Surprising Conclusion

So the last post was about reading "Christian Ethics" and I was just getting into the section on war. The conclusion was that Christians should only participate in "just" wars, which would be wars that their own country did not start and were for primarily defensive purposes only. I can agree with that. But what was surprising to me was the next chapter, on Revolution / Civil Disobedience.

The essence of the chapter is that since governments are God-ordained, we are to submit to them, as long as they are not requiring us to do something that is sinful or against an overriding command of God himself. That is, we are to follow the path of "Refusal", rather than "Revolt", when it comes to disobeying government. These two methods are compared as follows:

Revolt: Revolt against it violently, Fight it, Reject its punishments.
Refusal: Refuse to obey it nonviolently, Flee it, Accept its punishments.

OK, I can accept this much - that nonviolent, nonagressive refusal to commit acts against God's law is better than violent, aggressive pursuit of overturning authorities that have been placed over us. But what really surprised me was the logical conclusion that Geisler then put forth: that the American Revolution was unjust and, as such, should never have been supported by Christians. Instead, they should have submitted to the king and his commands, working within the system to change the laws, rather than revolting against it and overthrowing the king in favor of their own authorities.

Mr. Geisler concludes this section:
"It is understandable that everyone would like to believe that the revolution in his country was just, even if those in other countries are not. But in all honesty, given the biblical criteria listed here, it is not possible to justify the American Revolution either. What then should American Christians do on the Fourth of July? Can they really celebrate American independence from Britain? In response, a distinction should be made. There is a difference between what is born and how it is born. We are certainly glad for every human being born of fornication or even rape, although we certainly do not approve of the way they got here. Likewise, and American Christian can celebrate what was born of the American Revolution (a great free country) without thereby approving of the way it arrived."

My interpretation is this: we can't judge the action (the Revolution) by the result - nor can we judge the result (a fine, free country) by the action. The Revolution may have been unjust, but the resultant place to live, worship, and work is a wonderful thing. Would that it had been born out of magnanimous free gift of the king, but it was not. Therefore we can argue against Revolution, we can (and should) choose not to participate in the next one if it comes along, and we can celebrate all that has been done in the past 225 years, and we can do it all with a smile. We just can't argue that the Revolution itself was justified, no matter how much we would like to.

A review of "Christian Ethics"

I have been reading "Christian Ethics", by Norman Geisler, to try and understand the varied Christian viewpoints to various ethical topics. The first point is essentially an outline of various ethical systems. For example, some systems say there are no rules, except the rule that there are no rules. Another system, a Christian system, says that there is one absolute rule that we must follow always, that of "love". This then translates into a Christian ethic that says never to do something which would harm another, because that certainly is not loving. I'm not going to go into the whole detail here, because that's not the point of this post. If you want to read the book, I'll let you borrow it.



The point here is to list at least one way I think this could be improved. Let me first off say that I appreciate this book. It provides various viewpoints, Christian and non-Christian, on essential ethical topics. Those include abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, war, etc. The explanations of the various arguments for each position are clear and concise, well-referenced, and generally making a fair representation of the point. My critique of Geisler's arguments is that though in the first part of the book he has laid out a clear explanation of graded absolutism, that there are hierarchies of God's commands that we should follow and that not following a lower command does not incur wrath, he then essentially drops this kind of logic when discussing the various issues.


What I had hoped to see was an explanation of the graded absolutism, actually applied to the subject in question. For example, in reading about war, there are essentially 3 different views - 2 extreme views and 1 middle view. One extreme would be that we obey the government always - even into wars that are unjust - thus obeying God's commands to obey the governments that are in authority over us. The other extreme would be that we do not participate in wars, because wars involve the killing, and God has commanded not to kill. So which one wins? I would expect something like the following:

"Graded absolutism would say that there are hierarchies of obeying God's laws. Obeying the higher law is what is required. Obeying the lower law is not ignored, simply not punished. However, not following the higher law would be punished, for God has set that hierarchy in place."

