"They don't need the good news because they don't get the bad news." Nope.

Your kids are not Gollum in this story.

The quote in the title comes from this comment by Steve McCoy. Steve McCoy has been in the spotlight lately for a recent tweet. McCoy wrote "Tell your children they are broken. Deeply broken."

Now, I get what McCoy is trying to emphasize here. We all have a sinful nature from birth. Because it is so fundamental, he wants everyone to know this. He wants them to know it as early as possible because, in his view, anyone who doesn't properly embrace this bad news cannot properly appreciate the good news of the Gospel.  I get it. Most of my experience with Christian communities (beginning in high school) has been with people who agree with his theological point. I happen to agree with his theological point, myself.

But I am dead set against his prescription. (more below the jump break)

Death of a Sinner

[...] a middle-eastern religious fundamentalist extremist [...]

Thoughts on the news about Osama bin Laden from Pastor Ed Eubanks of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church:

I understand the need and importance of the operation against Osama bin Laden, and recognize and even appreciate the significance of his removal from terrorist activity. [...] Surely everyone knew that this-- death by firearm, or bomb, or missile, in the face of military aggression-- was the reasonable and eventual end of this man, whose entire life seemed to be singularly-focused on wreaking fear, grief, and death upon as many of those with whom he disagreed as possible.

But Ed also sees something seriously wrong with how we've responded, including the following:

The United States is not the Promised Land. The Old Testament promises for the nation of God's people do not apply to America. The American military forces are not the army of the Lord. And Christians, our citizenship in the U.S., however important, is secondary to our citizenship in the true Kingdom of God (and no they are not the same!). Consequently, Christians ought not feel free to cry out that the killing of Osama bin Laden is a victory for Christ!

Rejoicing at a degree of justice being fulfilled is one thing. Rejoicing at the death of a man who deserved God's wrath and curse no more than we did is something else entirely. the same David, the man after God's own heart who actually did  live in the Promised Land, the man who prayed for deliverance from his enemies and justice on God's enemies, wept for the deaths of Saul and Absalom.

The real kick in the gut, for me, was his last bullet, which included the following:

How many of the Christians who are celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden ever prayed for his conversion and repentance? If we know ourselves and what we have been redeemed from, we long for the redemption of others. If all we feel for others is contempt and condemnation, perhaps we don't know and recognize the depth and degree of our own redemption.

There have been some strongly held opinions on all sides expressed online about the death of Osama bin Laden. I've seen what nearly looked like battle lines drawn on the Facebook, of all places, over how good Christians should be rejoicing at the death of this wretched man. But as my friend Neal F. put it,

Bin Laden's death (should this prove true) is a somber reminder that we all deserve hell for our sins. "But for the grace of God, there go I." Neither you nor I did anything more than OBL to deserve God's love. Let us not rejoice in a fellow human being experiencing the punishment of hell, but rather let us appreciate the reconciling work of Christ to take away the sin of the world.

I say rejoice at a small taste of God's justice, yes. But rejoice for the death of an image bearer of God? Rejoice at part of the fate I have earned for myself falling on someone who has not received the same grace as I? Rejoice at the power of the gun to change the shape of this broken, poisoned world? Rejoice that the sword has not departed from our house?

No. Osama bin Laden was an evil man, and the world is probably safer without him. But will I revel in another death? No. No I will not. God does not rejoice in the death of the wicked, and neither should we.

Obituary

For those who don't know, my grandmother passed away last Tuesday evening of pancreatic cancer.  The funeral was this past Thursday.  I had the chance to say goodbye over the phone about half an hour before she died. She was surrounded by family members, and true to form, she waited until everyone was with her and safe to pass on; five minutes after the last person arrived she took her last breath. For those interested, here is the obituary.

Martha Patricia Hutcheson was born on October 16, 1919 in Dormont, PA to parents James Parks Hutcheson and Lucy Leota (Denning) Hutcheson. Martha attended schools and was a graduate of Bethel High School in 1937 in Bethel, Pa. She then enrolled in business school and worked in her father's office for five years. As she worked along side her father over these years, she saved up enough money to pursue her passion for flying, and became a true pioneer in women's aviation. In 1943 Martha helped to train pilots for the Army Air Corps for World War II. Following the war, Martha continued to instruct pilots who were training under the G.I.Bill. One of these pupils was Aaron Wise, whom she married in January of 1947. To this union, four children were born. Martha was the quintessential home maker, making each and every holiday, birthday, and occasion into a very special event for all the family to enjoy and remember. The family recalls her Thanksgiving dinners, the stockings at Christmas, and the joy her grandchildren brought her. Also, the many dresses, costumes, and last minute sewing projects that she so skillfully made. Martha enjoyed a strong faith and loved hosting a ladies bible study. After 52 years of marriage, her loving husband Aaron passed away in 1999. Martha is survived by her children, [...] Nine grandchildren, Three Great Grandchildren, and a sister [...].

