The Miracle Is Upon Us

I'm at a birthing center right now with my wife and few other women from my church. It's time for my next child to join us outside of the womb. It is both a wonderful moment and an exciting process that we are beholding here.

And to think some people think this is just a product of chance plus time plus matter.

Update: She is here! Everything went well -- mom and baby are resting now.

When Head Over Heels is a Problem

For those of you who know us personally, you may have heard that our newest baby was sitting in a breech position in the womb. Given that she was 38 weeks in utero, it was getting pretty close to the delivery and being in the breech position makes things a little more complicated. God's design for delivery works most naturally when the baby is head down, and it is quite amazing all of the things that happen in the womb as the baby descends down the birth canal. This 3D animated childbirth video is pretty cool, showing the normal motions of a baby as it is born. (no real people, no nudity in the video)

In most situations doctors recommend a cesarean section to surgically deliver the baby when it is breech, but my wife is minimalist when it comes to intervention, so a c-section was the absolute, utter last thing she wanted to do. There are also a collection of "old wives tales" on the Internet which purportedly help to encourage a breech baby to turn. My favorite is one that our kids dubbed "The Pineapple". It involves propping up the pregnant mom on a negative incline as much as possible to keep the baby from settling into the pelvis. We called it The Pineapple because my first thought when I saw it was a pineapple upside down cake The kids seemed to like that, so it will forever be remembered as The Pineapple.

It was really quite humorous as we placed plywood ramp on the edge of the couch to create an incline. A 38-week pregnant lady isn't quite at her pinnacle of maneuverability, so my job was to lift her legs and pelvis up onto the ramp so that she assumed a head-down position herself. Besides having problems with her stomach falling "down hill" into her throat, it really wasn't very comfortable for her at all! Just imagine doing a headstand for 20 minutes 2-3 times per day.

After a week and a half of The Pineapple, we decided it was time to see a doctor about doing an External Cephalic Version. This is a procedure where doctors resort to physically pushing on the baby through mom's tummy in order to move the baby into a head down orientation. Many moms report that this is a very painful experience, even more so than normal labor. Our doctor, in particular, wouldn't schedule a Version unless the operating room in Labor and Delivery was unscheduled. (It's also possible for the baby to crash during this maneuver or even for mom to hemorrhage to the point of needing an emergency c-section.)

After visiting with the doctor and scheduling a Version, we went to the midwife for a normally scheduled appointment. As my wife was laying on the exam table, our midwife began to massage my wife's tummy. As she stroked, she realized that she could slowly and gently guide the baby into a new position. She continued to massage until the baby had turned a full 90 degrees. At that point, I thought if she had a few extra hands, she might be able to turn the baby all the way. So, I got up and added my own pressure to "encourage" the baby to slide around to a head down position. In the end, it worked beautifully, and all the while, my wife felt no discomfort. The midwife checked the baby's heartbeat and then we went to the ultrasound facility to double-check the baby's position. Everything turned out great, and we are very releived to have a baby headed in the right direction now.

Update (8/31/2007): It turns out the doctor who would have done the Version in addition to being willing to breech delivery has been injured. I recently found out that he had a ladder accident and seriously injured his hand/wrist and some vertebrae. My heart grieves for the pain this kind man is in, and I am also amazed at the providence of my God. If the baby didn't end up in a normal, head down position, I'm not sure what we would have done given the injury to the doctor. I am such a small, small person in the hands of a big, big God.

Real Life Aesthetics

I was at The Home Depot recently buying supplies to protect my windows from a potential hurricane. When I presented my credit card to the cashier, he noticed that there was a picture of children playing on the card instead of a graphic logo or design. Now it's not my kids; it just happens to be the picture chosen by Chase for the Toys R Us MasterCard that I like to use. This picture prompted the cashier to tell me about a commercial he had seen that goes something like this:

A woman arrives at the cashier in order to pay for her merchandise, and she hands the cashier her customized credit card. The cashier looks at the card, noticing the custom photo of a man on the card. Curiously, the cashier questions the patron, "Oh who's this?" The woman answers, "That's my boyfriend." Breaking off the transaction for a moment, the cashier plunges into her purse only to reveal a credit card customized with a photo of the same man. She declares to the woman, "Mine too!"

