deCOMPOSE

So I have this thing about crucifixes. No, I don’t believe they possess magical powers. Wearing one or hanging one over your doorpost is no guarantee of blessing or protection. However, symbolically, the cross is foundational to everything Christians believe. Anyway, that’s the justification for my fascination. So I’ve been tinkering with this side project (if tinkering is the appropriate word) designing crucifixes. I should say non-traditional crucifixes because, as you can see, I have some different ideas. Sure, they’re pretty basic from a carpentry standpoint. I don’t have a router, band saw, or lathe. But maybe if I can sell a couple of these I can start saving. If not, I’ll just fill my office with crucifixes…

Earth and Air

Teal

Tears

Gothic

Heart on Fire

As reported yesterday in the L.A. Times, abstinence-only classes apparently work:

A new study shows for the first time that a sex education class emphasizing abstinence only – ignoring moral implications of sexual activity — can reduce sexual activity by nearly a third in 12- and 13-year-olds compared with students who received no sex education. (emphasis mine)

Detaching the “moral implications of sexual activity” from sex education has been a big priority for secularists. It’s okay to teach abstinence as ONE OPTION, they say. Just don’t try to frame it as morally superior. And DO NOT interject religion! But now that abstinence-only appears it might work, social liberals across the board are scrambling to downplay the results.

Other forms of sex education also worked…

Uh-huh.

The George W. Bush administration poured tens of millions of dollars into federal funding for abstinence-only programs, most of them religious-oriented, with little or no evidence that they worked.

Well I’ll be.

It “should not be interpreted as a signal that abstinence-only education works at all times and under all circumstances.”

Right.

…”no public policy should be based on the results of one study, nor should policymakers selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies.”

Yawn.

Let the two-step begin.

My question: On what grounds other than moral grounds would one abstain from sex? Choosing Coke over Pepsi is a matter of preference. Choosing not to have intercourse is infinitely more important. That is unless we want our kids reducing fornication to the level of a choice of soda.

While the emerging church continues morphing, some things appear unchanging. One is the tendency among post-evangelical, postmodern Christians to embrace, if not esteem, doubt. I have to tell you, I am growing extremely suspicious of this movement.

Anyway, I follow several emerging / postmodern authors’ blogs — not to cause problems, but to watch the scene evolve. Rarely do I comment at the sites. But this week I couldn’t help myself.

The author, in a post about — what else? — the place of doubt in the Christian life, noted the proliferation of books on the subject. O Me of Little Faith (due out in May),  Know Doubt (a Zondervan re-release), The Myth of Certainty, and Faith at the Edge: A Book for Doubters. They also mentioned an online piece entitled Doubters Arise!. Why, oh why are the New Christians so infatuated with doubt? I left this comment:

It’s one thing to be honest about our doubts. It’s completely another to believe religious certainty is NOT possible. Frankly, postmodern christians balk at believing we can be certain of anything, especially as it relates to God. Why? This trend toward doubt seems to have two sources: (1) It is part of a rejection of evangelicalism (an oft-stated motivation for pomo’s), and (2) It is the natural outworking of relativism (which is intrinsic to postmodern thought). If we CAN be certain of anything then there ARE Absolutes. Which is why rejecting Absolutes is so central to relativism. The fact that postmodern christians tinker in these ideas should be a cause for alarm.

The problem with all this, at least for those claiming to be Christians, is that the Bible traffics in Absolutes. Not only does it state that God is one thing and not the other, it tells us we can KNOW these things with a degree of confidence. Which creates problems for proponents of this New Honesty. Can we really be certain about ANYTHING… that is, anything other than our doubts?

The blog author, while commenting throughout the thread, ignored my query. I’m heartbroken, but not surprised.  However, another commenter did rise to the challenge. Here is her rebuttal — which I think reveals a lot about the emergent “apologetic” — followed by my response:

kristen: i think that knowing something with a degree of confidences (or even confidently believing something) is different than believing that we can fully know an absolute truth.

an important distinction is that many doubting christians are not actually questioning the existence of absolute truth. rather, they question our ability to fully understand it. that may seem like semantics, but it isn’t. if one believes absolute truths are out there, but questions things that humans claim as absolutes, then one can still seek truth and Christ.

