What the eye sees

William Blake, from Visions of the Last Judgement:

The Last Judgment is an Overwhelming of Bad Art & Science. Mental Things are alone Real; what is Calld Corporeal Nobody Knows of its dwelling Place; it is in Fallacy & its Existence an Imposture. Where is the Existence Out of Mind or Thought? Where is it but in the Mind of a Fool? Some People flatter themselves that there will be No Last Judgment, & [P 95] that Bad Art will be adopted & mixed with Good Art, That Error or Experiment will make a Part of Truth, & they Boast that it is its Foundation. These People flatter themselves; I will not Flatter them. Error is Created; Truth is Eternal. Error or Creation will be Burned Up, & then & not till then Truth or Eternity will appear. It is Burnt up the Moment Men cease to behold it. I assert for My self that I do not behold the Outward Creation & that to me it is hindrance & not Action; it is as the Dirt upon my feet, No part of Me. “What,” it will be Questioned, “When the Sun rises, do you not see a round Disk of fire somewhat like a Guinea?” O no no, I see an Innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying “Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty.” I question not my
Corporeal or Vegetative Eye any more than I would Question a Window concerning a Sight: I look thro it & not with it.

 Blake, from Milton:

The Sky is an immortal Tent built by the Sons of Los:
And every Space that a Man views around his dwelling-place,
Standing on his own roof, or in his garden on a mount
Of twenty-five cubits in height, such space is his Universe:
And on its verge the Sun rises & sets, the Clouds bow
To meet the flat Earth & the Sea in such an order'd space:
The Starry heavens reach no further, but here bend and set
On all sides, & the two Poles turn on their valves of gold
And if he move his dwelling-place, his heavens also move
Wher'eer he goes & all his neighbourhood bewail his loss
Such are the Spaces called Earth & such its dimension.
As to that false appearance which appears to the reasoner
As of a Globe rolling thro' Voidness, it is a delusion of Ulro.
 The Microscope knows not of this nor the Telescope: they alter
The ratio of the Spectator's Organs but leave Objects untouch'd.
For every Space larger than a red Globule of Man's blood,
Is visionary, and is created by the Hammer of Los:
And every Space smaller than a Globule of Man's blood opens
Into Eternity of which this vegetable Earth is but a shadow:
The red Globule is the unwearied Sun by Los created
To measure Time and Space to mortal Men every morning.
Bowlahoola & Allamanda are placed on each side
Of that Pulsation & that Globule, terrible their power.

 I am not exactly sure what Blake means by all this.  I am halfway through Milton, and it is a very challenging work.  What I do know is that Blake sees what I wish I could see.  His vision is immense.  As I read I stand at the edge of an expanse straining my eyes to see what it contains.  Randomly I catch glimpses of a glimmering light.  I must strengthen my inward eye.

Notice

I recant every statement I have ever said before this day. The truth of tomorrow is the truth for me.

On Homosexuality

The "West Wing" watcher series--Volume 2.

