The Call of God

Eternal happiness

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:44:53 PDT

"For we mean by eternal life that life where there is endless happiness. For if the soul live in eternal punishments, by which also those unclean spirits shall be tormented, that is rather eternal death than eternal life. For there is no greater or worse death than when death never dies. But because the soul from its very nature, being created immortal, cannot be without some kind of life, its utmost death is alienation from the life of God in an eternity of punishment. So, then, He only who gives true happiness gives eternal life, that is, an endlessly happy life." -Augustine, The City of God, Book 6, Chapter 12

Augustine here continues his tirade against those who would worship "happiness" (a.k.a. felicity) or any other trait as a god in itself. Rather, it makes more sense that God gives happiness, than that happiness is a god. Furthermore, if we want to life a life of happiness, what better way than to live an eternal life of happiness? We will all live forever, but we must determine what kind of life it will be. God who gives happiness is the only one worth pursuing for eternal life.

Loquacious Vanity

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:41:08 PDT

"For what is more loquacious than vanity? And though it be able, if it like, to shout more loudly than the truth, it is not, for all that, more powerful than the truth." --Augustine, The City of God, Book 5, Chapter 26

Conquering and Barbarism

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:09:00 PDT

For, as our Scriptures say, "the wicked boasts of his heart's desire, and blesses the covetous, whom the Lord abhors." Away, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized. Let no man tell me that this and the other was a great man, because he fought and conquered so and so. Gladiators fight and conquer, and this barbarism has its meed of praise; but I think it were better to take the consequences of any sloth, than to seek the glory won by such arms.--Augustine, The City of God, Book 3, Chapter 14

Are we proud of ourselves when we dominate at the cost of others?

Are we proud of people in our history who have subdued other nations?

Do we honor virtue, even if it was a virtuous loss?

Do we consider violence more virtouous than laziness?

Is success truly success if it causes others to fail?

On the Law

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:55:20 PDT

I have just finished a series on why laws should be made.

First post - The Law

Second post - Why Make Laws?

Third post - Which Law is Right?

Which Law is Right?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:53:43 PDT

Asking which of the following positions is right is almost impossible, as they are definitions of what is right. It is similar to asking, "Which blue chair is actually blue?"

Social liberals - "Something should be illegal if and only if it violates the rights of others."
Social conservatives - "Something should be illegal if it is immoral (by some standard)."

As the previous post discussed, the utilitarian answer seems to favor a liberal approach. The reasoning is that since there is no longer a common standard for morality in society, one must either replace that standard to return to a conservative position, or "rights" must become the standard. In other words, liberalism "works" in our current situation.

The challenge to those who do believe in a universal moral standard is determining whether to surrender in the war of worldviews for something that "works" or to continue the battle for what is right. Even those who appeal to the Bible for moral truth recognize that the only way to demand that morality=legality is to establish a theocracy. Attempts at that in our own history have failed severely, as the leaders often do not live up to their own standards.

What remains is a system where people from entirely different worldviews are acting like they're talking about the same thing (i.e. legality) when they are talking about two different things (rights or morality). Even in financial debates one's "right" to a social service is pitted against the view that it is "wrong" to tax someone to pay for someone else's services. Either the battle will continue, or the culture will continue to shift back and forth.

In other words, the next installment of the 18th Amendment will probably be soon met by the next installment of the 21st Amendment.

This the last post in a series on why laws should be made. The first post defined commonly held positions. The second post described pros and cons of those positions.

Why Make Laws?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:21:00 PDT

With my last post, I ended with a challenging question. Why should something be made illegal?

The socially conservative position advocates limiting behavior on the basis of morality. The challenge with this position is that the society must have a common standard of morality. In American history this was not traditionally a problem. However, with the emergence of postmodernism, it has become unacceptable to appear to the Bible or any other single standard of morality. Thus even many social conservatives have difficulty defending their position to a social liberal because their is not a commonly-held moral standard on many issues.

The socially liberal position says that laws are about defending people's rights from being violated by others. For instance, murder is illegal not (just) because it is wrong, but because it deprives someone of a right to life. This seems to work for many societies, but as with all utilitarian viewpoints it is limited in certain areas. Abortion is a challenging issue because it puts the right of the mother at odds with the rights of a (future) baby. Whose rights supercede someonone else's? Which rights are more important? Is my pursuit of happiness more important than your right to have dental insurance?