Back in my world, I laughed at the humor of the story. However, when I walked out of the store, I was troubled by something. I began to think about the story and how I reacted to it. Upon further review, I discovered that this story of the two-timing man with “card-carrying” girlfriends was actually a very horrible story. It describes a man with no integrity purposefully deceiving (at least) two women for his own pleasure. It’s a story about betrayal and the likely brokenness ensuing in the wake of discovery by the two women. What makes it even worse is this story’s use as a mechanism for humor.

The reason I point this out deals with the subject of aesthetics. I’ve heard aesthetics described as those things in the world around us which we perceive through our senses. Think about walking into someone’s house. The aesthetics of the house are all of the sights, sounds, and smells that confront you as soon as you walk in the door. It can include taste and touch if you further interact with the house’s occupants.

The interesting thing about aesthetics, especially in the case of someone’s house, is that they effectively reveal the culture of the occupants. For example, a library full of woodworking books reveals that the at least one of the occupants likely values the hobby of woodworking. A kitchen full of cookbooks and well-used pots would also reveal that the occupants value cooking at home. These things may not seem to terribly informative at first, but if you examine why those activities are important, more information is uncovered. For example, it’s possible that the woodworking hobby is really part of a plan for the father of the house to develop a family business because he values time spent with his family more than time spent serving a corporation away from home. Likewise, cooking at home might be a reflection of a belief that regularly eating meals at restaurants is not a good use of the household resources.

Back to the credit card story…

The aesthetics of the credit card story are all the sights and sounds which proceed from the television during the commercial. Those sights and sounds are intentionally chosen to paint a picture of a make-believe world in which the commercial's characters live. It describes for the viewers what the culture of the commercial is like. By and large, the culture of the commercial is very much like our own. It’s supposed to be a world with which the viewers identify as being familiar and likeable. Through the specifically crafted elements presented to us, the producer draws us into the make-believe world of the commercial. Once we’re captured, the characters' elements with their personal relationships come into play. We learn relevant details of those relationships to the degree that is necessary to communicate the intended plot line. In the end, we are taken through an unexpected twist that is designed to elicit a humorous response and in some way encourage us to use a particular “brand” of credit card.

What I find troubling is the commercial’s use of objectionable elements and their presentation in a way which encourages the viewers to lose focus of them and look past them. I don’t know of many people who would think that being deceived and dumped is a good thing. Yet, we find ourselves laughing at this very thing, as if the lying and deceit aren’t there. When we lose focus of those things, allowing them to exist in our mind unchallenged, we are providing tacit approval of them. More and more in the media we consume, the moral underpinnings of our culture are being eroded away in our minds by this tacit acceptance of immoral behavior such as that in the commercial. The behavior in question is rarely the main topic of a story, but it is provided as context which frames the plot. We are encouraged to look past these “peripheral issues” to the main plot, but in doing so, we are accepting more than we realize.

Consumers of media need to be aggressively aware of what the media is doing to them. We should not allow the world view of media producers to influence our own without first analyzing their teachings to determine how their world view fits with our own. Television and film are by nature teaching media. With enough exposure, we become disciples to those who craft the views presented in our media.

This is precisely why I strive to be vigilant in screening what media my family and I consume. Jesus says that we cannot serve two masters. If I’m not careful, I may end up allowing false teachings into my home through my television, computer, or DVD player. Heaven forbid that I be so derelict in my duty to protect my family from deception!

What Causes the Onset of Secularization?

In today's blog by Albert Mohler, he leads with this paragraph:

Does worldview determine behavior or does behavior determine worldview? In the end, the process must certainly work both ways. An individual's basic worldview surely determines moral choices and behaviors. But habits of life and moral context can also lead to modifications in worldview.

The rest of the blog discusses an article by Mary Eberstadt in which she discusses the causal link to the secularization of a culture.

In a nutshell, the dominant theory on secularization of a culture postulates that the cause of a cultural secularization is the erosion of a religious world view into a secular world view. As the authorities inherent in the religious world view are removed, the view of marriage and children as divine callings is also removed. So in a sense, a secular world view causes the family to break down and results in a secular culture.

Mary Eberstadt postulates the causal link to be the opposite. She points to examples such as Europe where family decline preceded the onset of secularization at the expense of Christianity. The United States is also held up as an example where the U.S. leads the world in many dimensions of "modernity" or secular thinking, but that most Americans claim to believe in God and large portions of the population attend church.