In Season 2, Episode 7, entitled "The Portland Trip", President Bartlett is on a trip to, yes, Portland. There are several big political issues on which the White House must make a decision. One of those, a marriage protection bill, has passed both houses and is now on the President's desk. Josh speaks with a Republican Congressman, who happens to be gay, about the issue. He is trying to determine whether or not the President should veto the bill. President Bartlett states at one point that the bill is "gay-bashing." Josh says to the Congressman that the government is trying to tell him who he can love. These are two examples of the misdirection often used in the gay-marriage debate, and any type of "gay-rights" debate for that matter. There are many issues involved in the homosexual debate, and there are many issues not involved in the homosexual debate. Both sides need to be honest enough to distinguish between the two.
The first issue not related to the homosexual debate is the issue of love. In our modern culture, it is almost impossible to talk of love without talking of sex. The two have almost become synonymous. A sexual relationship is going to be part of a loving relationship, but a sexual relationship does not indicate a loving relationship. Most people understand that sex and love don't always walk together. When a persons says that he believes a homosexual relationship is wrong, others incorrectly infer that to mean that love between two homosexual people is wrong. That is unfair and untrue. The Bible clearly says that we should love all men. The Bible also clearly says that sexual relations between two men or two women is wrong. The latter can and should exist without the former.
A related issue is the confusion between the act and the actor. Condemning a homosexual act is far different from condemning a homosexual person. The well-worn phrase, "Hate the sin; love the sinner," is very applicable here. Any person who demonizes any other person for their actions is a hypocrite. We must realize that all sin is wrong. The sin of homosexuality is as wrong in God's eyes as the sin of lying. How many more liars than homosexuals are there? Is condemning a person's lies the same as condemning the liar? There are certain acts that are morally wrong. People condemn these acts all the time. Yet, the people who commit these acts are still people. They are people like every other person. Our worth as a human does not stem from our actions. Whatever worth we have stems from our humanity. Everyone is a sinner, therefore everyone sins. We are not our sins. If God sees us as our sin, then we are hopeless, for sin cannot enter heaven. God sees us a people who sin. The cross separates us from our sin, so that one day we might enter into heaven sinless. A non-Christian mindset is the least philanthropic, for it does not distinguish a man from his actions. There are cruel Christians, but Christianity is not cruel. It treats people with more respect and more dignity than any other religion.
In the episode is another issue not related to the debate. A bill that recognizes heterosexual marriage as the only legal marriage does not automatically "outlaw" homosexual relationships. A marriage is, among other things, a legal entity. One of the responsibilities of government is to define various legal entities. There needs to be specific definitions for a business. A bum with Windex and a squeegee is not considered a business. A lady with a cart full of light bulbs cannot apply for a business license and sincerely expect to receive one. She may have a bright idea. She may have extensive ability. She may have every intention of starting a successful business. None of these are valid enough reasons for giving her a business license. Does that men she cannot sell her light bulbs? Does that mean she is less of a citizen because she cannot get a license? God forbid. There must be guidelines, and government must determine those guidelines, though they must have valid reasons for their decision. The decision regarding a marriage protection amendment is a policy decision, not necessary a moral one. Morals will of course play an enormous role in it, but the end result isn't an attempt to implement a specific morality. A homosexual couple can enter into a communion that, for all practical purposes, is a marriage. However, they will not be able to get the legal privileges of marriage. Some consider that discrimination. It is, in the same sense that it is discrimination to refuse a business license to the light bulb lady.
The homosexual debate contains many complicated issues, non of which can be easily resolved. Neither side is doing any one any good by compounding the complexity with non-related jetsam. The only way to honestly deal with the issue is to take the issues as they are, without distorting or expanding them.

Better than I

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post on capital punishment. I recently read this old essay by C.S. Lewis that says all I wanted to say, only much better than I could have said it. There are many ways to win an argument. One way is to be right, and to effectively deliver your argument. C.S. Lewis does this as well as anyone. Another way is to frame the debate around an unessential and unrelated point. If you can do this, then you don't have to be right about the main point. You can distract from this and confound the issue. The only way opponents of capital punishment, and many other issues for that matter, can argue is by framing the debate around some ancillary point.

Where is choice to be found?

One of my favorite films is a science fiction film called Gattaca. It takes place in the future when mankind has the ability to determine certain traits from a person's genes. Parents can look at a sampling of their eggs/sperm, and determine which ones are most likely to produce a child with specific characteristics. Elias Koteas plays Antonio, a man chosen by such a method. Ethan Hawke plays Vincent, who was conceived "the old fashioned way." Vincent's dream is to go to space with the Gattaca program. He cannot since he is "genetically inferior." He contrives a way in which he can use the genetic material of Jerome, played by Jude Law. Jerome was injured and unable to continue in the Gattaca program. This is a fascinating study of free will, determinism, and the human spirit. It was one of the best sci-fi films of the past decade.
Recently, it seems that this film may not be all that sci-fi. Al Mohler has a blog post discussing studies that seem to show animals, and possibly humans, are biologically predisposed toward a specific sexual orientation. Scientists are actively, intently looking for the alleged H-gene, that gene which predisposes someone toward homosexuality. Mohler has some great insights into this issue. Among other things, he insists that we "stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice.