These are considerations we must evaluate before siding on one position or another.

This is the second post in a series on the law. The first post defined common positions.

The Law

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:20:59 PDT

Why should something be made illegal? Think about that one for a sec. Come back when you're ready.

Why are things made illegal?

I was blown away when I recently discovered that I did not have an answer for this question. How in the world can we make laws or vote for people who make laws if we can't answer this question? While I won't (can't) quite answer which method is correct, I have discovered some traditional answers. I believe there are two commonly-held views.

Social liberals - "Something should be illegal if and only if it violates the rights of others."

Social conservatives - "Something should be illegal if it is immoral (by some standard)."

Take a moment and think about all of our current social issues (i.e. abortion, homosexual marriage, drug legalization, censorship). Do these definitions seem to fit? (BTW: Advocating gun rights is a socially liberal position.)

For example, social liberals are confused as to why anyone would want to prevent homosexuals from being married, because them doing so in no way violates the rights of other people. Social conservatives don't buy that argument because to them it is an issue of morality.

Also, things like (even consensual) homosexual acts and interracial marriage used to be illegal in this country because they were immoral in the opinions of many. However, the argument that they didn't inherently violate the rights of someone else (and that the law did) eventually won out.

So which position is correct? Which position is our Constitution designed to support?

The Obama Debt

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Sun, 03 May 2009 13:37:00 PDT

Under the current president, our deficit and debt are growing greatly. He says he cares, but what is actually happening?

First off, definitions: the deficit is the difference between the amount of money the government receives and the amount it spends every year. In other words, it is how fast the nation goes into debt. The debt is how much the country currently owes to its creditors.

It is also worth noting that a $600 zillion spending bill doesn't mean the deficit this year increased by $600 zillion. Often, those dollar amounts are spread out over several years (usually as much as 10).

Now some context:
Deficit in 2007 = $161 billion
Deficit in 2008 = $455 billion

The projected deficit in 2009 when the budget was made was $482 billion. However, the economy has faltered since, and legislation passed late last year has modified those numbers. When Obama took office in January, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that:

Deficit in 2009 = $1118 billion

You'll often hear Obama quote $1.3 trillion for this amount that he "inherited" from Bush (and a Congress of which Obama was a member of the majority party). Now that the economy has worsened and bills like the ARR and Omnibus have passed the new projections from the CBO says:

Deficit in 2009 = $1845 billion

Now for the irony. The ARR proposed to increase the deficit by an average of $79 billion annually. One week later, Obama announced that he planned to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, 2013. Translation: in four years we will be going in to debt slower than we are this year. Additionally, he commanded his cabinet within 3 months to come up with ways to save $100 million. Unfortunately, in that same amount of time the government will have gone $461 billion further into debt, or 4613x the amount he is proposing to cut back.

What bothers me is the political game he is playing. After increasing the deficit quickly, he says he wants to decrease it gradually. After proposing great increases in spending, he brags about modest cutbacks.

The question you have to answer is, "Is he doing the best he can under the economic circumstances that surround him?" I suppose that's a fair question.

Sources:
U.S. Treasury
Congressional Budget Office
Washington Post

Christian Curriculum

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:18:55 PDT

What makes a Christian Curriculum Christian, especially in traditionally secular subjects?

How does one make a Christian atlas or math book?

Having Christian publications in the humanities, arts, or natural or behavioral sciences makes a little more sense. However, what are the advantages of these curriculum over "secular" publishers?

Should one make an attempt to purchase Christian math books in order to support the publisher?

We must be about Total Truth, integrating that which should have never been separated. Literature must be taught with both the romantic and religious; history with both the political and spiritual; religious history along with the negative; science taught as science; Evolution and creation taught as philosophies (one of course being correct).

I'm curious of your thoughts on these issues.

Getting Defensive

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:57:17 PDT

Don't defend yourself! No, seriously. Never do it.

