I'm with Bill Wald on this one. If the UN had formulated a resolution, or a motion of understanding, that would be one thing. But for the UN to establish unenforceable phony treaties is another. Too many assumed powers which like the Kyoto accord, mean very little or nothing at all. The homeschoolers are perhaps putting a finger in the dyke, where international "law" will begin to dictate to individual states, or where various lobby groups begin to use the UN as their "authority" for things such as the rights of the child, in order to push their particular ungodly agendas, and prevent parents from teaching their own children, for example. In this case potentially denying parents to make decisions for their own disabled children. It won't harm anyone not to adopt this if it has no legal force, and it maintains individual responsibility within those nations who are already doing a superior job of caring for the disabled.
Recently, I have been watching some presentations by John Piper, and sermons by Mark Driscoll. They are addressing and evangelizing the youth. They are somewhat entertaining, but mostly engaging. When you have numerous twenty year olds coming back week after week to listen to an hour long sermon, this might give you a clue as to the difference between entertainment and engagement. Or how an "entertaining" speaker can "engage" the audience. There is probably no formula to this, but young people will be engaged when they are directly challenged in a real way about their faith and lifestyle. And this means that some of them might walk out, because the message is indeed life changing, which they will not all want to do.
The validity of UN treaties depends on the intent and impact of the treaties. A treaty that cannot be enforced has little impact. It becomes merely moral suasion. The problem is the influence and power of countries in the UN who do not share christian values. So when a sanction or statement is made against human rights abuses in the USA or Israel it receives UN approval. But when a similar statement is made against human rights abuses in China? or Russia? or Iran? or the PLO? The approval for such sanctions is dependant on the proportion of various values in the UN, as well as economic alliances, possibility of arms sales, etc.
So a "treaty" about care for disabled will be agreed to by those who already care, and by those who feel obligated to agree but have no intentions or ability to make any changes. And a treaty is usually made by different parties in terms of a trade of something. Land for peace, for example. But in this case, what is being exchanged? So it simply becomes a moral statement. But if the moral statement or law includes within it implications that diminish the rights of individual states or individual families to determine the best methods and outcomes for their citizens and family members, then there is the danger of gaining some care for the disabled, while losing freedoms which provided that care in the first place. This is what happened when communism became a moral law, forcing everyone to be equal, but resulting in millions of deaths of ordinary citizens, and the loss of freedoms of belief and speech.
Much better to use moral suasion rather than making moral law an international purview. Education, persuasion, love, caring, all underlined by the Gospel, will have a greater effect than a humanist international "law" or treaty.
Another example of UN interference and lack of sense of perspective, was when a UN envoy came to Canada to evaluate the state of aboriginal reserves and living conditions, etc. Canadian aboriginals on reserves receive a higher financial aid per person compared to any other demographic group in Canada. They also are not required to pay any taxes while on the reserves. They also have access to federal and provincial services, including healthcare and education. The UN envoy could have discovered all of this simply by doing a few google searches. Yet this envoy had the temerity and lack of good sense to waste time investigating Canada's care for the aboriginal population, at the cost of ignoring situations in Kenya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, Cuba, Haiti, and many other countries. If this is a signal of priorities, you will not be surprised when a UN envoy comes to investigate disabled access at 2850 Grand Rapids, or the education curriculum for the disabled in Seatle, while ignoring or minimizing issues in India, North Korea, Pakistan, Kurdistan, and Nicaragua.
I work a bit in the area of climate change adaptation and mitigation, including offsets. So what I am about to say should be taken in that context. I suspect that people voted against proposition "a" because of its implications primarily, not first of all because the statement is absolutely untrue. The implications are that a near consensus means they must be right, and that if human activity is a cause, then human beings must 'fix" it at almost any cost. Proposition "a" says the same thing as proposition "b". So I think they were voting against adopting it as a statement, regardless whether "true" or false. But probably they also disagreed that human beings are having a significant impact.
They might also be disagreeing with statement "b", because while human induced climate change, if real, might be considered to have implications for humans interacting with each other, statement "b" appears to be directed towards the objectives of society and certain environmental extremists and activists. To say that it is religious is to imply that if someone disagrees or does not react, that they are not religious or ethical or just. They would disagree with this assertion. Particularly they would disagree with the proposition that it is a religious issue. Perhaps I could make the analogy that if it is a religious issue, then so was the construction and piloting of the Titanic a religious issue, and so is the construction of the overpass on the nearby highway also a religious issue. It is to say that there is nothing that is not religious, but in the context, what does this mean?...
