I am that blog writer

It popped into my mind today that I seem to be often writing the kinds of blog entries that I don't like to read.  Most of my entries get into some basic theology, describing what I've been learning about God as I study His Word.  When I hit those kinds of entries in other peoples blogs, I tend to skim or skip over them - they are a little dry and uninteresting to me.

I find it interesting that for whatever reason I am doing the thing that I don't like.   What I am doing isn't bad - probably my skimming over these sorts of entries is bad - but I don't like other people doing it.  Does that make me a hypocrite?

If God is sovereign...

I'm starting to work through a study on the sovereignty of God, and the what is true because He is sovereign.  I thought I'd share things as I discover them, maybe a kind of irregular series on my irregular blog...

One thing that pops up when thinking for very long about God being truly sovereign is that there are tensions that pop up with things that happen in the world.  If God is really in control why did xxx happen (fill in your favorite recent earthquake, tsunami, senseless death, disaster)?  (I don't hear (or think much) about why doesn't YYY happen...)  I'm going to start from the assumption that God is Sovereign - ruler of the universe, creator, almighty, all knowing, eternal.  Just read the last chapters of Job for examples of the power that God has over this world - start at Job 38, and see if you can do any of those things...

Lets start off easy - with something that seems like it points to God needing people in order to accomplish His goals...  If God is really in charge, able to do all, control all - then what does He need Us for?  (another interesting topic for another day.)

In my short time walking with Jesus, I've heard several stories of people who were awakened at night, or tickled by God in other ways, to pray for specific people.  Usually these stories come in two parts, from two people:

Jane - I was awakened by the holy spirit about 3:15 in the morning, and felt a leading from the holy spirit - an Urge even - to pray for John, who was traveling in another city.  I just felt that his life was in danger, and that I needed to pray for God to intercede...  I prayed for 30 minutes, and went back to sleep.

John - About 3:15 in the morning my car broke down in the middle of a gang-infested part of BigTownImTravelingThrough - I could see graffiti and mean looking guys with knives all around - when the car stopped they all started heading over towards me - I could see they were sizing up how much money they could get from me and the car.  I was really scared - I started to pray and suddenly a police car pulled up.  The thugs scattered and the police were able to get a tow truck to me.

In these kinds of stories it seems that God is not able to save 'John' without some request or prayer assistance from 'Jane'.  Sometimes there are other people who also get the urge to pray for John at the same time, in different parts of the country (or the world).  Why is God asking people to pray to protect and save John when He is all powerful and in control of everything?  Even evil (the gangsters) can't touch God's people without His say so (Job 1:12).  Why this apparent contradiction between the testimony of the people and God's word (the Bible)?

When we're presented with a situation like this, where my understanding of the situation doesn't mesh with what we can see and understand we have two choices - either our understanding is wrong or the Bible is wrong.  We can ask God to reveal where our limited understanding needs to be adjusted, or we can push God aside and seek the wisdom of man.

Here, I can see people doing God's work - something that we are called to do, to worship the Lord and serve Him.  The core question is whether God needs to have anybody else involved in this work.  Being human, we tend to put our own motives onto other peoples actions.  I ask for help when I can't do something on my own.  I see somebody (Jane) awakened to pray, and assume that that person has some special ability or need which is being called on to do the work - I that situation through my own limitations, imparting my need for help onto Gods request.  I like it when people ask me to help them do something they have trouble with - it boosts my pride.  I see God boosting the pride of Jane in this situation - she would be proud to have been called to help.  We have trouble seeing the situation and the motives of God through our own human motives - and create a tension between a sovereign God and a God who seems to need our intercessory help.

This situation exists so that God can be glorified.  How can Jane and John both clearly see that God is sovereign, cares about and loves them, and can orchestrate things?  By putting them into a situation where, dependent on Him they both are part of the situation - without being aware of what is happening.  John is not aware that Jane is praying for him, he is only aware of His own prayers being answered.  Jane is not aware of what she is praying for - but after talking to John in the morning and learning what went on Jane can be awed to have seen God at work.  Whether Jane feels any pride from 'helping' in this situation, she gets to see that (a) God loves John, (b) God loves Jane and knows how important John is to her, (c) God lets her see that He is in control.  John gets reinforcement that God was there and He cares - not only was he delivered from the danger, but after talking with Jane he is aware that God shared the situation with another, in a way that only God could do.

Jane was awakened to pray not because God needed help, but so that she would be aware of God at work.  If Jane slept through the night, then heard from John that his car broke down and was saved only because of the timely arrival of the police car, she might see this as God responding to Johns prayer, but it might just be a coincidence -God could be excluded from consideration.  The hand of God isn't as real for Jane just hearing about Johns answer to prayer.  By awakening her at the time that John was in trouble, Jane can see the hand of God at work - He reached to her because of John's situation.  God gets the glory in this - neither John nor Jane, after comparing notes, can reasonably claim this as a coincidence.  God gets the glory.  As John and Jane tell the story, God gets the glory - others can see the work of God in the situation, in a way that is unmistakably God.  God wants the glory.