An interesting thing occurred when Daniel was falsely accused of disrespecting the Persian king. Daniel didn't say anything (i.e. nothing worth recording).

The king had made a decree that all should pay homage to him by praying to no one else for an entire month. Daniel, faithful to the only one worth receiving prayer, ignored the command showing respect where it is truly due. However, nothing indicates that he shirked his duties, and he was known for being absolutely trustworthy.

Those jealous of Daniel's position reported him saying, "Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day." (Daniel 6:13) Every element of the statement is true except for the part in the middle. Daniel made no personal slight against the king, so he stood falsely accused.

Then Daniel said...

Nothing. Nothing that is until after God delivered him from the lions den. Daniel endured a punishment he didn't deserve.

WHY?

Daniel might have realized one of these things:

God could use the unfairness of the king to win Daniel's people a favor.
God could deliver him from the unfair punishment.
He should endure whatever consequences come from worshiping God.

Are there benefits of enduring a punishment you don't deserve?

I'm A-Twitter

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:23:23 PDT

I'm not one to always jump on the fad bandwagon, but I feel like a new trend is right up my alley. I've joined Twitter.com so that I can more freely share little thoughts that may not be suitable for a full-fledged blog entry. If you want to keep up with me, you can just go to the website and "follow" me. Or, just check this blog regularly, and you'll see my most recent updates on the right sidebar.

Gleanings

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:57:23 PDT

When God established his law for the people of Israel, he included many concepts championed by our society. He had built-in to the system a provision for the needs of the poor and the foreign travelers. One great example of this is his command to leave the gleanings of the field available for anyone who needed them.

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.(Leviticus 19:9-10 ESV)

This allowed anyone who did not own land yet was willing to work to come and pick whatever they needed from the field. Even Jesus was known to be among those who gleaned from these fields.

I have been encouraged to find ways that I can provide gleanings to others. It is a command that every follower of Christ give to the poor and needy, and I find this to be just one way to fulfill that command.

For example, my school, like all schools, has a "Lost and Found" in the office. As part of our gleanings, we donate the items in "Lost and Found" to charity on a regular basis. Additionally, we have a paper recycling service (as many schools do) that goes to support a local ministry. I've seen the amount of paper we go through, and this is a great way to use our "leftovers" to meet the needs of others.

What gleanings do you have? I've started personally bringing in boxes junk mail from home to help this ministry. How can you use your "junk" to help others?

If you're looking for ideas, you may try starting here.

Lessons from Atlanta (part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:40:00 PDT

Is a deceptive person easily deceived? Does honesty breed more honesty? During our missions trip to Atlanta, I encountered a truth about truth.

Our students spent 7 days around people who were brutally honest about their past. We interacted with former drug addicts, current drug addicts, former criminals, current fugitives, and other people at all stages of life. Something about the instant intimacy that comes from these conversations sparked an intimacy within our own group. After only 2 days in ministry, our group was very relaxed at sharing their own problems with one another.

This lead to my awareness that all Christians are sinners. All people have sin in their past and likely in their present. We all have problems; however, it will take great strides to create a culture that is more accepting of each other's problems. We should not be afraid to share our sins with those who are likewise committed to Christ.

Additionally, we must recognize our weaknesses as weaknesses. I know too many Christians who like to brag about the sins they committed but don't spend too much time talking about how much grace Christ has given them. We are sinners, but we are forgiven sinners. Let Jesus remove our sins as far as the East is from the West, and let's leave them there.

The Luxurious Empire

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:34:34 PDT

Allow me to share a quote from St. Augustine's City of God that I find quite applicable to our situation.

"Hence the injuries you do, you will not permit to be imputed to you: but the injuries you suffer, you impute to Christianity. Depraved by good fortune, and not chastened by adversity, what you desire in the restoration of a peaceful and secure state, is not the tranquility of the commonwealth, but the impunity of your own vicious luxury. Scipio wished you to be hard pressed by an enemy, that you might not abandon yourselves to luxurious manners; but so abandoned are you, that not even when crushed by the enemy is your luxury repressed. You have missed the profit of your calamity; you have been made most wretched, and have remained most profligate." Speaking to the western Romans, Book 1, Chapter 33

In other words, the Romans were quite prone to blame their problems on other people, mainly the outcast Christians, rather than on their own immorality. The Romans were corrupted by their wealth. Then, when they were met with challenges, they didn't grow more mature out of them. Rather than forsaking the wealth that had held them captive, they pursued it even more.

