Random notes on being a new grandparent

There's nothing more peaceful than watching a baby sleep.

Babies are cool because of what they do to adults. Hard-nosed people get all giggly, light up, and generally act totally out of character.

I'm very grateful that it is up to the young to have babies. I get worn out when I think about what Jordan and Janelle are going through right now -- worry, sleeplessness, attempts to stay up on baby care information.

I realize once again that babies are tougher than they look. Evan has a lot of strength when he twists around, and when he wants mom and dad to pay attention to him, he has no problem letting them know.

I'm glad some things have changed when it comes to childbirth. When we had our two sons, there was very little choice of birthing methods, rooms, care, and follow-up. Today it's different. Jordan and Janelle had many more options. Their hospital room was so comfortable and cozy, for example.

There are times when Evan reminds me of a little old man. He sleeps, he sucks his cheeks in and out, he seems pretty uninterested in the rest of the world. I swear there were times when Jordan in his first few months reminded me of Winston Churchill.

A baby is good as a dream producer. I think about all the things I want to do with him some day -- fish, make obnoxious sounds with both ends of our bodies, put blocks together carefully and then knock them down in a rush of male testosterone, laugh at cheesy movies, create roads outside in the dirt and play with cars and trucks there , cheer on favorite sports teams, read books to him, listen to music together, play board games.

There is no such thing as too many toys. Now when I walk past the toy stores, I see all sorts of things Evan should have. How to choose? I want the toys that we could play together with -- gotta have blocks, cars and trucks, games, a baseball. I saved some toys our kids used, so I'm planning to bring some of them out when appropriate -- Transformers, Legos, a pirate board game, car racing games, Nerf guns.

I'm looking forward to times when I show up at Jordan and Janelle's house and ask when they answer the door, "Can Evan come out and play?"

Our grandson is here

It seems like every one of my blogs has been serious, dealing with current politics, challenges to Christianity, cultural drift in America. But something amazing happened this week to change my focus -- the birth of my grandson, Evan William Zacharias.

I was teaching a class at Palomar College when my cell phone rang. I had told my students not to have cell phones active during class, but I also told them there was going to be an exception for me that day since I knew my daughter-in-law Janelle had gone into labor a few hours earlier. I stood there talking to my wife Sharon with a stupid grin on my face as I repeated the key statistics for the whole class to hear -- 7 lbs. 9 oz., 19 inches long, a great head of hair. After I hung up, I told them, "I'm a grandpa. His name is Evan, and he and his mom are doing well." I got a round of applause, the first time that's ever happened to me in the classroom.

That was a long morning. I had a hard time concentrating on anything to do with English when there was something far more important waiting for me at Pomerado Hospital. The hours dragged by until we had a chance to go down that afternoon to see our son Jordan, Janelle, and Evan.

Now, keep in mind that I am not a real baby person. I like looking at them, and I am happy for the new mom and dad, but I'm a typical guy -- babies don't seem particularly interesting to me. That all changed when I held Evan for the first time. I told Sharon that I could have spent hours holding him and looking down at his sweet face.

The whole "miracle of life" cliché came to life that day. He was so perfect, the fingernails were tiny but formed so precisely, his ears were delicate, his skin was soft, his eyelashes were beautiful. He was a living work of art. And just as every work of art needs an artist, he had to be formed by God, the ultimate artist who painted such an incredible universe. They say there are no atheists in foxholes; I don't think there can be any atheists holding a baby.

Jordan and Janelle have started down a challenging road as they raise Evan. As grandparents, Sharon and I want to help them. All our friends who have grandchildren tell us of the joys ahead, so we are looking forward to playing our roles. We will spoil him, support his mom and dad, brag about him, play with him, listen to him, pray with him, and do all of the other cool things grandparents get to do. When the diaper is full, when he gets cranky -- that's the time to hand him back to his parents.

Evan reminds me of something important. In the middle of tough economic news, political mismanagement, and global upheavals, he is a reminder that life is worth living. He is a vote for the future. He is a gift from God, letting us know someone far greater than us is in charge. Thank you, Evan, for changing my heart and helping me see beyond the chaos of this world. Sleep peacefully in the arms of your parents--you are loved by us and by God.

Obamacare shifts gears--an about face on a key issue

Remember how we were sold the ObamaCare plan? The reassuring comments about the mandate that really wasn't a tax increase? Well, read this by The Wall Street Journal. Looks like the folks who promised us such good things have switched their tune--can you imagine??


Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax
By Philip Klein

In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax -- even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.

Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven't presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes.

The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed." The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a "tax" or "penalty," because either way, it's "assessed and collected in the same manner" by the Internal Revenue Service.

But this is a characterization that Democrats, and specifically Obama, angrily denounced during the health care debate. Most prominently, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama argued that the mandate was "absolutely not a tax increase," and he dug into his view even after being confronted with a dictionary definition:

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but...
OBAMA: ...what you're saying is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

At the time Obama made that statement, the Senate Finance Committee had just released its own health care bill, which clearly referred to the mandate penalty as an "excise tax." But in later versions, the word "tax" was stripped, because it had become too much of a political liability for Democrats. The final version that Obama signed did not describe the mandate as a tax, and used the Commerce Clause -- not federal taxing power -- as the Constitutional justification for the mandate.

""This is an about face from what is laid out in the law," said Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business, which joined the Florida lawsuit against ObamaCare. "In the text of the healthcare law, the findings for passing an individual mandate specifically rely on the effects of individuals on the national economy and interstate commerce. Nowhere in the findings is the mandate referred to as a tax. The Justice Department is now calling it a tax to try and convince the court not to rule on whether or not Congress exceeded their authority under the Commerce Clause by legislating that all citizens must purchase private health insurance or face a penalty."

Put another way, the administration is now arguing in federal court that Obama signed a massive middle-class tax increase, in violation of his campaign pledge.

A grim look at Europe and ourselves

I recently came across a book review for The New Vichy Syndrome: Why European Intellectuals Surrender to Barbarism. The author, Theodore Dalrymple, looks at some of the problems now facing Europe -- its demographic decline, its aging population, its bureaucratization, its inability to stand up to Muslim immigrants who threaten its political and theological foundation. His conclusion has a lot to do with loss of Christian faith on the continent of Europe.

The author's overall point is that Europeans have succumbed to purposelessness, anxiety, sublimation, and self-doubt. They review European history without enthusiasm -- they discount cultural and historical achievements while playing up failings and catastrophes. He says two world wars caused this along with loss of faith.

Ideas have consequences, and this is true for Europe today. As a Christian, I find it sad but not surprising that Europe's sickness can be traced to the continent's loss of belief in the Judeo-Christian God. What does the secular world have to offer if God is dead? Nothing important. Instead, the modern idea is to go for the gusto now because this is all you get. Narcissism rules -- buy it all, have as many extreme experiences as you can, don't take time to think about the emptiness inside you. Of course, consuming and living on the edge can't satisfy for long.

This attitude also produces a different view of children. No longer are they seen as future inheritors of wonderful things or as gifts from God. To Europeans, they are obstructions to the enjoyment of life, a drain on resources. No wonder they are having fewer and fewer children as they desperately focus on themselves.

But, as St. Augustine said, we all have a need for God. Consider all the things that have been elevated to take the place of God in the minds of Europeans -- Marxism, environmentalism, feminism, political correctness, multiculturalism. These have failed, leaving Europeans more dissatisfied than ever.

The sad part about his book is that the author has no solutions. The book review ends with these depressing words: "at least he writes beautiful books, which is something." But is it "something"? I would say no. What good is a beautiful book if it expresses a terrible truth?

Part of the terrible truth is that America is heading down the path of Europe. Greece comes to mind with its economic mess not too far removed from ours. Look at the hedonism here, the refusal to grow up, the sexual promiscuity, the inability to confront Islamic terrorism and call it what it is, the elevation of movie actors and rock singers to God-like status.

Is there a solution? Yes, but it will take a moral, political, and social upheaval to reverse these trends. It has to start with each one of us, renewing our faith and confidently sharing it with others. That's why apologetics has been important to me -- there are good reasons for the Christian faith. I hope you keep reading this blog because I will try to encourage you in your faith. It's not too late for us, and it's not too late for Europe.

Is Christianity singularly responsible for injustice?

Tim Keller's book The Reason for God has a chapter that deals with one more complaint aimed at Christians -- the church is responsible for so much injustice. People question why so many non--Christians live better lives than Christians, why the institutional church supported war, injustice, and violence over the years, and why Christian churches have so many smug, self-righteous, dangerous fanatics. The author looks at all three of these criticisms.