We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation."

He also notes that homosexuality, in Biblical terms, is no worse than any other sin. All humans are "predisposed" to sin. Should it then be surprising that we find a biological connection?
Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds introduces an extended quote from David Powlison's book, Psychology and Christianity: Four Views. Powlison notes that these findings can strengthen Christianity's teachings.

The facts that “prove” the legitimacy of homosexual orientation – chiefly the experience of ongoing struggle and cases of recidivism among those who attempt to change – equally “prove” the legitimacy of the historic Christian view that homosexuality is a typical sin from which God progressively redeems his children.

But sin is an unsearchable morass of disposition, drift, willful choice, unwitting impulse, obsession, compulsion, seeming happenstance, the devil’s appetite for souls, the world’s shaping influence, and God’s hardening of hard hearts. Of course biological factors are at work: we are embodied sinners and saints. That some people may be more prone to homosexuality is no more significant that that some may be more prone to worry.

Christians need to be careful not to decry these studies too quickly. Seeing that our inclination to sin is more biologically "necessary" than we once thought can only strengthen in our minds the necessity of Grace. This re-emphasizes the fact that we truly cannot save ourselves.
This topic brings to my mind two questions for which I have not the answer.
1. Is homosexuality a matter of love or lust? Is it the search for commitment and intimacy, or is it merely a search for sexual satisfaction? Many people in our society confuse the two. The fact that two people lust for each other does not mean that they truly love each other (I don't know if unredeemed people are capable of true love). If homosexuality is simply a matter of lust, what makes it different than the sexual lust that all people posses? If person cares only for sexual gratification (and nearly all people want sexual gratification) then they might not care where that gratification comes from. We were not made to have sex without a relationship. Do people that have these homosexual cravings create feelings of love to complete the sexual picture? Powlison rightly points out that for many men, homosexuality is a search for satisfaction; for many women, however, lesbianism is a search for intimacy. This is no different than in heterosexual people. Man want sex, and women want security. What is it that makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals?
2. How do can we know that the biology causes the feelings, instead of the feelings causing the biology? We can safely assume that biology and emotions are intricately linked together. Studies have shown that biology can effect emotions, and vice versa. How are we to know which it is? Can we look at a homosexual person and know that his biology is causing his behavior instead of his behavior affecting his biology? Happiness is the best medicine. Laughing is good for you. Depression can cause ulcers. There are many examples of emotions affecting your physiology. Is it possible that those who choose homosexual behavior will see a change in their biology?
Whatever these findings reveal, they cannot reveal anything the Bible has not already taught us. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. We are sinners. We are born with a sin nature. It would be reasonable to discover that this sin nature has a biological equivalent. We are hopelessly sinful. We can do nothing good without God's grace. Glory be to God for His mercy on such a sinner as I.