Let this not describe us! When wealth becomes our demise, let us pursue it no longer! We should instead pursue the One that overcomes both wealth and poverty.

(P.S. I always have several reading project you can keep up with on the sidebar of this blog. You can always purchase the most recent thing I have read by clicking on its picture.)

Silent Saturday

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:20:19 PDT

To remember the quiet day that Jesus lay in the grave, my wife and I decided to spend some time today in silence. For the first hour of the day, we didn't say a word or listen to any media. It's strange to hear this silence (or rather, not hear) amidst all of our noise.

I don't think I necessary understand the depth of the failure and confusion that the disciples must have felt. It seems that only with time did they fully understand all that Jesus had done and said. That Saturday must have been torturous to those who knew they had abandoned their Lord at his most despirate moment.

I honestly don't know if God communicated anything to us in this time, but I think in some small way I understand the awkwardness of that strangely calm day.

Lessons from Atlanta (Part 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:41:50 PDT

Over Spring Break, I helped lead a team of 30 Christian high school students to the city of Atlanta. It is always remarkable to see how God uses and changes these young people over the course of this annual missions trip. While working with the homeless in the city, they are exposed to a culture and way of life that they only previously knew through stereotypes.

What also surprises me is how much I am affected each year. I wish I had written these thoughts when they were more fresh in my mind, but I would like to share with you some of the perspective I gained from the trip this year.

The first and biggest lesson was how to trust in God. My initial challenge is to be one of two drivers taking a school bus from Kansas City to Atlanta (20 hours). Driving overnight terrified me until the days before. God gave me his comfort knowing that his will would be done, and his will was for us to survive.

This trust was further tested the following day, which was a Sunday morning. The organization we worked with (which I'll discuss more later) has churches come in to volunteer and "put on" each of their daily church-style services. These churches then provide a meal for the homeless clients. On this day, we determined that if the church was 45 minutes late, which they were, that they probably weren't coming. That meant our team was responsible for conducting the service and preparing the meal.

Rather than freak out about what to do, we let the students lead the ministry more this year. They performed some skits and shared testimonies, which were well received. Then, after 15 minutes of preparation, I delivered a 15 minute sermon. I've never had such an experience before. God used the thoughts from Job that I've been sharing on this blog to inspire a message from Job 26 about (get this!) trusting in who God is.

On these occasions, more than normal, I learned that God's nature alone is enough in which to place our trust. He is absolutely reliable, and he will always come through.

My Prayer

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:34:47 PDT

In thinking about more structured prayers, I wrote what was on my mind today. I modeled it off of the Lord's Prayer, as that helps me organize my thoughts more and is a good model.

Our Father, dear Daddy, I can't express even the limits of your holiness. Job said it well, "Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways, and how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?" Your name, nature, power and character are absolutely pure. Your desires should be carried out in our world. We anxiously await the coming of the remainder of your glory. We humbly submit the needs that seem so big in our lives to your care. Meet our need of forgiveness. Remind us to give our grudges to you. Keep us far from temptations; save us from our own evil desires! Take us from the hand of the evil one, for even he must submit to your will. So be it in your will.

Genuine Prayer

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:26:05 PDT

One thing from A Generous Orthodoxy that positively challenged me were some of McClaren's thoughts on prayer. He critiques the perception that an unwritten, unprepared prayer is more "from the heart" than a written, planned one. However, we often hear more stuttering nervous ticks (God just help us, just now God) than something of value or meaning. So, while spontaneous prayer should not part from us, we should probably give more attention to the words which exit our mouths. J.P. Moreland discussed in Love Your God With All Your Mind that we are sometimes so unattentive in our own prayers that we will utter heresies unawares. ("Our Father, we're glad you came to earth to die for us." Welcome to Modalism.)

How can we be more sincere in our prayer? Can prayer be heartfelt and planned at the same time?