Unfortunately, this clear distinction has not been made. I think he may get to a similar answer, but the clarity of explaining it within the position of graded absolutism doesn't appear. I will still finish this book, and use the arguments within it, but may have to make some additional notes for myself so that when I discuss these things with others I can pull out a little notebook or stack of 3x5 cards and have my information at the ready.

Things I Can't Get Enough Of

Slowly following on the heels of the last post where I complained about things I'm tired of, tonight I'll let you in on a few secrets - some things I'm looking forward to.

1. Riding my bicycle more. In fact, I'm going to try riding to work next week on Friday - Bike to Work Day!

2. Reading more.

3. Writing more. Blogging, short stories, journaling, etc.

4. Playing games in the backyard with the kiddos.

5. Finalizing our adoption and meeting our new daughter.

6. Getting an e-book reader. Not now, not soon, but sometime.

7. Learning more about Christian apologetics and ethics.

8. Becoming more involved in government - helping people get on ballots in Indiana so that we aren't always just stuck with "2" options.

9. Triathlons. My goal for this summer is to set 2 PRs.

Things I Am Tired Of

1. Swine flu, H1N1 flu, Avian Flu, SARS, and every other sniffle being labeled as a "pandemic". Get over it, people.

2. Bailouts.

3. "Greening", as if we should be proud of you for it. I'm much more impressed with people who just do it because it's right, not because they'll make a lot more sales through it.

4. The messes on my desk-es.

5. Not having enough life insurance, not having a will, not saving enough.

6. Changing diapers.

7. Being overweight.

8. Feeling obligated to make a full 10 items on this list.

9. Whining.

10. Temptation.

What's your list? Next time - things I can't get enough of!

Typical, Then and Now

Then: 2001 - after 2 years of marriage
Now: 2009 - after 9+ years of marriage and 3 kids


Friday night then: dinner at a decent restaurant, browse the bookstore while we wait for the movie to start, movie, staying up late to watch a show, then maybe a back massage - asleep by 2.

Friday night now: dinner of hot dogs and macaroni & cheese, head to Costco for a patio umbrella, read a couple of stories, play Monopoly and lose 80% of my properties to Paige for a 3-hotel rent on North Carolina Avenue, Mario Kart for a few minutes while everyone else is asleep, in bed by 11:30


Excercise then: running a half-marathon in about 1 hour, 50 minutes; no stops to walk at all

Exercise now: running 3 miles then walking 1, repeat for 13 miles. Feel ashamed because you didn't get enough training in.


Book reading then: about 2 books a week, on top of a full-time job and studying for an actuarial exam

Book reading now: about 1 book every 2 months, on top of a full-time job and 3 kids


Travel then: 3-day short trips to exciting cities like Chicago, St. Louis, or Columbus; 2 bags total.

Travel now: 8-day driving excursions to "family-oriented places" like Branson, Missouri ; 8+ bags, diaper bag, food bag, trash bag, portable high chair, portable crib, portable stroller, portable DVD player, portable insanity.


Church then: Walnut Grove Chapel

Church now: Walnut Grove Chapel - Praise the Lord!

How They Got There

As promised, yesterday's comments are now followed-up by my reaction to the end of the book. I quote from the chapter "Chinese Orphanages Today, 2003" of Kay Johnson's Wanting a Daughter, Needing a Son.

"Clearly on the negative side of the balance sheet at the turn of the millennium is the continuing rise of the reported sex ratio at birth, now amongh the highest in the world. In the national census of 2000, the average reported sex ratio at birth was 117 boys for every 100 girls, up from 111 reported in the 1990 census, with Guangdong and Hainan reaching an astounding 130 and 135 respectively. These soaring rates seem to have been achieved with the increasingly widespread use of ultrasound for prenatal sex selection. [here I started to get worried] The ultrasound machine has become ubiquitous throughout the countryside, thanks in part to the government's efforts to monitor all fertile women for pregnancies several times a year. [talk about your invasion of privacy!] This widespread use of ultrasound may mitigate rates of abandonment.

