There are a number of versions of the old Indian fable “The Blind Men and the Elephant” that are often used to illustrate that objective truth is unknowable. A sample of this illustration might read something like this,

“The first blind man touched the side of the elephant and exclaimed, ‘how rough, an elephant is like a wall’. The second blind man touches the elephant’s trunk and exclaims, ‘No, an elephant is like a snake!’ The third blind man, sensing the rising tension, calmly offers, ‘I’m sorry, but you’re both wrong, an elephant is clearly like a tree’ after touching the elephant’s massive leg. Now a fourth blind man grabs hold of the tail and shouts, ‘An elephant is like a rope!’ An argument ensues amongst all the blind men. The king, hearing the commotion, looks down from his balcony and shouts, ‘The elephant is very large, you are all simply touching different parts of the animal.’” 

This fable is often used to silence proponents of absolute truth in favor of a more relativistic worldview in which no one is wrong, we are all simply possessors of limited truth. In short, “All roads lead to God.” There is no need to argue, for God will be pleased with any good effort. Let me offer a passage from the Old Testament book of Leviticus that weighs in on this sort of ‘any old effort will do‘ mentality.

“Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.” ~Leviticus 10:1-2 [1] 

The verses above are peculiar, both in their brevity, but also in the very decisive, seemingly harsh reaction from the LORD. Why was God so harsh? The answer, I believe, lies within the realm of historical and literary analysis. Though most of Leviticus falls within the genre of law, this particular passage might better be considered historical narrative or law narrative. A quick recounting of the events leading up to this strange event has Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Aaron’s sons) consecrated to the priesthood. This takes place in Leviticus 8. God then accepts and confirms their sacrificial offering immediately preceding our text in Leviticus 9:24 by miraculously kindling His own fire and consuming the burnt offering. Immediately following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, Moses speaks to Aaron, saying,

“It is what the LORD spoke, saying,

‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.’”

Moses then commands Mishael and Elzaphan, relatives of Nadab and Abihu to come and carry their dead relatives outside the camp. On the heels of this the LORD speaks to Aaron,

“Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you will not die–it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations– and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean, and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them through Moses.” 

These are the events immediately preceding and following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu at the hand of God. One interpretation of these events identifies the sin leading to God’s drastic action as one of intoxication while performing priestly duties or offering sacrifice to God. And there is merit for this. It seems plausible, indeed likely, that God’s response would be one of addressing the sin that was committed. Because God immediately communicates to Aaron that they must not drink wine when entering the tent of meeting, lest they die, it is likely that Nadab and Abihu had been drinking. However, if this were all that went on, the blind men and the elephant would remain completely irrelevant. But God says more than this. He speaks “to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean.” Back in Leviticus 10:1, we read of “strange fire” that had been offered, “which He had not commanded them.”

A governing interpretive principle to keep in mind whenever reading from sections of Old Testament law is that they are generally framed within the boundaries of a Covenant, meaning 1) a relationship with God, 2) initiated by God, 3) whereby God promises certain things and stipulations are placed upon the human side of the equation. Law can be thought of as these stipulations. In the case of Nadab and Abihu, the Covenant in view is the Mosaic Covenant, offered in Exodus 19:5-6 and accepted in 24:7-8 (Nadab and Abihu were present 24:1). God has promised Israel that they would be His people, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. To be holy was to be separated unto God. This meant many things, not least among them was that the Israelites were not to incorporate pagan religious practices. This is known as syncretism, or a mixing of religious belief systems. And this is at the heart of the sin committed by Nadab and Abihu. The “strange fire” offered by Nadab and Abihu was not strange in the sense that it was something other than actual fire, but that it was unauthorized. In other words, the fire was self-initiated, not God-initiated or God-prescribed. This was to mix the holy (God-prescribed) with the profane (human initiative and effort characteristic of pagan religions). The LORD had spoken and spoken very clearly. At stake was the
issue of atonement for sins and maintaining a right relationship with God. In Leviticus 9:7, Moses spoke to Aaron the words commanded by God,

“Come near to the altar and offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, that you may make atonement for yourself and for the people; then make the offering for the people, that you may make atonement for them, just as the Lord has commanded.” (emphasis mine)