Romans 8:28 - And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Something to think about - when something happens that doesn't seem to have God involved in it, how can that event, or the outcome of that event, bring glory to God? Maybe you can't see His Glory in the event, or immediately afterwards.  Sometimes it takes time and the work of the Holy Spirit for you to see how He gets glory.  The good we receive may not come until we are with Him.

Modern Parables

What might be some parables that Jesus would use today? How can
spiritual truths be explained in the 21st century?

On wanting to be first into the kingdom
Consider the underwear - the clothing worn first and closest to the
skin (unless you are Madonna). Is being first to be put on desirable?
Is not the underwear the grottiest clothing at the end of the day,
reserved for cleansing in scalding hot water and harsh chemicals?
Instead seek to be a cardigan sweater, able to be worn several times
before receiving a gentle cleansing (unless worn by a messy eater).
Though it is the last to be put on, it truly has the higher place of
honor.

Well, maybe that isn't a parable that Jesus would use...

The dreaded invasion from another dimension

A quick, light thought.

Reading about the horrible things that are supposed to happen when the Large Hadron Collider is fully switched on, one of the scenarios is that we open a hole to another dimension, and invading aliens proceed to come in and conquer all the Earth, sending humanity into slavery.

Thinking back over the various Sci-Fi movies I've seen, and books that I've read, I find it interesting that anytime a hole is opened into another dimension we always seem to promptly have an invasion force streaming through it which humanity has to fight off.  Its almost like the other dimensions all either direct these tears in the space-time fabric to always-ready invasion forces, or they have invasion forces ready all over the place - just in case there is a dimension hole opened.

Is this really likely?  Isn't it more likely that the dimension hole will open into some totally random place - maybe a living room where the beings are casually watching their equivalent to 'The Love Boat', when this tear opens and ruins the ending of the show?  I'd expect that we're more likely to have beer cans thrown at us than a prompt invasion from highly trained armed forces.  Maybe we'd have the bad luck to open a dimension hole into their garbage dump...

Why not think of some great outcomes - we open a hole to an alternate dimension where Carbon Dioxide is the breath of life, and they are having trouble with global warming caused by Oxygen?  We could start up a great trade in gas swaps - send them the excess CO2 that we have, pick up the O2 that we need.  Maybe their garbage is pure energy which we can easily harness to provide electricity within this dimension - solving our looming energy crisis.

I say, let the collisions happen - we're much more likely to find the salvation of mankind in the other dimenstions that the LHC opens to us than our own doom.  (And, just in case we do happen to open into the middle of a highly trained and prepared group of alien commandos - I was all for opening the dimension gateway, I appreciate your mercy...)

Judging the sheep and the goats

One of the passages in the Gospel that has bothered me a little bit has always been Matthew 25:31-46.  All people are separated into those who served Christ and those who did not - with eternal rest for those who served and torment for those who did not.  The part that is a little troubling has been that for those who served, it is one small act which receives praise and rest - 'Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me', while for the others it is one small act not performed - 'Whatever you did not do for the least of these...'.  The troubling thing is that as a Christian, if I fail to provide for somebody hungry and homeless on the street - if I pass him by, is my salvation lost or tarnished?  (Even though there are many passages that teach that salvation cannot be lost - the thought is whether I have deceived myself into thinking that I know Jesus and am saved.)  I sometimes don't feel that I'm in the group of sheep on the right which will enter into rest.

I've thought of these two groups as the people who are doing things, whether they know of the act or not, out of the work of the Holy Spirit in their hears - they are following Christ and doing His work as they are led (the sheep).  The other group (the goats) are the people who are trying to do works to earn the favor of the judge (God), working out of their own motives to gain salvation.  The difference is whether I do good acts to the Body of Christ because I am saved, or whether I do good acts to become saved.  Most of the New Testament teaches that the former is correct - I cannot earn salvation.  This passage can be interpreted that the goats are condemned because they were not absolutely perfect - if they try to earn salvation than a single failure causes them to lose it.  (Paul spends much of the first 4 chapters of Romans teaching the same thing - that it isn't possible to earn salvation, it is a gift given by God through Jesus).  The sheep are praised for having faith in Jesus' work, and showing the fruit of that through a single good act.  One good act done in faith shows salvation, one good act not done in our own will earns condemnation.

In thinking about this in this season of thanksgiving, a new thought was revealed to me - many of the acts that we do are not known to us - how wonderful it will be to meet the people whose lives were changed through some seemingly insignificant act of Gods love done through us.  How many people are going to be thankful for your allowing God to work through you when you are gathered at the throne?  Are you letting Him use you, or are you doing good acts to earn your place?  I think it will be awesome to see fully all the ways that God has worked - I can see some of the work that He did to bring me to Him, how other people and chance encounters worked to place me on the narrow path.  I look forward to meeting those who I have help direct to Jesus even if I don't know it.

TANSTAAFL

That is - "There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

Something that, if I remember my college physics properly, is demanded by the Law of Conservation of Energy and the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Also something that most people might think of as 'The law of unintended consequences'.