Mike: kristen, for the most part, I agree with your distinction between a belief in “the existence of absolute truth” and “our ability to fully understand” it. But being pretty familiar with evangelical culture myself, I know very few evangelicals who adamantly claim we can “fully know” anything, especially God. So I tend to see this distinction as a red herring. Asserting that a person can know God – a claim that both Scripture and evangelicals make – is not necessarily a claim to omniscience. Christ doesn’t demand we know everything about Him, only know enough to be confident. But isn’t this “confidence” exactly what postmoderns are skeptical of?

There was no follow-up to my question. But you can get a feel for the angle these folks are taking. ‘Doubting Christians are not actually questioning the existence of absolute truth,’ they say. ‘Rather, they are questioning our ability to fully understand it’. This is typical postmodern apologetic — boil everything down to one’s subjective, limited, culturally-conditioned, experientially-skewed, perspective.

It’s really a self-defeating position because believing that you can’t be certain about anything requires a degree of certainty. I mean, can you be sure that you can’t be sure? If so, then we CAN be sure of something…

As much as I wish the Bible were cut and dried on this subject, it’s not. Scripture’s full of thorny verses, statements that force us into a corner or invoke paradox. Recently, I’ve been contemplating one such verse:

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13 NIV).

For believers, this is a pretty affirming verse. But there’s lots of wiggle room. For instance, is seeking God with all our heart the only prerequisite for finding Him? What about those who “seek” God in non-traditional, even non-biblical, ways? I mean, if a person seeks God through alternative religions, mystical practices, or cultish institutions, can they still find God?

One of my co-workers, a good-natured alcoholic whom I shall call John, approached me recently and said, “I’m going back to church.” I’ve been praying for and witnessing to John for the longest. So you’d think I would be ecstatic, right? Well, not so much. You see, John returned to the Mormon church.

No doubt, this was a HUGE step of faith for John. He’d been raised as a Mormon, fell away from the religion since his youth, and his lifestyle is not exactly congruent with that of a saint (especially a Latter-Day one!). So something serious must have been churning inside him. But knowing what I know about the Mormon church made me ask: Can someone find God in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Though Mormons profess to be a Christian group, its central beliefs veer radically from historic Christianity. Among the offending LDS doctrines is the belief that God (more commonly referred to as Heavenly Father) is an exalted and glorified man, and that he has a physical (albeit immortal) body. Furthermore, it is also taught that qualifying Mormons can become gods, just like the Heavenly Father, in the next life, and produce spirit offspring (presumably to populate another earth.).

Of course, John knows little about these things. He is simply responding, in the way he knows how, to the call of God. Which leads to an important point:

Seeking God implies NOT knowing how or where to seek Him.

If everyone knew exactly how to get to God, there wouldn’t be much mystery to the search. In fact, it would be more of a formula than a quest. So knowing John’s background, him seeking God by attending the Mormon church is completely understandable. Everyone starts seeking God at the place they are most comfortable, through the form they most associate Him with… whether or not that place / method is 100% Grade A Approved Orthodox. Where else would a Hindu or a Buddhist begin seeking God but where they are at?

And according to Jeremiah 29:13, it doesn’t matter WHERE a person starts seeking God, but HOW they start seeking Him. “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”   So if John is serious about this search, he will find God. Even in the Mormon church.

This principle riddles Scripture: God is not a respecter of persons; if anyone, anywhere at any time seeks Him with all their heart, they shall find Him.

As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.” The same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Romans 10:11-13 NIV)

Everyone? Shouldn’t there be some qualifiers to this? It seems far too . . . liberal. Don’t they need to give up drinking, smoking and watching Jersey Shore to be saved? Shouldn’t they attend catechism or receive training in Christianese? And musn’t they leave the ashram, temple, or Church of the Poison Mind?

Pascal suggested that there are only three kinds of people in the world:

Those who have sought God and found Him
Those who are seeking Him and have not yet found Him
Those who neither seek Him nor find Him

Pascal called the first class reasonable and happy – reasonable because they seek and happy because they find. He calls the second class reasonable and unhappy – reasonable because they seek and unhappy because they have not yet found. He calls the third class unreasonable and unhappy – unreasonable because they do not seek and unhappy because they do not find. Peter Kreeft summarizes,

The greatest difference is not between those who have found God and those who have not. This is only a temporary difference, for all in the second class will get into the first; all seekers will find. The greatest difference is between the seekers and the non-seekers, for that is an eternal difference.