Keller tackles first the problem of character flaws in Christians. He says every good act of wisdom, justice, and beauty is given by God to all humanity, regardless of religious conviction, race, gender, or any other attribute. He does this to make the world a better place. So, non-Christians can live decent lives. Secondly, Christian theology teaches that even Christians are seriously flawed people. Our moral efforts are too feeble and false to ever deserve salvation. It's not surprising to find broken individuals in church.

Growth in character and changes in behavior occur gradually after a person becomes a Christian. We don't come to God after we clean up our lives. So, as a result, "the church will be filled with immature and broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally, spiritually."

Keller then takes on the complaint that historically the church has supported violence. Critics note how Christian nations institutionalized imperialism, violence, and oppression. But, Keller notes, governments which rejected organized religion and belief in God (France in the 18th century, Communist countries in particular) each produced massive violence against its own people without the influence of religion. The author says violence in the 20th century was inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. His conclusion is that there is some violent impulse that is so deep in our hearts that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs are in a particular society.

Keller's third point is in reaction to the complaint that Christians are self-righteous fanatics. But the Christian message is that we are accepted by God by sheer grace, not because of what we do but because of what Christ did for us. Keller says this is profoundly humbling. So, the people who are fanatics and smug "are not so because they are too committed to the gospel but because they're not committed to it enough." He thinks the solution is not to tone down and moderate Christianity, but to understand more fully what it means to be a Christian. Jesus himself criticized religious people, notably the Pharisees. He ripped into their legalism, self-righteousness, bigotry, and love of wealth and power. Self-righteous religion is always marked by insensitivity to issues of social justice because these people feel superior to others. Instead, true faith is marked by profound concern for the underprivileged. The Bible, according to Keller, "teaches us that our treatment of them equals our treatment of God."

Keller looks at one historical stain on Christian history -- the African slave trade. He notes that even though slavery existed around the world in every human culture over the years, it was the Christians who first came to the conclusion that it was wrong. When Europeans set up slavery in the New World, they did so in opposition to papal pleading. Keller brings this up because he says Christianity has a self-correcting apparatus--we get our list of virtues with which we can criticize sins of the church from within the Christian faith itself.

Another example of this is the civil rights movement in the United States. It was not a political or primarily a religious and spiritual movement -- the Christian faith of African-Americans empowered them to insist on justice despite strong opposition to their demands. Martin Luther King, Jr. often invoked God's moral law and Scripture to call white Christians to be more true to their own beliefs and to finally understand what the Bible really teaches.

I think Keller has it right. There's no doubt that the church has done terrible things, but look at the alternative. Many more lives were lost in the 20th century because of secularism, not Christianity. Today the smug, self-righteous people often occupy the highest positions in intellectual, atheistic circles; they think the human race is perfectible and that they have all the answers. Christians, on the other hand, know their own failings and cry out, "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me."

Keller takes on another challenge to Christianity

In the third chapter of Tim Keller's book The Reason for God, the author discusses another complaint leveled at Christianity -- that it is a straitjacket, that it appears to be culturally narrow. Again, Keller does a good job refuting this.

As he has done in previous chapters, the author shows how this objection is self-refuting. If you complain that all truth-claims are power plays, then so is your statement. If you echo Sigmund Freud and say all truth claims about religion and God are just psychological projections to deal with your guilt and insecurity, then the same is true of your statement. Those who complain about truth claims of others are, of course, making truth claims for themselves.

Then there is the complaint that Christianity is socially divisive because it requires particular beliefs. Critics say a liberal democracy like ours does not need common moral beliefs. There should be total openness and inclusivism. But liberal democracy is based on an extensive list of assumptions which are foreign to many other cultures. So even a liberal democracy is based, like any other community, on a shared set of very particular beliefs. Thus, there is no such thing as a totally inclusive community. Every human group holds in common some beliefs that by definition will create boundaries.

Keller says we cannot consider a group exclusive just because it has standards for its members. He poses a far better set of tests to judge whether a community is open and caring: which community has beliefs that lead its members to treat persons of other communities with love and respect? Which communities beliefs lead it to attack and ridicule those who violate its boundaries?