Finally, I would like to add a side comment that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful, in my opinion. . " "
I would like to repeat that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. In my mind, it is a personal attack on those who differ. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful and a personal attack, in my opinion, and should not be permitted particularly on a blog post.
It is also important to point out that our idea of creation care is primarily based on its impact on human beings or perception by humans. For that reason, we swat mosquitoes and trap mice and rats and plant fields without compunction. When we highlight the presumed impact of climate change on the poor coastal people who might be displaced by rising sea levels, or those living in warmer tropical zones who might suffer from higher temperatures, droughts, and famine, we also ought to realize the irony of lifting a host of poor people in some countries out of relative poverty into a working middle class or working lower class who now have triple the income and conveniences that they used to have. The “lifting out” from poverty has included increased industrialization, more cars, larger homes, more airconditioning, more processed food, increased meat consumption, and other things that inevitably lead to increased ghg (greenhouse gases).
And as a result, China has now increased its ghg emissions by 9% just last year; India has done much the same.
In wanting to have our cake and eat it too, we ought to have more humility and not to disrespect the opinions of those who disagree with some of the main premises of the debate.
I love the way you always manage to find new topics Mark, in your perpetual quest for more understanding of those needing a little extra help. The last sentence in your post made me wonder,... why is "handicapped" less acceptable than "disabled". It would seem that having a limit or "cap" on our handiness, might be less demeaning than being "dis" or "un" abled. Perhaps it is not good to get too hung up on it. But I am curious why one and not the other. Will disabled eventually receive some of the same undesireable connotations, and will we have to change that term in the future? Maybe the best term is wheelchair access. This would be good for anyone who needs a smooth gradual surface. Anyway, I appreciate your concerns. Having had some recent surgery, I had problems and great discomfort with steps for a couple days. For a few days I was looking for elevators, even though normally I don't use them unless forced, or more than three floors. Now I'm not allowed to lift much weight for the next few weeks. So there was, and still is a cap on my handiness.
Many people suggest that we should never judge anyone, for only God can judge. And it is true we cannot really be the ultimate judge of the heart. But Jesus said to enter by the narrow gate that leads to life, not the broad gate that leads to destruction. God is judging and will judge. When we bring that to the attention of people, including when others bring that to our attention, we should not be hindering our spiritual admonition and encouragement by using the verse "do not judge" as a weapon to avoid responsibility or admonition.
Scripture itself says that thieves and liars and adulterers and fornicators will not enter the kingdom of heaven. For us to ignore the warnings of scripture under the guise of grace and tolerance, is to prefer the broad gate that leads to destruction. God is an amazingly gracious and loving God. Jesus died for us! Gave His Life! To treat that lightly is to fall into the trap of a dead faith. As the book of James indicates, faith without works is dead, useless. That word "works" includes how we live our life, how we acknowledge God's lordship over our life, including our words, deeds, property, family relationships, sexual activities, and our priorities of how we spend our time and our money.
It is more important to be a "moral police" within the church with those who confess Christ with their mouths, than to attempt to be a moral police for those who deny Christ.
I timothy 1: 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me".
The righteous shall live by faith. Faith without deeds is dead. The law condemns us all, and only Christ's righteousness can make us new, so that the sinful become obedient, slave traders stop trading slaves, the ungodly become godly, liars stop lying, perverts stop perverting, and adulterers become faithful. When Ananias and Sapphira thought they could ignore their sanctification and obedience, they were in fact denying their faith, and paid the penalty of death. It is as Paul said, it is no longer I but sin that lives within me. So Paul stopped persecuting Christians. Paul stopped his pride. He changed. And he wrote I Timothy.. I Timothy ,
Jolanda, I appreciate what you've said here. It is really important for the teachers to capture the vision. This helps them to go beyond just going through the motions, to realizing that we are helping our children to put on the full armor of God, in an eternal life and death situation.