How Great is our God

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:53:00 PDT

My current Scripture reading goal is to become more familiar with the book of Job. I'm reading it for the second time and plan to do much research in commentaries. It is emerging as my favorite book of the Bible (though James is pretty high up there). Sunday, I came across this verse and it has burned into my mind. After describing God's mighty ways he concludes:

"Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways,
and how small a whisper do we hear of him!
But the thunder of his power who can understand?" (Job 26:14 ESV)

After hearing the first thunderstorm in quite a while, I determined I couldn't imagine the power of the One who caused it.

A Question on Luke

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:43:30 PDT

I had a question brought to me today that I found quite intriguing. Here is my best attempt at a plausible answer.

Mark 2:16-33 tells the story of Herod the Great ordering the slaughtering of every male under 2-years-old in the city of Bethlehem in an attempt to kill the "new king." The question was, "Why doesn't Luke include this material?"

I believe the reason why Luke may not include this story is that Luke is primarily concerned with declarations of who Jesus is. These things fill the Lukan birth narrative (Luke 1-2). These declarations were meant to establish the authority and credibility of Jesus to Luke's Gentile readers.

So, why would Matthew include this story? Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, who would recognize the emotions felt by Herod (jealousy) and the significance of Bethlehem (the ancestral city of the great King David). Luke's Gentile audience may not know these things.

Even if we consider Luke as a neutral historian, the account of the slaughtering of all males under the age of 2 in a tiny village would be of inconsequential significance to the history of this new Christian movement.

Additionally, one may ask why neither Mark nor John includes this story. They have no birth narratives at all, so the absence of this section seems trivial.

What if?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:43:48 PDT

Please Go to YALiberty.org.

A Generous Orthodoxy

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:44:03 PDT

I read this book as part of a research project on the Emergent Church. One of my colleagues and I will be doing a presentation on the movement to an association of Christian educators in the fall. I thought the book was okay. Maybe I'm being too generous with my rating. Maybe not enough. Only time will tell. I have come away from this book a little more appreciative of what Brian McClaren is doing, and a little less. I agreed with every other chapter, and was angry about the rest. Additionally, I think he would be okay with that. He was generous enough to condone my forming my own opinions. I might be generous enough to recommend that certain Christians read this book. Maybe...

You won't like me when I'm angry

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:50:06 PST

The Unjust Prevail

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:44:38 PDT

I have spent much time reading recently, as though that's anything new. Plato's Republic has consumed some of that time, and I find many of its arguments quite amusing. This one is more saddening than anything, primarily because it is still true.

"First of all, in private contracts: wherever the unjust is the partner of the just you will find that, when the partnership is dissolved, the unjust man has always more and the just less. Secondly, in their dealings with the State: when there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income; and when there is anything to be received the one gains nothing and the other much. Observe also what happens when they take an office; there is the just man neglecting his affairs and perhaps suffering other losses, and getting nothing out of the public, because he is just; moreover he is hated by his friends and acquaintance for refusing to serve them in unlawful ways. But all this is reversed in the case of the unjust man."-- Plato, The Republic, Book I

It is ironic that what the public needs most are just partners, just income tax payers, just servant leaders. However, what the public praises the most are "scrupulous" partners, tax preparers that can "get them money", and politicians who will do anything just to be doing "something," even if that something destroys what prosperity a nation still has. Are you praising the just people in your life? Are you being a just person?

Babies in my Life

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Yates) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:32:11 PST

My life is going to be surrounded with children! I can't wait for the excitement that will come from my baby playing with his or her cousins. Ours is still developing healthily with nothing new to report. We have determined to go with Matthias as a first name instead of Matthew. Of course Matthias invokes the name of the 13th disciple discussed in Acts 1.

My sister-in-law had her second son 2 weeks ago, Nathan Douglas. My cousin-in-law had her first baby yesterday, Jacob Allen. In all this, I've been really excited about the meaning of their names. Nathan is the prophet who spoke eloquently about the sin of David. He had to be the bearer of bad news but also delivered the message of the blessings of God. Jacob is the father of God's people, the very source of the nation that God would covenant with for the next nineteen centuries.

I know no matter which name my child receives, Matthias or Natalie, they will both be the gift of God that their name implies.