"My own limited research, as well as the more extensive published work of other researches, indicates that ultrasound is commonly used in the countryside to select the sex of a second pregnancy when the first pregnancy produced a girl. [No, that can't be right. Sex selection? Deciding to abort once the baby is far enough along to determine the sex? Nobody would be that cruel...] While those living in one-son /two-child areas are usually happpy to have a first-born daughter, most people want to ensure that their second and last permitted pregnancy is a son. The availability of ultrasound makes that perfect outcome possible. In some villages rumor has it that nearly every second pregnancy of mothers with a daughter is subjected to ultrasound, with abortion frequently resulting if the fetus is found to be another female. [Here I lost it, crying silently into my hand for about 2 minutes - praying for these lost girls, their mothers and fathers, and their culture that would encourage this kind of behavior.]

"By 2001 some provincial governments were cracking down hard on this practice by levying fines for suspicious voluntary abortions not related to health concerns and denying permission for a second birth after such an abortion. Micromanaging the uteruses of hundreds of millions of women has led the state into a morass of intrusive and costly monitoring and proliferating punishments as women attempt to wrest from the state some modicum of control over their own fertility outcomes."

Reading this, I am again reminded of how different our societies are - one in which Judeo-Christian values of liberty, equality, and justice eventually won over prejudice, hate, and historical precent; the other in which individuals are not valued, only names. I am grateful to be here, and hope that I can find ways to change the situation over there.

What I've been learning about Adoption in China

I've just finished reading "Wanting a Daughter, Needing a Son" by Kay Johnson, about the orphanages, abandonments, and adoptions in China from the early 90s through the early 00s. Granted, it was a compilation of academic studies done at various times, so some of the material was a little dated, but I thought I'd share some of the things I have learned.

1. China's "One Child" policy is not exactly that. In many rural areas, the policy has been relaxed to be "One son or two children", meaning that if the first child is a daughter, the couple will be allowed to try a second time to have another child. The intentions of the rule were originally probably good, in that implementation could have slowed runaway population growth, when resources would not have been able to match them (food, water, etc.). However, implementation caused many undesired side effects.

2. There is no state-supported retirement system. Sons are expected to provide for their parents in the parents' old age. These two things go hand-in-hand. There is no system because sons are supposed to provide, and sons must provide because there is no system. Thus the extreme need for a son from each couple.

3. A daughter, when she marries, becomes fully part of her husband's family and essentially breaks most, if not all, ties to her current family. She is to be part of the support system for her husband's parents. Thus, instead of our Western notion of "Two families coming together", it really is more about "Giving a daughter away". This, too, makes extra daughters (above 1) somewhat useless.

4. Parents feel that a son and a daughter make a family complete. Thus there is a need for a son, and a desire for a daughter. Some families will turn to adoption if their first child is a son and they still want a daughter. Unfortunately, this could end up being punished, as local birth planning officials may want to fine the couple for essentially supporting someone else who broke the rules and had too many children, necessitating an abandonment.

5. The "One son or two children" policy was not always strictly enforced. Even when it was, some parents were willing to sacrifice by paying large sums (up to or more than a year's wages) to keep a higher-order birth child.

6. Adoption is prevalent in China, with a majority of the adoptions covered in the book happening through informal means, perhaps after a strategic abandonment on the steps of a childless couple who could take care of a daughter. Some rules surrounding adoption seemed to be made more in the interests of the state than in the interests of the children. For example adoption was not promoted as a good way to rid the state of persons who might otherwise be their responsibility; instead, adoption rules were very strict so that people who were considering abandoning babies would find less of a "market" for their children, thus adding pressure to limit pregnancies. Too, some of the adoptive parents were adopting in violation of the One Son or Two Children policy, to ensure that both genders of child were in the home. They, too, were fined, but because of their desire to see a better outcome for their children, were willing to pay such fines.


I'll have some more tomorrow.