God is not a beast without speech like an elephant which cannot tell the blind men groping it what it is truly like or what it desires. Man cannot grope after God. On this point, the parable is at least partially right. We are all like blind men, relying on God to tell us what He wants. And God had made Himself perfectly clear in terms of the offer of atonement He had extended to Israel for their sins. God is God, the creator of heaven and earth, the creator of man and of speech. He is therefore entitled to set the terms of His Covenant with His people. By choosing to offer “strange fire” Nadab and Abihu were in essence trying to approach God on their terms. To let this go would have been inviting of all sorts of pagan religious practices in the worship of God, and ultimately of replacing the worship of God with the worship of many false gods. This was an inaugural event and Nadab and Abihu were in positions of authority. Positions that would have been mimicked. This is why the reaction on the part of God was decisive and even harsh to our modern sensibilities. What sort of contemporary Christian application can be drawn from a book of law framed within the Mosaic Covenant? The first would be a caution to the many movements within the broad umbrella of Christendom that contend that salvation is by grace plus works. This passage from the book of Leviticus should serve as a stark reminder that the offer of salvation and reconciliation with God is wholly dependent upon the grace of God and not on anything of human initiative or creativity.Secondly, yet related, is that Christians today live under a New Covenant. Whereas the Israelites had a different means of atonement based on the Mosaic Covenant, we too are given in crystal clear fashion the means of our atonement. The means is stated plainly,

“that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” (Romans 10:9-10) and “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;” (Romans 3:23-25) 

Recalling the blind men and the elephant, stories such as this have enjoyed increased circulation in a world ever more intolerant of the notion of the absolute truth. As cute as such a parable is, it really is not all that clever, for it actually argues for our point of view. It attempts to communicate that absolute truth is unknowable because we all have the blinders of personal bias and personal religious experience securely fastened, but it unwittingly introduces a character into the narrative that does know the truth. The king is introduced into the narrative to clear up all the confusion.We contend that the King is God Himself and this changes everything. He has cleared things up. We are not left groping at elephants or anything else. He has revealed Himself to us in nature, His Word, and the Person of Jesus Christ. His offer is clear. It is not hateful, it is not exclusive. It is open to all who would accept it. And this is the loving, open message of the Gospel.

[1] All scripture taken from the New American Standard

Carol Platt Liebau has written an interesting article on

When a President emphasizes the importance of “empathy,” the more proper question becomes not whether a particular judge has empathy, but rather, for whom? After all, empathizing with a woman who wants a late-term abortion necessitates a certain lack of empathy for her unborn baby. Empathy for accused criminals can feel like something very different to their victims.

If a President’s criteria includes, “It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families,” Liebau is correct to point out that this “means he is seeking a judge who will side with unions or plaintiffs against businesses.” Shading court decisions based on “empathy” for a particular group of people, be they poor, uneducated, of minority status or other is not social justice, but injustice and decidedly unbiblical. Leviticus 19:15 states, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly” and Exodus 23:3 states, “nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute.” The Bible also has plenty of provisions against favoring the rich (Lev. 19:15 above acknowledges this as well), but society is rightly incensed when this occurs. The opposite is less likely to draw the ire of many because it admittedly sounds compassionate, but it is equally wrong according to the Bible. The point is simply that a Justice ought to seek justice, not to refashion society based on his idea of fairness. Justice must be blind to qualify as such. If it checks the pocket-book before rendering a decision, chances are something other than justice has been meted out.

To read the President’s official remarks, click here

WHEREAS, the senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and Just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has by a resolution, required the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation: And whereas, it is the duty of nations as as well as of men, to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord: And, in so much as we know that, by His divine law, nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. Now, therefore, in compliance with the request , and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting, and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain on that day from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion. All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventy. By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN

For whatever sins America has committed, it is not the world to which we primarily owe apology, but to God, for as Lincoln so humbly stated, "we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own."

Today all three values are under siege from within. E pluribus unum (out of many, one) is being replaced with multi-culturalism. Instead of encouraging people to identify simply with being American, a unifying factor in past generations, society now brands people African-American, Mexican-American, etc. and then begins to target a segmented America for political gain. Any sort of hyphened America is a divided America.

Liberty is being replaced with equality. Immigrants have long come to America because of the chance to succeed based solely on their intellect, ability and hard work. The job of government is to ensure equality of opportunity and fair-play, not to ensure equality of achievement. When it does the latter, it begins to strip away the fabric of liberty.