I've been thinking about the whole climate change thing. I'm not going to disagree with the empirical evidence which points that the average planetary temperature is rising. I'm not sure that anybody has proven what the cause of the warming is. Sorry Al Gore, I don't agree that Carbon Dioxide alone is contributing, especially when I've seen studies that show that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere can't explain the whole temperature increase to date.

Are carbon reductions the right way to go? There seems to be a HUGE push to 'Green Energy' - finding non-hydrocarbon means of producing energy which don't produce carbon. Why? Because a group has clamped onto the CO2 as the cause, so we must reduce the CO2 emissions. However, while I see a lot of calls to reduce use of carbon-burning energy generation, I haven't seen much call yet to actually reduce the amount of energy which is consumed... What if part of the warming is being caused by the excess heat that we are producing? We lay blacktop all over in cities, and see warming because we are now putting down a surface which converts light to heat. We have to be comfortable, so we have air-conditioning (and heat from furnaces) which push heat out to the environment. Cars are pretty bad in harnessing the energy from burning gasoline - there is a lot of excess heat to be gotten rid of (through the radiator). Computers are producing great amounts of excess heat. Most of the means we use to produce electricity produce excess heat that has to be released to the environment (wind and hydro-power I think are the only exceptions).

We harness a tiny portion of the solar energy which falls on the earth every day - so one of the ways to reduce carbon production has been to look to wind and solar power. What might be some of the unintended consequences? Is it possible that by putting out arrays of mirrors and solar panels to collect energy that we reduce local heating effects - leading to general cooling? Remember that the average temperature on the planet is produced based on solar heating. If we were to efficiently capture more solar energy, the law of conservation of energy says that the energy isn't being used for something else (heating the air), so we might cool off more than expected. I'm neglecting that unless we stop producing so much waste heat it might just balance out. I'm also neglecting that other than putting solar farms in deserts, we probably lose some good vegetated land in this process...

There have been studies of the unintended consequences of wind power - some local changes in weather have been observed downwind of large wind farms, because energy has been sucked from the moving air, and thus winds are a bit lighter. I've also read one study that the reduction in air pressure behind a wind turbine can kill bats and birds.

What I'm trying to say is that we can't put up big wind farms and solar arrays to generate electricity without there being some other impact. We are taking in solar energy which reduces the energy available to other natural processes which have been going on for a long time (generally involved in heating things). The impact may be small, it may be offset by human heat generation, or it may be beneficial (cooling deserts enough to be habitable?) - but there will be an effort. We can't get energy without having some impact on our environment.

Part of what this thinking has lead to for me is some sensitivity to how much energy can be conserved. I do try to bike to work instead of driving. We try to turn off lights as much as possible. There is probably a ton more that I can do. I don't know that we can maintain the way of life that we currently enjoy - something has to change to reduce the overall footprint - not just our carbon footprint.

Climate control guilt

So - I'll apologize to anybody that gets upset by the comparisons I have in this post about relative comfort and temperatures in different areas. To be completely honest, a year ago I would have said you were completely bonkers if you said I'd be living in Arizona, and would be on the side of thinking that people are completely insane to live here in the summer.

At this point, I'll say that you don't have to be completely insane, just willing to put up with a higher electricity bill than I'd ever seen before. You want to limit the time between the car and getting inside a building, since it is so #*&^ hot outside in the summer. Of course, I'd say the same about the 3 months of winter in Chicago - you want to limit the time between the car and getting inside a building. Basically, I've just flipped the inconvenient seasons. Please keep that in mind - while you (while most people that I think read this) are in a place just entering the inconvenient uncomfortable season, I just went through it and am finally able to do things outside.

I was thinking earlier today, that we generally tried to not turn on the heat in the house until October. My frugal soul just really had trouble justifying heating up the inside when it was still generally nice outside. We tried to not turn it on after May 1 - same reason. Now, I'm feeling a similar twinge of climate control guilt at turning on the A/C in October. I'm not trying to gloat - we had temperatures over 100 degrees last weekend which is a bit uncomfortable to be going outside. But, turning on the A/C in October feels like turning on the heat in September - it doesn't seem right. We just had a nice week where we didn't have the A/C on at all, and enjoyed the breeze blowing through the house, having to close everything up again seems like betrayal.

It does cool off fast in the evening now, so I need a jacket in the morning for walking or biking. No - I haven't acclimated that fast, I would wear a jacket biking in 55 degree weather in Chicago too. The only difference is that it is 55 in the morning and 90 in the afternoon... I won't say that I miss raking up the leaves (which we'd be doing now in Grayslake), and I won't complain about not having to shovel snow 2 months from now. I will miss having fall colors nearby - leaves just up and fall off trees without a color change here. I'm sure I'll miss seeing everything green up in spring. I already miss the break from mowing the lawn (we just planted winter grass, so that we keep the yard green and soft, instead of brown and crunchy once the Bermuda grass goes to sleep).

Everything is a trade off...