Creating Families

I've read about the hormone Oxytocin before in If you haven't read it, I heartily recommend the fantastic book Unprotected, by Anonymous, MD. The tag line is "A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student," and it was a real eye opener for me, and provided a lot of things to think about in terms of how the human mind and body work and how we're told they work. One of the most interesting things I learned about is the hormone Oxytocin. 

The book talks about how when you have sex (or breastfeed), your body releases chemicals that make you form an emotional bond with the other person present. There is a new study out involving oxytocin that got more specific about what sort of reactions the hormone produces. From the abstract:

Humans [...] self-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. [...] Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a "tend and defend" response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups.

I have not read the full study, but this really got me thinking about how our bodies are an indispensable part of who we are. They have so much power over our identities that they can make other people into family. Our bodies can do that. Sex is not just an enjoyable activity, it literally changes who the other person is to us at the neuro-psychological level. More than that, it changes who we are at the physical level by making us people who want to take care of those we have these bonds with, and to keep out those we don't. It doesn't make us attack outsiders, but it does make us shun.

To me, this makes the issue of sex and marriage much more serious. Every time you have sex with someone, you are making them into family. When you leave that person (whether because you got divorced, broke up, etc.), your family is destroyed. Every. Time. And to think the average youth starts doing this in their early teens. Over and over again, familial bonds are built and broken. Is it any wonder our culture is filled with people who don't know how to love anymore? That every affection is interpreted as sexual, and sexual affection is interpreted as casual?

My classroom isn't just filled with kids from broken homes. It's filled with kids from dozens of broken homes each. How does someone cope with that kind of trauma, a trauma they might not even be aware of? Students might even seek solace in more pain, making the wound deeper and harder to heal, like drinking vodka in the desert. What hope do we have when the thing that can comfort us, the thing we most want--love and affection--is the thing that is killing us?

He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!¹

A Proper Welcome

I've been thinking about immigration issues lately. In particular, the recent suggested challenge to Arizona's new immigration status enforcement law has me wondering why our attitude toward illegal immigrants is what it is. Certainly, they are breaking the law, and breaking the law should have consequences. But I find it incredible to suggest that the primary motive is due to a "law and order" position, because the same attitude is not applied symmetrically throughout the legal system.

There is no similar outrage that speeders or runners of red lights go un-ticketed. It's not a matter of the relative seriousness of the crimes, either, since traffic violations are much more likely to lead to third-party injuries or death than immigration violations. There is substantial overlap between the most vocal hard-liners on immigration and those willing to disrupt business activities at abortion clinics, despite the fact that abortions are quite legal. And let's not forget that tax evasion is only a big deal when the person doing it is famous and belongs to a political party one dislikes. So although I won't speculate on what the true motives behind the deeply emotional reactions really are, I don't think it's primarily about upholding the current legal code.

A couple of the more specific statements in this regard that I often hear are (1) "They should wait in line like all the hard-working citizens who played by the rules!" and (2) "They'll bring violence, drugs, and prostitution, destroying the American dream!" (Both actually came up in a Ray Stevens music video recently emailed to me. As the video contains a blend of bad jokes, misinformation, and borderline racist visual gags, I will not link.)

There are a couple of recent articles from Reason magazine that should put these claims to rest. The first points out that those "hard-working citizens who played by the rules" either started out privileged or just plain got lucky:

What's the best-case immigration scenario? Five or six years: If you are the spouse or a minor child of a U.S. citizen, you should be able to enter the country and get a green card. Then, after three to five years, you can apply to become a citizen.

Unskilled workers just have to hope they get lucky. That's because only 10,000 green cards are given to these workers each year and "the wait time approaches infinity." Skilled workers may have better chances, but still face strict caps, thousands of dollars in fees, and an 11 to 16 year wait to obtain a green card and gain U.S. citizenship.

The costs and restrictions, combined with the fact that there is no "line" for people to really wait in year after year, are designed so that except for a remarkably small number of lucky ducks, the only people who can find a better life in America are those who already have things really good somewhere else. David Beckham didn't have any trouble immigrating, since the system makes it easy for people to bring their millions of dollars with them. (Take a look at the chart discussed in the article for a more complete picture of the process)

The second article points out that in cities with very high illegal immigration populations, crime is actually lower than in those without them:

Here's the surprise: There were just 18 murders in El Paso last year, in a city of 736,000 people. To compare, Baltimore, with 637,000 residents, had 234 killings. In fact, since the beginning of 2008, there were nearly as many El Pasoans murdered while visiting Juarez (20) than there were murdered in their home town (23).

[...] Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that, in fact, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or to be behind bars than are the native-born. This is true for the nation as a whole, as well as for cities with large immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami, and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border such as San Diego and El Paso.