This is where I begin to take some issue with the categories being used here. I think that it's important to note that not all who are "religious" actually have world views which are non-secular. Many reports from the Barna Group reveal that a great deal of "religious" people in our culture have secular world views. It is quite common, in fact, for people's actions to be in complete opposition to their claimed world view. Even where great attempts to be internally consistent are made, contradictions are there. This is why in Christian theology, sanctification is seen as a process in addition to being seen as a state of being. Truly religious people will continue to grow in their faith and understanding, and the contradictions will be reduced as maturity increases.

In my opinion, I think Mary Eberstadt may miss the point a little bit on what causes secularization, that is, what causes a society's character to change towards a secular view. As we know, the world view of the next generation is shaped by the parents of that generation independent of family size. In my opinion, a society changes towards secular, not because families are breaking down or because the thinking of the culture is secular. To me, the causal link to the secularization of a culture is the lack of generational vision in the parents. If parents of a generation do not disciple their children in a particular world view, then the world view of the next generation is "up for grabs". Without consistent pressure by the parents through the training of their children's minds, the world views of the children are free to drift away from their parents' views. It doesn't matter how many children you have, if you disciple them properly, there is a very good chance they will share your world view. I think the growth of Islam supports this point. (to my dismay)

This then brings up another question. If the parents are not faithful in passing their views of the world to their children (and thus maintain societal continuity), is there a "default" world view when none is actively trained? I would say, yes, there is. Based on the fact that our minds are corrupted by the curse, we do not have the natural capacity to truly know the spiritual truths which lead to Life. Without the Spirit enlightening our minds, we will do what "seems right". And Proverbs 16:25 says that the ways which seem right to a man will lead to death in the end.

Thus, the default world view is inherently secular, and is the world view which naturally results when the parents exhibit no leadership or improper leadership in the discipling of their children.

In summary, I believe that having one world view or another doesn't have much bearing on the shaping or changing views of a culture over time. To me, the successfulness of passing of one world view or another to the future generations is what maintains cultures and prevents the onset of secularization.

Like Arrows in the Hand of a Warrior

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5)

We are by no means unique in this, but this verse really typifies what we think about children. It wasn't always this way.

Both my wife and I began our marriage thinking we knew what our family would look like. I thought two kids was the perfect number -- one boy, one girl (just like my family growing up.. imagine that!). My wife thought that 6 was a great number to shoot for. Blissfully ignorant of how a real compromise might happen regarding the discontinuity between 2 and 6, we walked forward into our marriage.

For the first few months, we thought that it would be nice to get settled into our careers, pay off some debt, and generally get the marriage thing figured out. Kids weren't really on the radar -- a few years out maybe, but not then. After all, kids are expensive. Kids take away free time. Kids change your standard of living.

Six months into the marriage, God decided we needed a wake-up call from our self-absorbed slumber in the form of an unplanned pregnancy. It was a real shocker for us because we thought it would be years before the kids came. In any event, we adjusted to the idea of being parents (or at least what we thought parents should be) and began life with a baby boy. Having only one child doesn't really change much though. We were still able to be pretty self-absorbed in our schedules and leisure activities.

The second pregnancy came about 2 years later, and since it was a girl, I thought we were done. That is at least until I mentioned the idea to my wife! The discontinuity between 2 and 6 quickly became a discontinuity between husband and wife. When our second child was born, life became more complicated because it wasn't as easy to be self-absorbed!

The third pregnancy came about 2 more years later, but this time, things were different. No longer did we believe that children were a burden or a drain on resources.

God opened our minds and hearts to the truth of Psalm 127. In Psalm 127, He clearly states that children are a blessing, and we felt that it was completely self-centered of us to think that we could "correct" the truth of Psalm 127 in our views that they weren't blessings but rather burdens. If God is God, and He says that children are blessings, then why would we want to turn down more blessings from God? He also says that they are rewards. Who would turn down a reward from the Almighty?

We completely understand that each child brings more responsibility in all areas of life, but the idea that additional children are burdensome is foreign to Scripture. God will supply what we need to accomplish what He desires in our hearts as well as in our physical lives.

And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. -- Ephesians 4:19 (ESV)

Do I think about how many children we might end up having? Yes. Do I get worried? No. I choose to believe God when He tells me through Ephesians 4:19 that He will supply all my needs. It is my job however to submit my heart to Him in order that He might define for me what my needs are.

It's more than just having needs met, though. It's far greater than that. God also says that children are like arrows in the hand of a warrior. Why would I want to turn down blessings from God that are also weapons to destroy the enemy? If I care about fighting for God's kingdom, then it behooves me to take seriously what God tells me my weapons can be. You see, children are a means to establish a heritage for God. Children are the means to fill the earth with God-fearing souls. If I have 10 kids, and my liberal, abortion-minded counterpart has 2, then I have 5 times more children who can be trained in a Christian world view than those who will be trained as God's enemies.

