but to honor. Sometimes loving is hard. But honor has its place, even when the object of honor is not honorable by any means. Honor is the giving of worth which, by definition, comes from someone of worth. So when children honor their parents, even deplorable ones, they show themselves to be worthy and honorable. Sometimes the honor given is actually received by the parent and begins to work a change on their broken, hard or malicious spirit!

There is obviously much more we could discuss: the changes in family structure forced by the society, the challenges of children forced to emotional, physical or religious slavery by the family, and the list goes on. But I will close with a quote from Albert Einstein: Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom. This is the ideal goal of the family, to create, nurture and inspire the individual to greatness in a setting of intimate relationships and loving devotion. Honor your parents and strive to be honorable yourself and I hope that you find great freedom in the commitment of healthy family relationships!