In God We Trust is being replaced with In Government We Trust. The American Founders recognized that no one has the right to govern another without the consent of the governed. The Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights does many things, among the most important is the limits it places on government. The Founders correctly concluded that an ever-more powerful government is a dangerous thing. God is where man receives his unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They knew that a government that provides everything (ie. healthcare, retirement, childcare, food, education, etc.) is also one that can strip those things from its citizenry.

John Ortberg paints a picture of the Fall from Adam’s perspective that is quite profound and sobering to think about. In his book titled, Everybody’s Normal Till You Get to Know Them, Ortberg writes,

Adam hears God’s footsteps in the garden at the accustomed time. Always before, that sound filled him with joy. Always before, when he heard those footsteps, he ran toward them like a little child playing “Daddy’s home” when the front door opens at five o’clock. But this time, Adam’s body is flooded with feelings he has never known before. This time the sound that until this day brought only eagerness and delight now brings terror and shame. This time he runs, not toward the footsteps, but away from them. Now he knows shame and fear. This time he hides.

Upon reading this again came the realization that I sometimes fail to stop and truly reflect upon any given passage of scripture. Having read Genesis 3 many times before, I had never stopped to think about the Fall from Adam’s perspective, but rather only the theological significance of the Fall and the resulting pains brought forth that day. Certainly the doctrine of the Fall is of great importance, but there is a richness that might be missed if our only aim is to study rather than to meditate on the scriptures, to accumulate knowledge rather than to accumulate wisdom. I had missed the humanness of Adam and in so doing, never truly appreciated how great a fall it was. Adam enjoyed an intimacy of fellowship with God that none of us have ever known, having known God prior to stumbling. None of us can recall our very first sin. Sadly, for us, it is too frequently a way of life. As I try to make eye contact with my 3-year old girl during those occasions where she’s done something wrong, she will turn her head away so as not to make eye contact with me. She understands, even at such an early age what sin is, though the word itself escapes her vocabulary. So she buries her head in fear and shame much like Adam trying to hide from God in the garden. Before too long, she will no longer remember those early transgressions. Today being Good Friday, I invite you to reflect for a moment on what made the cross necessary. Remember that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and created a gap so wide that we could never reclaim mankind’s prior position in communion with God by our own efforts. But God’s plan of redemption that commenced in the garden, found its fulfillment 2000 years ago in the events we celebrate this weekend. Let us all give thanks this Good Friday that God sent His Son Jesus Christ to be our substitute — to bear our punishment — to die on the cross. Let us also give thanks that the height of His love exceeded the depth of our Fall. And finally, let us give thanks all the more that He didn’t stay in the grave, for He is risen indeed! Happy Easter!

Here is a picture of a 4.5 month old baby girl burned from the saline used to abort her.

Still a just a "choice"? Does anyone have a "right" to do this? If the above doesn't convince you, perhaps these will from Priests For Life: more photos.

For a lengthier argument on why gay marriage is not the equal of heterosexual marriage and therefore not entitled to the same recognition, see my earlier post here. But Mr. Prager highlighted a specific example of where “separate but equal” is still practiced and has a very legitimate purpose. Prager’s analogy of separate bathrooms for males and females makes the point quite clearly upon a little reflection. The separation of bathrooms based on color was in fact “non-equal” because the very purpose of those types of laws were to elevate whites above blacks. In other words, blacks were not considered worthy (or clean enough) to share the same facilities as whites. But the male / female division of bathrooms has a very different purpose that illustrates the difference between the male / female arrangement we call marriage and the same-sex union currently called “domestic partnerships” in California. The pertinent issue in both cases is sex (or gender). In the case of bathrooms, having males and females share the same bathroom space is asking for trouble so we have “Male” and “Female” restrooms. Gender is central to the issue. In the same way, gender is central to the issue of marriage, whereas color is less than trivial on the order of eye color or shoe size. Heterosexual couples and same-sex couples can never be the same thing because the pairings are different in a very particular way, a way that matters immensely.

It is legitimate for a society to maintain separate bathrooms based on gender, but not on color. In the same way, society has a vested interest in maintaining the distinction between the heterosexual marriage union and “domestic partnerships” among gays.