I understand that it is God who chooses, not me. But, I also see that families have always been a prime centerpiece in God's dealings with His people. Deuteronomy 6:4-7 clearly lays out a framework for multi-generational faithfulness that is pleasing to God, and that framework is founded on the family. Deuteronomy 6:4-7 is a framework, but it is also a command. If I love God, then my obedience ought to naturally follow. If I can't obey Deuteronomy 6:4-7, then there are bigger issues in my heart than children.

Praise God that he changed our hearts. We are blessed. We love God's rewards He has given us. We will work our hardest to make them deadly weapons for Christ.

God's Trumpet Blast

My son asked me tonight on the way home from Wal-Mart why God chose the curse as a consequence for Adam and Eve's sin. He wondered why God didn't choose grace instead of the curse. I told him that the curse is actually evidence of God's grace. For the very existence of the curse implies that Adam and Eve weren't killed for their sin. To even have a world in which the curse exists is a direct result of God's grace. Every breath of every day is only possible with God's grace.

I found this point from a sermon by John Piper to be especially noteworthy:

The reason this terrorized and troubled world exists is because God subjected the natural world to futility. That is, God put the natural world under a curse so that the physical horrors we see around us in diseases and calamities would become a vivid picture of how horrible sin is. In other words, natural evil is a signpost pointing to the horrors of moral evil.

Before I say another word, hear this word of clarification: some of the sweetest, most humble, godly, Christ-exalting, heaven-bound people carry some of those signs. Listen to Romans 8:18-21:

The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

In other words, God subjected the creation to futility and bondage to decay and misery and death. He disordered the natural world because of the disorder of the moral and spiritual world-that is because of sin. In our present condition blinded by sin and dishonoring God every day, we cannot see how repugnant sin is. Hardly anyone in the world feels the horror that our sin is. Physical pain we feel! And so it becomes God's trumpet blast to tell us that something is dreadfully wrong in the world. Diseases and deformities are God's portraits of what sin is like in the spiritual realm. That is true even though some of the most godly people bear those deformities. Calamities are God's previews of what sin deserves and will one day receive in judgment a thousand times worse. They are warnings. And that is true even when they sweep away Christ-followers and Christ-rejectors.

Oh, that we could all see and feel how repugnant, how offensive, how abominable it is to blackball our Maker, to ignore him and distrust him and demean him and give him less attention in our hearts than we do the carpet on our living room floor. We must see this, or we will not turn to Christ for salvation from sin. Therefore, God mercifully shouts to us in our sicknesses and pain and calamities: Wake up! Sin is like this! Sin leads to things like this. (See Revelation 9:20; 16:9, 11.) The natural world is shot through with horrors to wake us from the dreamworld of thinking sin is no big deal. It is a horrifically big deal.

Naked Art from a Christian Worldview?

Should nakedness be considered artistically appropriate from a Christian worldview? The issues around this type of question showed up in Scott's blog, Generations Of, recently in response to a post by Dr. George Grant on his blog. Dr. Grant has this to say when questioned about the appropriateness of nakedness in Christian art:

The human form poses particular difficulties because it is itself a remarkable and glorious aspect of Creation. Alas, our own thinking has been skewed so grotesquely by both Modernity's Bacchanalian Aesthetic and Antiquity's Apollonarian Aesthetic that we are often left us with only a pornographic context for the nude form.

Scott responded in this manner:

Yes, indeed, God made the human body as a great thing of beauty, but the body is a holy thing, being created in His image, image-bearers as both male and female. But we were also covered by Him on account of sin. That which reflects the intimacy of holiness between God and his created people, our bodies and their design for intimate communion between husband and wife, were covered by God due to the corruption of sin.

I agree with Scott. I think God's providing Adam and Eve clothing as a means to hide their public display of nakedness, which became shameful after their sins, is indicative of what our view of nakedness in public should be. I respectfully disagree with Dr. Grant that it was an aesthetic from Modernity or Antiquity which corrupted our thinking in regard to nakedness. Our minds' view of nakedness was permanently altered in the Garden of Eden through the sins of Adam and Eve.

God has provided a context in which beholding the beauty of God's creation through nakedness is appropriate,and I believe that to be restricted to the marriage bed.