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
I'm with Bill Wald on this one. If the UN had formulated a resolution, or a motion of understanding, that would be one thing. But for the UN to establish unenforceable phony treaties is another. Too many assumed powers which like the Kyoto accord, mean very little or nothing at all. The homeschoolers are perhaps putting a finger in the dyke, where international "law" will begin to dictate to individual states, or where various lobby groups begin to use the UN as their "authority" for things such as the rights of the child, in order to push their particular ungodly agendas, and prevent parents from teaching their own children, for example. In this case potentially denying parents to make decisions for their own disabled children. It won't harm anyone not to adopt this if it has no legal force, and it maintains individual responsibility within those nations who are already doing a superior job of caring for the disabled.
Posted in: Running Together With Our Forefathers
Recently, I have been watching some presentations by John Piper, and sermons by Mark Driscoll. They are addressing and evangelizing the youth. They are somewhat entertaining, but mostly engaging. When you have numerous twenty year olds coming back week after week to listen to an hour long sermon, this might give you a clue as to the difference between entertainment and engagement. Or how an "entertaining" speaker can "engage" the audience. There is probably no formula to this, but young people will be engaged when they are directly challenged in a real way about their faith and lifestyle. And this means that some of them might walk out, because the message is indeed life changing, which they will not all want to do.
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
The validity of UN treaties depends on the intent and impact of the treaties. A treaty that cannot be enforced has little impact. It becomes merely moral suasion. The problem is the influence and power of countries in the UN who do not share christian values. So when a sanction or statement is made against human rights abuses in the USA or Israel it receives UN approval. But when a similar statement is made against human rights abuses in China? or Russia? or Iran? or the PLO? The approval for such sanctions is dependant on the proportion of various values in the UN, as well as economic alliances, possibility of arms sales, etc.
So a "treaty" about care for disabled will be agreed to by those who already care, and by those who feel obligated to agree but have no intentions or ability to make any changes. And a treaty is usually made by different parties in terms of a trade of something. Land for peace, for example. But in this case, what is being exchanged? So it simply becomes a moral statement. But if the moral statement or law includes within it implications that diminish the rights of individual states or individual families to determine the best methods and outcomes for their citizens and family members, then there is the danger of gaining some care for the disabled, while losing freedoms which provided that care in the first place. This is what happened when communism became a moral law, forcing everyone to be equal, but resulting in millions of deaths of ordinary citizens, and the loss of freedoms of belief and speech.
Much better to use moral suasion rather than making moral law an international purview. Education, persuasion, love, caring, all underlined by the Gospel, will have a greater effect than a humanist international "law" or treaty.
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
Another example of UN interference and lack of sense of perspective, was when a UN envoy came to Canada to evaluate the state of aboriginal reserves and living conditions, etc. Canadian aboriginals on reserves receive a higher financial aid per person compared to any other demographic group in Canada. They also are not required to pay any taxes while on the reserves. They also have access to federal and provincial services, including healthcare and education. The UN envoy could have discovered all of this simply by doing a few google searches. Yet this envoy had the temerity and lack of good sense to waste time investigating Canada's care for the aboriginal population, at the cost of ignoring situations in Kenya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, Cuba, Haiti, and many other countries. If this is a signal of priorities, you will not be surprised when a UN envoy comes to investigate disabled access at 2850 Grand Rapids, or the education curriculum for the disabled in Seatle, while ignoring or minimizing issues in India, North Korea, Pakistan, Kurdistan, and Nicaragua.
Posted in: Puzzling about Creation Care--Part 1
I work a bit in the area of climate change adaptation and mitigation, including offsets. So what I am about to say should be taken in that context. I suspect that people voted against proposition "a" because of its implications primarily, not first of all because the statement is absolutely untrue. The implications are that a near consensus means they must be right, and that if human activity is a cause, then human beings must 'fix" it at almost any cost. Proposition "a" says the same thing as proposition "b". So I think they were voting against adopting it as a statement, regardless whether "true" or false. But probably they also disagreed that human beings are having a significant impact.
They might also be disagreeing with statement "b", because while human induced climate change, if real, might be considered to have implications for humans interacting with each other, statement "b" appears to be directed towards the objectives of society and certain environmental extremists and activists. To say that it is religious is to imply that if someone disagrees or does not react, that they are not religious or ethical or just. They would disagree with this assertion. Particularly they would disagree with the proposition that it is a religious issue. Perhaps I could make the analogy that if it is a religious issue, then so was the construction and piloting of the Titanic a religious issue, and so is the construction of the overpass on the nearby highway also a religious issue. It is to say that there is nothing that is not religious, but in the context, what does this mean?...