If this is true, it means there is hope for John. Of course, as he seeks God, God will guide him to truth and away from error. This is also a promise of Scripture.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth…  (John 16:13 NIV)

The fact that we must be guided into truth implies a process. Which means that, at some point, even devout seekers do not possess the entire truth. In a way, salvation is not so much a matter of KNOWING the truth as being GUIDED into the truth. (Or, is that sanctification?) Anyway, as Pascal suggests, this can be a sticky, painful process.

For John, it appears this process is beginning because, these days, he is irritable, unfulfilled, and “reasonably unhappy.” Seeking God with all your heart is no guarantee of immediate revelation or instant happiness. In fact, confusion and misery may be an indication that one is, indeed, on a genuine spiritual quest.

So can God be found in a false religion? Absolutely. But if one is really in a false religion, the more we seek Him, the more he will guide us in the other direction. And this is not always a comfortable — or cut and dried — process.

While the publishing industry, in most quarters, continues to slump, one genre has maintained remarkable popularity — Young Adult (YA). Why is this? One reason has to be that YA appeals to multiple demographics, like 12 to 112 year-olds. Yes, adults read YA.

In his article, Why Adults Are Reading Young Adults Fiction, Hunter Baker at Evangel blog explores the possible reasons for this:

Why do so many adults like to read young adult fiction?  I think I have the answer.  I think we like to read it because it has limits.  Young adult fiction has be judicious in the amount of sex and violence it contains.  The descriptions can’t be quite as graphic or gratuitous.  That means in order for a story to be successful, it really has to be good.  A story has to have merit instead of relying on titillation of one kind or the other to succeed.

From my vantage point, Baker’s only partly right. There are plenty of good books that contain sex and/or violence. In fact, some of the YA books he mentions (like Twilight and Harry Potter), have their share of violence and sexual tension. And some YA lit appears to be growing increasingly dark, addressing issues like suicide, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse. So while the absence of “graphic or gratuitous” content may bolster the popularity of some YA, I’m not sure that’s the reason adults read it. Heck, if “clean” stories is all they’re looking for, YA is just one of several outlets.

I relate this question to a time in my life when all my reading was “serious.” Books on theology and deep literary tomes. For whatever reason, I decided to take a break from this heavy stuff and read C.S. Lewis’, Chronicles of Narnia. I’m not exaggerating when I say, it changed my life. From there I read A Wrinkle in Time, then The Hobbit. After that, it was on to George MacDonald’s Lilith and Phantastes, and his fairy tales like The Golden Key and The Princess and the Goblin. Along the way, I discovered I did not miss the “adult” books at all.

Baker writes, “…in order for a story to be successful, it really has to be good.” In other words, by parsing out “titillation of one kind or the other,” the author is able to cut to the chase, and focus on story. It makes sense. Kids have short attention spans. Thus, books aimed at Young Adults must be tighter, trimmed, and scrubbed of literary density. Simply put: YA books are easier to read.

This doesn’t mean the stories are without depth — which is one of the common misconceptions of non-YA readers. They assume that young adult lit is less sophisticated, more adolescent. However, Narnia is chock full of theological allusions. In fact, Lewis made the point of distinguishing between books aimed at the “childish” and the “childlike.” There is an assumption by some adults that YA is “childish,” an intellectual downgrade. Scripture, on the other hand, hails “child-likeness”  — wonder, awe, imagination, simplicity, purity — as being almost salvific (Matt. 18:1-6). Maybe this is why Jesus taught in parables. “The Kingdom of God is like…” birds and farmers and prodigal teenagers. He distilled truth to a rudimentary form. In this sense, I wonder that one reason adults read YA fiction is because they are — in the good sense — childlike.

All that to say, adult novels often feel stuffy and pretentious, laden with stylistic devices,  existential angst and nihilism, graphic or gratuitous content. Which could be one of the reasons more adults are reading YA.

Unearthed some of my old artwork. It’s all ink and pencil, and rendered B.C. (which is over 30 years ago!).

Conductor

Heartless

Evil child

Watcher

If you’re an author aiming for the Christian market, it is far easier to write about one character shooting another than cussing them out. Rather a quart of blood than a cup of expletives. Just peruse the Christian fiction section of B&N and you will find your share of serial killers, hit men, assassins, abusers, and wannabe anti-christs plying their trades. But I dare you to find one character who ever says “damn.”