And just in case you don't see the connection between large immigrant populations and large illegal immigrant populations, sociologist Rubén Rumbaut makes the case explicit: "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the same conclusion: Rates of crime and conviction for undocumented immigrants are far below those for the native born, and that is especially the case for violent crimes, including murder." Economists, criminologists, and sociologists who study immigration, documented and otherwise, all point out the same thing: people willing to leave their families and risk their personal well-being in order to make enough money to provide a better life for their children--which characterizes those coming here illegally as much as those coming legally--are very unlikely to be prone to criminality.

So hopefully this clears up some stereotypes about the people at the center of the immigration debate. Of course there will always be anecdotes to the contrary, and I don't mean to make light of those. But if we're going to pre-judge people we don't know and have no intention of understanding at an individual level, lets at least make the right assumptions on average.

Why is understanding why we think the way we do on this issue so important to me? For one thing, for Christians at least, how we treat foreigners and outsiders--people who obviously don't deserve the perks this country provides--says a lot about how we view ourselves.

Is this "love your neighbor" or "love your enemy"?

For another, the article points out that the attitude we take towards illegal immigrants may actually cause them to be either beneficial or harmful to country:

You don't see "Latinos Need Not Apply" or "No Mexicans" signs posted on public buildings the way you did with the Italians and the Irish, two groups who actually were disproportionately likely to turn to crime. The implication makes sense: An immigrant group's propensity for criminality may be partly determined by how they're received in their new country.

[...] "Most people in Washington really don't understand life on the border," El Paso Mayor John Cook told the Post. "They don't understand our philosophy here that the border joins us together, it doesn't separate us."

Food for thought.

Losing LOST

Word is that tonight is the series finale of LOST. Now, I haven't been watching since season four, but I loved the first couple seasons so much that this still seems like a sad time. Therefore, in honor of the show, I have a few videos reminding all of us why the show was so great. Hit the jump for a tribute.

Daddy Instincts

My wife recently passed along a story about relatives and parenting choices, and I feel it bring up a couple of important topics.

First of all, I think spanking is an appropriate part of disciplining a child. I think the severe backlash against spanking, whether among the Dr. Spock crowd or the APers, is unwarranted. That said, I think corporal punishment should be infrequent, never the first choice of punishment, and never, *ever* out of anger or frustration. I don't trust a lot of people to do this. Nobody's planning to spank my <5 month old daughter right now, but as she gets older, some of my good friends and family will. Let me assure you: no matter how trustworthy I'm sure you are, you do *not* get to spank my daughter. I will have to know and trust your caretaking abilities for a long time before I will entrust you with that authority. For most of you, I just won't. It's nothing personal.

Second of all, if my mother had spanked my daughter after I had already expressed to her that I didn't want her spanked and had already told her about her sore bottom, my visceral reaction would be to slap my own mother. "I slapped your face so that you'd know not to hit my children on their wounds." I hope I would be able to reign in this violent tendency, and I'm confident my mother wouldn't do such a horrible thing, but I guess it's nice to know I have daddy instincts.

Finally, I would like this to be a notice to my parents, my parents-in-law, and really all parents out there: Just because my wife and I parent differently than you does not mean our every action is a judgement on the way you raised / are raising your kids. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all way to parent, and I certainly don't doubt you are doing what you think is best for your child, which is all one can expect anyway. We're just not going to do things that way. If you ask us, we'll tell you why. If you want to discuss parenting choices, we'll discuss. If you want to defend yourself, don't. You're not under attack.

Last Night, I Wrestled With God

Last night I felt good and evil at war in my heart. Not the dramatic kind of good and evil with John Wayne in a white hat and Jack Elam in a black hat. The subtle, soul-wrenching debate of a perfectly reasonable desire running up against an incontrovertible commitment. It reminded me of a few things about the promises I've made as a husband and the scandal of the cross.

The gist of the story is this: I was preparing to do all kinds of good, useful things for the house, mostly cleaning-related. I was also looking forward to some time to sit and relax, since I had been walking or standing most of the day and was rather tired. Around 8 o'clock, just before said cleaning and relaxing was going to occur, my wife pointed out that the baby was tired, and we needed to do her bedtime routine. This part is fine, except that if we do the bedtime routine and she still doesn't fall asleep, the only effective way to get her to sleep (she really needs to sleep more) is for me to put her in the baby bjorn and wear her. Standing up. Until Jessie is ready to go to bed, which is usually around 10:30 or so.

Needless to say, I didn't want to give up the good things I was planning to do so I could stand around with the baby for two hours. I told my wife as much. Ultimately, though, we both knew that Lucy needed the sleep. So we did the bedtime routine, which includes me leading us in prayer. Except I didn't want to pray. I was mad at Jessie (but actually more mad at God). Mad that she would make me do this silly, uncomfortable thing instead of doing to useful and restful things I had planned. I'm not OK with this, I thought. Jessie has no right to ask this of me. It's too much.