The author takes on the complaint that Christianity is a cultural straitjacket, forcing people from diverse cultures into a single mold. He contrasts this by explaining Christianity has been more adaptive of diverse cultures than secularism and other worldviews. Look at Islam, for example. The center and majority of its population is still in the Middle East. The same is true for Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. On the other hand, Christianity started with Jews in Jerusalem, spread to the Mediterranean world, was received eventually by barbarians of Northern Europe, was taken up by Western Europeans, and eventually ended up in North America. Today most Christians in the world live in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Keller has an interesting statistic -- at the current rate of growth, within the next three decades 30% of the Chinese population will be Christian. How has Christianity managed to infiltrate radically different cultures? It allows freedom of expression and adapts well to the form of every culture. As one historian put it, "No one owns the Christian faith." It is not a Western religion that destroys local cultures.

But doesn't Christianity limit personal growth because it constrains freedom to choose our own beliefs? Keller says this is not true. In many cases, as he puts it, "confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation." He uses as an example playing the piano. It takes years of practice, which is a restriction, a limit on freedom. But this discipline eventually unleashes your ability that would otherwise have gone untapped. He asks a good question: "If we only grow intellectually, vocationally, and physically through judicious constraints -- why would it not also be true for spiritual and moral growth?"

Keller says people often tell him we all have a right to define right and wrong for ourselves. He asks these people, "Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?" They usually answer in the affirmative. He responds by another question -- "Doesn't that mean that you do believe there is some kind of moral reality that is out there that is not defined by us, that must be abided by regardless of what a person feels or thinks?" Of course, he is right. Once again, he has caught people in a self-refuting statement.

He ends the chapter by talking of love. One of the principles of love is the loss of independence in order to gain greater intimacy. Freedom is not the absence of limitations but finding the right ones, those that fit our nature and liberate us. Keller ends the chapter by saying, "The love of Christ constrains. Once you realize how Jesus changed for you and gave himself for you, you aren't afraid of giving up your freedom and therefore finding your freedom in him."

Keller and the question of suffering

Tim Keller's book called The Reason for God has several chapters which address frequent doubts that skeptics, and even those who believe, have about religion. I covered the first objection (there can't be just be one true religion) in a previous blog. I wanted to cover his second chapter here -- how could a good God allow suffering? This is a common complaint among skeptics, but Keller has good points to challenge it.

First, he says the question seems to suggest an enormous faith in the skeptic's own cognitive faculties. Just because we can't see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn't mean there can't be one. The skeptic doesn't have a good answer, and, therefore, he thinks there can't be any. Keller calls this "blind faith of a high order."

The author believes that with time and perspective most of us can see good reasons at least for some of the suffering in this world. Many admit that success in life came only after difficult and painful experiences. So, since we know some tragedy and pain is useful, why couldn't it be possible than that God sees good reasons for all of them?

Keller says that evil and suffering actually may be evidence for God, not against his existence. How is that possible? We say people should not suffer in the world; on what basis does the atheist judge this world to be wrong and unfair and unjust? A nonbeliever in God doesn't have a good basis for being outraged at injustice. If you say this is an unjust world, you are assuming the reality of some standard by which to make your judgment. Notice the atheist does not say that he doesn't like injustice; he says it is wrong. So his standard is beyond his own feelings -- he believes there really is some larger standard for his judgment. Where does this standard come from except from a supernatural agent?

Keller then argues that even though Christianity does not provide a reason for every experience of pain and suffering, it provides deep resources for facing it with courage. For one thing, it is only Christianity that says God came to earth to deliberately put himself on the hook of human suffering. Jesus died a terrible death, separated from God and jeered by the onlookers. He had not only physical pain but also cosmic abandonment. It is Christianity alone among world religions that says God became human and, therefore, knows all the suffering of the human race.

It is Christianity that also provides a great hope. Our suffering is not in vain because of the resurrection of Jesus. The secular view sees no future after death. Eastern religions say we lose our individuality after this life. The biblical view of things, however, is resurrection, a restoration of the life we always wanted.

Many authors over the centuries have struggled with this issue of suffering and the goodness of God. Keller's response is a good one -- he says our view is too limited view to be able to say there is no reason for our suffering, by complaining of injustice we are actually saying there is a standard beyond us, Christianity offers consolation and hope. I'll take a look at some of his other chapters in future blogs.

A sad but accurate commentary on our president

The following is a powerful essay from Dick Morris, former advisor to Bill Clinton. It's entitled "Obama Doesn’t Have a Clue." We have to work hard this fall to deprive President Obama of support in the House and Senate. Then in 2012 we have to find a much better replacement for him and his failed policies. Here it is:



Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.

America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.

The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.

All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.

Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.

And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.
Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.

And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.

America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.

Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.

Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?