Why is this? Why does it seem Christian publishers are more tolerant of violence than profanity?

Now, by being “tolerant” of violence, I am in no way suggesting that there is a glorification of violence or an excessive amount of it. Indeed, in relation to the general market, violence and gore in Christian fiction is minuscule. Cursing, on the other hand, is non-existent. So while there has been much discussion about violence and profanity in Christian fiction, somehow, somewhere along the way, a concession was made for violence and against profanity.

I have two theories about why, in Christian fiction, violence is more tolerable than cussing.

First, the presence of violence and bloodshed in the Bible allows us to condone the presence of violence and bloodshed in our stories. The typical argument is that the world is a violent place. Christians aren’t immune to death, disaster, and criminal behavior. So why should we scrub our stories of it? Likewise, Scripture tells of wars, dismemberment, torment, and grisly crimes. Of course, the Bible does not go into graphic detail. We are told that David removed Goliath’s head, without a play-by-play of the hewing. Either way, it happened and our minds are left to fill in the gory blanks.

Furthermore, the Christian life is often viewed as a fight. We are described in militaristic terms, as soldiers and warriors; our lives are a real — sometimes viscous — struggle against forces bent on our destruction. The inclusion of violence in our fiction is an expression of our often hellish struggle to follow Christ in a dark, evil, world. So my first guess is that Christian publishers tolerate violence because the Bible contains bloodshed and violence, the Christian life is a battle, and Christian aren’t immune to the evils of our fallen world.

But why is there a more liberal approach to violence than profanity? Why show a hit man stalking his prey, a serial killer fulfilling his sadistic urges, without so much as a single expletive? I’m sure there’s several possibilities, but the one I keep returning to is this:

Contemporary religious fiction is tethered to Fundamentalist roots. Much of the Christian art industry — Christian film / fiction / music — is a reaction against secularism. This posture can be traced back to early Fundamentalism’s withdraw from many American institutions like politics and entertainment. Holiness, for Fundamentalists, came to be defined in terms of “negatives” — no smoking, no drinking, no movies, no makeup, no dancing, etc., etc. Much of the evangelical counter culture was rooted in this cultural separation. Christian art became an alternative to “worldly” fare. As such, it was defined as much by what it didn’t have, as what it did. I think that’s still true today.

In this Fundamentalist “hierarchy of holiness,” some sins are just worse than others. Homosexuality is worse than gluttony. Smoking is worse than envy. Drinking is worse than gossip. And dancing… well, let’s not go there. Consumers of Christian fiction appear to employ this “hierarchy of holiness;” we’ve come to see the presence of profanity in our fiction as worse than the presence of violence. In the same way that we inflate certain sins like homosexuality or smoking, we have inflated certain words. The flip-side, however, is that by cultivating this hierarchy we inevitably “deflate” or “diminish” other evils. Like violence. Either way, we have come to believe that it’s worse to read a single expletive, than to read about murder or abuse. That’s why, for the Christian author, it is much easier to portray a drowning, a strangling, an electrocution, an assassination, or a mafia-style execution, than to simply have a character utter the word “damn.”

I’m just not sure how else to view it.

Anyway, I’m interested in your thoughts. Do you think Christian publishers tolerate violence over profanity, and if so, why?

With the California courts now re-considering the constitutionality of Prop. 8, the rhetoric is, once again, heating up. However, the push for “equal rights for all” is, apparently, alienating a whole new class of people.

From Salvo’s Disney and the Tolerance Two-Step:

There’s an interesting situation developing at the Walt Disney Company. Disney, one of the early pioneers of corporate gay acceptance, conducts mandatory sensitivity training for employees. The goal is full tolerance for and zero discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender (GLBT) employees.

But the tolerance enforcement saga has turned up a new twist: It appears there have been numerous documented incidents of intolerance against ex-gays. And one non-profit advocacy organization is asking Disney to address it. “Ex-gays are forced to remain closeted because they are not protected by diversity policies and are subjected to open disapproval by others in the workplace,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX). (emphasis mine)

The PFOX site elaborates:

Ex-gays and their supporters are subject to an increasingly hostile environment because they live out or support a different view of homosexuality.  They remain closeted because of other’s negative reactions or disapproval.  Ex-gay employees are uncomfortable being open about their sexual orientation with their colleagues because they fear discrimination or unfair treatment in the workplace.