Finally, I would like to add a side comment that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful, in my opinion. . " "
Posted in: Puzzling about Creation Care--Part 1
I would like to repeat that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. In my mind, it is a personal attack on those who differ. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful and a personal attack, in my opinion, and should not be permitted particularly on a blog post.
It is also important to point out that our idea of creation care is primarily based on its impact on human beings or perception by humans. For that reason, we swat mosquitoes and trap mice and rats and plant fields without compunction. When we highlight the presumed impact of climate change on the poor coastal people who might be displaced by rising sea levels, or those living in warmer tropical zones who might suffer from higher temperatures, droughts, and famine, we also ought to realize the irony of lifting a host of poor people in some countries out of relative poverty into a working middle class or working lower class who now have triple the income and conveniences that they used to have. The “lifting out” from poverty has included increased industrialization, more cars, larger homes, more airconditioning, more processed food, increased meat consumption, and other things that inevitably lead to increased ghg (greenhouse gases).
And as a result, China has now increased its ghg emissions by 9% just last year; India has done much the same.
In wanting to have our cake and eat it too, we ought to have more humility and not to disrespect the opinions of those who disagree with some of the main premises of the debate.
Posted in: Rolling Out a New Perception in the Parking Lot
I love the way you always manage to find new topics Mark, in your perpetual quest for more understanding of those needing a little extra help. The last sentence in your post made me wonder,... why is "handicapped" less acceptable than "disabled". It would seem that having a limit or "cap" on our handiness, might be less demeaning than being "dis" or "un" abled. Perhaps it is not good to get too hung up on it. But I am curious why one and not the other. Will disabled eventually receive some of the same undesireable connotations, and will we have to change that term in the future? Maybe the best term is wheelchair access. This would be good for anyone who needs a smooth gradual surface. Anyway, I appreciate your concerns. Having had some recent surgery, I had problems and great discomfort with steps for a couple days. For a few days I was looking for elevators, even though normally I don't use them unless forced, or more than three floors. Now I'm not allowed to lift much weight for the next few weeks. So there was, and still is a cap on my handiness.
Posted in: God's Referee?
George McGuire, I judge that you have written a well thought out article. Without judgement, there can also be no grace.
Posted in: God's Referee?
Many people suggest that we should never judge anyone, for only God can judge. And it is true we cannot really be the ultimate judge of the heart. But Jesus said to enter by the narrow gate that leads to life, not the broad gate that leads to destruction. God is judging and will judge. When we bring that to the attention of people, including when others bring that to our attention, we should not be hindering our spiritual admonition and encouragement by using the verse "do not judge" as a weapon to avoid responsibility or admonition.
Scripture itself says that thieves and liars and adulterers and fornicators will not enter the kingdom of heaven. For us to ignore the warnings of scripture under the guise of grace and tolerance, is to prefer the broad gate that leads to destruction. God is an amazingly gracious and loving God. Jesus died for us! Gave His Life! To treat that lightly is to fall into the trap of a dead faith. As the book of James indicates, faith without works is dead, useless. That word "works" includes how we live our life, how we acknowledge God's lordship over our life, including our words, deeds, property, family relationships, sexual activities, and our priorities of how we spend our time and our money.
It is more important to be a "moral police" within the church with those who confess Christ with their mouths, than to attempt to be a moral police for those who deny Christ.
Posted in: God's Referee?
I timothy 1: 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me".
The righteous shall live by faith. Faith without deeds is dead. The law condemns us all, and only Christ's righteousness can make us new, so that the sinful become obedient, slave traders stop trading slaves, the ungodly become godly, liars stop lying, perverts stop perverting, and adulterers become faithful. When Ananias and Sapphira thought they could ignore their sanctification and obedience, they were in fact denying their faith, and paid the penalty of death. It is as Paul said, it is no longer I but sin that lives within me. So Paul stopped persecuting Christians. Paul stopped his pride. He changed. And he wrote I Timothy.. I Timothy ,
Posted in: One Login, Many Sites
Tim, I appreciate the work you do to make this website work.
Posted in: Is Teacher/Leader Orientation Essential?
Jolanda, I appreciate what you've said here. It is really important for the teachers to capture the vision. This helps them to go beyond just going through the motions, to realizing that we are helping our children to put on the full armor of God, in an eternal life and death situation.