Living a moral life

Living the Christian life is not a matter of following a specific list of rules. Living the Christian life is not taking the specific path that all Christians must take. Living the Christian life is about making moral choices. It is an individual path. All paths follow the cross and biblical teaching, but my path will not look exactly like yours. Within our path we should develop individual convictions and follow those convictions. No one can make those choices and develop those convictions for anyone else. We will all stand before God based on what we as an individual have done. We all need to make these choices for ourselves.
There are, however, several spheres of influence at our disposal for determining right from wrong. These can help us develop our Biblical convictions. The wise man will take advantage of these influences. The foolish man builds his life upon the sand of his arrogant conceits.
The innermost sphere is that of Biblical authority. Anything that violates clear Biblical teaching is clearly wrong. This is were all morality, all convictions must start.
The next sphere is that of authority. For the child, it is parental authority. Whether or not a child feels the rule is justified, and most often they will not, it is their duty to obey their parents. When a child leaves home, he still is responsible to honor his parents, but their convictions are no longer his convictions. He should seek advice from his parents, but his parents no longer have authority over him. For the grown person, the authority is their political authority. Once again, it is not a matter of our agreement with the laws. There are many laws we do not like. Our appreciation of a law is not the prerequisite for our obedience to the law. We must do what our authority tells us to do.
Please note that these spheres are concentric spheres. We should always look to the innermost sphere first. If an outer sphere conflicts with an inner sphere, we should follow in the inner one. We do what God commands no matter what our parents or the government says. If what government requires is not in conflict with what the Bible says, then we follow the law.
The third sphere is that of expediency. We should do only those things that will benefit us spiritually. Some things may not be wrong in the Biblical sense, but they may not be beneficial to us. I cannot find a clear command in Scripture for avoiding wine in all situations. In most situations, though, it is probably not beneficial to our Christian walk to engage in "social drinking."
The absolute last and widest sphere is that of personal preference. When we have gone beyond every other sphere, we look to that which suits our tastes. We may not find any objection to a type of music in any of the other spheres, but we may find it objectionable to our taste. This sphere is not solely about right and wrong. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it is wrong. It may just mean it is wrong for me. The other spheres are very dogmatic. We can be sure that is wrong to violate Scripture, to dishonor your parents, and to break the law of the land. My tastes, however, are not divinely inspired. If I have no basis in the other spheres, I shouldn't be condemning someone for their tastes.

Where is morality to be found?

Many of the kids in society today have very little sense of right and wrong, at least, a proper sense of right and wrong. Few of these kids know any effective method of determining right from wrong. A great example of this deficiency is the proliferation of pirated music amongst teenagers. Tim Challies notes that this type of theft is prominent even with Christian teenagers. I myself have noted that many teenagers at Christian high schools will not think twice about pirating music and software. Many of those that do have no clue that it is illegal. Even the ones that know it is illegal don't seem to care. Most of the perpetrators I have spoken with try to justify it in someway. The main reason, though, why they do it is that it is easy. The technology is available to them, so they use it. They like their friend's music , so they copy it. Few of them stop to think about the morality of their actions. Much of their morality is based on self-satisfaction. This is a decidedly un-Christian worldview. This is very disconcerting to me.
Tim states:

People who commit music piracy are, at some place in their lives, forsaking a Christian view of the world, a Christian way of seeing life. They are thinking like the world rather than thinking like Christ. Most of them know this, but continually violate their consciences and continually thumb their noses at what they know to be right.

Even in Evangelical circles children are not being taught the proper worldview, and the proper way to implement that worldview into their lives. In most of the cases I have seen, the fault lies squarely on the parents. Either they do not know what their kids are doing, or they know but they do nothing. Whichever the case, the parents are failing in their responsibility. Until the child leaves the nest, their morality must come from the parents. A lack of proper morality in the child is due in great measure to some delinquency of the parents.
My eldest son is only 4 right now, so I don't have many serious problems with him, unless you consider throwing a fit when he isn't allowed to play with a certain toy a serious problem (it would be a problem if he did this when he is 15, like some of the kids at my school). I know that problems will come, and that handling them will not be easy. I also know that, as a parent, my responsibility is to be the discernment my child lacks. I am to give him knowledge about what is right and wrong. Furthermore, I am to help him determine for himself what is right and wrong. Many parents, I fear, do not themselves know how to determine this, much less teach their kids to do this. We are living in an era of a serious morality crisis. Parents need to take careful stock of the worldview they are inculcating in their children, for every parent, whether intentionally or not, passes to their progeny a moral blueprint.