As a result, PFOX requested, Disney “amend its sexual orientation policy and diversity training programs to explicitly include the prohibition of discrimination based on ex-gay status.” Thus far, Disney has not responded.

There are two reasons why Disney is unlikely to respond positively to the PFOX request, and why conceding the charges is problematic for supporters of gay rights.

First, how far do we go in giving special rights to specific classes of people? Gays are protected under the same laws that all Americans have. To harass, threaten, or physically harm ANYONE is against the law.  The moment we start ear-marking groups for special protection, we open the floodgates. Why not give special protection to Americans of various ethnicity, religion, cultural persuasion, career, appearance, or handicap? Once we start having “sensitivity training” against gay discrimination, what’s stopping us from having the same training about discrimination toward Christians, Vegans, dwarfs, the homeless, polygamists, Nazis, Nascar fans, etc., etc.? Bottom line: If gays deserve “protective” status, then so do ex-gays.

Secondly, the concept of “ex-gays” is itself problematic for supporters of gay rights. If sexual orientation is genetically pre-determined, changing one’s “preferences” is futile — which is what many gay right supporters assert about ex-gays. So if supporters of same-sex marriage concede that a person can indeed change their sexual orientation, they undermine their entire position. The reason that Disney will be hard-pressed to uphold PFOX’s request is that, by doing so, they will relinquish one of the supreme tenets of the gay rights agenda: that sexual orientation is fixed.

So once again, the “gay tolerance” mantra takes a hit. Are proponents of same sex marriage really motivated by tolerance for all, or just tolerance for their own?

It is commonly asserted that religion should never come up in public discourse. Tell that to Martin Luther King Jr. Not only was the civil rights leader a Protestant minister, his theology of civil rights was openly driven by Judeo-Christian principles.

Take for instance King’s Letter from a Birmingham jail. This fascinating letter contains 15 direct references to God and numerous quotes from Scripture and mention of biblical figures and notable Christians. Look at this sampling (I’ve highlighted the biblical references and imagery for perusal):

A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law…

…segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness?

If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws…

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks, before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman empire…

Was not Jesus an extremist for love — “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice — “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ — “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist — “Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God.” Was not John Bunyan an extremist — “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.”

…In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill, three men were crucified. We must not forget that all three were crucified for the same crime–the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thusly fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment.

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But they went on with the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands…

I am not here to debate Martin Luther King’s Christianity, as some have. What is without question is that King asserted a distinctly Judeo-Christian worldview, and was vocal about it. Yet nowadays, people have scrubbed Reverend King of the beliefs which so informed his civil rights efforts.

The same people who claim to share Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision, often seem to ignore — if not openly deny — the religious principles which motivated him. They bark about a separation of Church and state, or the intrusion of faith into politics, while hailing King’s efforts. They demand equality for all, while protesting public prayer, Bible reading, and Christianity in the marketplace. If Reverend King were politically active today, he could probably be charged with mixing religion and politics.

Perhaps one of the ways we can honor the vision and sacrifice of Martin Luther King Jr. is to invite the church back into the state, religion back into politics, and God back into the debate about civil rights. Would to God that, as King wrote, “the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; [but] was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.”

I’ve posted some pictures from Chris and Krystal’s wedding over at the Duran Clan website. It was quite the extravaganza! Between the pouring rain, the Christmas traffic, the Mission Inn Festival of Lights, and all the high rollers in attendance, we had ourselves a rip-roaring time. And with 600-plus photos to choose from, there’s lots more where these came from. Hey, these kids make a terrific couple and we pray for God’s richest blessings upon them! Enjoy Chris and Krystal’s Wedding pics…

Why is it that politicians, celebrities and televangelists are always blaming natural disasters on “higher” causes? Several years ago, actress Sharon Stone suggested that the devastating Chinese earthquake was “karma” for their government’s treatment of Tibet. And Katrina was cited either as a sign of global warming or the judgment of God. So, after the devastating Haitian earthquake, it was only a matter of time before someone used it as an opportunity to invoke God.

Enter Pat Robertson on the 700 Club:

“Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil…But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.”