I was suddenly reminded of something: "As Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her." What? I'm a loving husband; she's just asking too much. "As Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her." But she just doesn't want to have to deal with the baby for a couple hours. "As Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her." I'm tired. Why should I have to sacrifice that much? "As Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her."

Sacrificing "up to a point" might prove you're tougher than most, but it's not real sacrifice. It's not sacrifice if you can say after a point "That's too much!" True sacrifice means that it's not about your limits anymore. "As Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her." Giving myself for my wife means I don't get to say she's asking too much of me. It's not about me. It's about me doing what she needs while I have breath.

Not to be too mystical, but I think God was speaking to me that night. I think he was reminding me of these important things, which I'd pretty much forgotten.

I apologized to Jessie. We prayed. I was prepared to do what I had to do.

A couple minutes later, Lucy fell asleep without the bjorn.

And For This Milestone Achievement...

... which is to say, my 100th post, let me announce officially before the blogosphere that I am a father.

Lucy Marcia Maynard was born on April 26th at 10:32pm. She was 8 pounds 2.5 ounces and 21.75 inches long. We hardly noticed the thunderstorm outside the midwives' birthing cottage, and I held my wife's hand until they lifted Lucy out and laid her across my wife's chest. I saw a strength in my wife that night I had never seen before, and I can honestly say it was the most emotional experience I have ever felt. I cried at the sight of my daughter's full head of hair.

My wife and baby are asleep within arms reach of me as I type this. I love them both deeply.

Lucy is being baptized this Sunday. If you know me or my wife at all, and you can make it to Christ the King Presbyterian Church in Norman, you should come and see her admission into the covenant family of God. I will be taking vows for her.

This is what life is made of. Now wasn't that a worth while 100th post?

I Know Jesus Christ

So last night I had an extended conversation / intellectual discussion with one of my wife's brothers. By intellectual discussion, I mean mostly that he had a lot he wanted to say to me about what I believe, and did so by posing strategic questions and not being very happy with how I answered them until he finally gave a short speech caricaturing the Christianity he had heard in Christian schools (and saying nothing at all about Christianity as I had described it).

On the plus side, I came to realize some things about myself. When he asked me how I could be so sure of what I believe, I did not say it was because of the logical consistency of the Christian system (I believe it is logically consistent, but so are a lot of things). I said I was sure because I know Jesus Christ. He didn't understand what that meant, which is fair since it's not an easy thing to explain. But I've been thinking about it, and I'd like to try.

"I know Jesus Christ" is not all that different than if I were to say "I know Joel P.", which is the kind of thing people say all the time. What does it mean to say I know someone? Does it mean I have conversed with him on a variety of issues? Does it mean I have driven him to pick up his girlfriend at the airport? Does it mean I have sung karaoke with him the night before his wedding?

I think the statement "I know Joel P." is a claim about someone's story: I know Joel's story. I know things about Joel's past, even before I knew him; similarly, he knows things about mine. I don't know everything about his past, but I know enough to understand him to some extent. Not only that, but I have become a part of Joel's story, and he a part of mine. When certain parts of Joel's story are told now, I will come up. Joel comes up when I tell parts of my own story. Even though I don't see or directly interact with Joel right now, I don't need convinced of who he is. I know Joel P.

It's not so different when I say I know Jesus Christ. I know about his past before I came along. Not only that, but Jesus Christ lives, and his story still continues. I have become a part of His story, and he of mine. I am as confident of who He is as I am of who Joel is. I know Jesus Christ.

I Am Tired

For those who don't know, I'm going to be a father. If I should have called you, I apologize. That was my mistake.

The downside of this is that my wife is feeling ill a lot lately, which means I need to take over a lot of her jobs around the house. Since I am simultaneously working on my graduate degree, I'm pretty drained these days.

I can't tell if I'm excited or not yet. If you know me, you're aware that I don't get that visibly excited about things. The pregnancy is still early, so in a certain sense it doesn't feel real yet. I think I'll be able to wrap my head around it better after we meet with the midwives.

And yes, before you ask, I did say midwives. We're planning to see them in the middle of September, and if all goes as we hope we won't be going to the hospital at all. They have a "birthing cottage" for the delivery, whatever that means. If something goes wrong, the midwives are associated with a doctor at a hospital up in OKC. We are planning to get ultrasounds and other fancy technical stuff when appropriate, and Jessie will have an epidural if necessary. So it's not like we're taking a wagon to Amish country to have the baby.

For right now, these are all just plans and ideas. The reality is that my wife is working very hard to accommodate Bun (what we're calling the baby until we know the gender), and I'm tired. I hope I can keep up with my growing family (spoiler warning!).