By suggesting that the earthquake was part of  God’s “curse” on Haiti — only days after the devastation — Robertson sets himself up for reams of ridicule. And deservedly so. Of course, the televangelist was using this as an opportunity to encourage relief assistance. And, what also shouldn’t be missed, is that his organization has been involved in significant relief efforts worldwide. But his statements were, nevertheless, all too predictable. And worthy of criticism.

Underneath all this is a question many Christians seem reluctant to face: Does God still use natural disasters as a means of judgment? And, if so, could the Haitian earthquake be one of them?

One cannot read the Bible and not come to the conclusion that God is the God of nature, and can use it to do His bidding. Earthquakes, floods, and famines are clearly at God’s disposal. So the issue is not whether God can and does use natural disasters, but knowing when said catastrophes are direct judgments from God. I mean, is every fire, every volcanic eruption, every typhoon a heavenly rebuke?

Complicating the issue is this — if the Chinese earthquake or Katrina were judgments from God, why were so many Christians affected? In the Old Testament, God spared His people from wrath (the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.). Likewise, many Christian organizations exist in Haiti. Yet they were not unaffected by the earthquake. So why would God judge Haiti and allow so many of His children to be injured, even killed? Were they just collateral damage?

The danger in attributing natural calamities to the judgment of God is not in associating God’s judgment with said calamities, but in claiming to know what specific calamities are or are not part of that judgment. This, I think, is Robertson’s problem. Who gave him a heavenly Bat-phone? How can he possibly know if this was God’s doing or just part of living in a fallen world? The truth is, none of us can perfectly know these things. At the least, events like this should humble us, remind us of our own frailty, and reawaken our need for God. Not force us into judgments and predictions.

But this begs the question: Does God still use natural disasters as a means of judgment? I think there’s three reasons why Christians are reluctant to answer that in the affirmative.

First — We fear that if we concede an event might be part of God’s judgment, we relinquish having to help the victims. The Bible clearly speaks about helping orphans, refugees, the homeless and hurting. But what if their suffering is due, in part, to the judgment of God? And does conceding that judgment let us off the hook? It’s a bit of a conundrum for believers, so we avoid answering in the affirmative.

Second — If we concede that an event might be part of God’s judgment, we fear that bringing assistance would be meddling. This was what prompted Sharon Stone’s “karma comment.” By helping victims of bad karma, we short-circuit their cycle. Frankly, it’s also one of the things that has made American evangelicals so slow to respond to the AIDS crisis. However, Scripture does not put stipulations on when we should show kindness and mercy, and when we should withhold it.

Third — Christians are afraid to concede God’s use of natural disaster because of what it potentially makes God look like. I think many Christians are on a mission to rehabilitate God’s “Old Testament” image. They dislike having to concede divine judgment of any kind. It’s led to a lot of theological hogwash, like those who conclude God is a recovering practitioner of violence. But either God is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8), or He isn’t. As such, we must believe that the “Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25) shall do right.

Any literate, Bible-believing Christian would have to conclude that God can still use natural disasters as a means of judgment. The important thing is where we go with that conclusion once we make it.

This morning, the two hottest trends on Yahoo were #1: American Idol and #2 Haiti. Back to back, those topics seem so incongruous, so diametrically opposed, as to be laughable. One involves the christening of another entertainer, a fresh face in America’s pop cultural pantheon. The other involves death, loss, suffering, and destruction on an unimaginable scale. American Idol and Haiti. Could any two things be so different?

When catastrophes like the Haitian earthquake strike, I always have a hard time posting something non-related. How about you? Blogging about books or music seems stupid. Of course, the world goes on. People go to work, politicians wrangle, athletes prepare for their next game, and Avatar continues to rake in millions of dollars. But in the face of such tragedy, literature, film and television pale to the point of seeming trivial.

Yet American Idol is still #1.

Perhaps we should be thankful for shows like American Idol that help us temporarily forget about the world’s crises. I dunno. The day that the WTC fell, some complained that their soap operas were pre-empted. Hard to believe that people could become so fixated on something as to be oblivious to the real world, calloused to such horrific suffering. Apparently, however, detachment is one downside to our entertainment addiction.

Which could explain why American Idol is still #1.

I suppose this post can be interpreted as a screed against technology, which it isn’t. I mean, the same technology that allows for American Idol, allows us to transmit images and reports from Haiti, and thus bring assistance. No. This isn’t about technology. Or about American Idol. It’s about what they do to us. It’s just me pressing my face against my electronic bubble.