Epistemology: The Very Beginning

Before I can (or at least should) write anything trying to prove something (i.e. say something is true), I must make sure we are on the same page regarding epistemology. Epistemology simply answers the question, “How do we know what we know?” It is the most basic philosophical question. There are various epistemological methods for the various philosophies (empiricism, rationalism, etc.). I do not claim to be an expert on the subject (in fact I have pretty much exhausted my knowledge of it now), but my point is not to try and prove my epistemology, but merely show you the epistemology I use to determine the truths I've come to which I plan on writing about in the future (though upon finishing this little treatise, I realize I've made a bit of an argument for the superiority of my epistemology). I believe all other epistemologies are self-contradictory and self-defeating, but that is better demonstrated on a case by case basis. Most of my readers will accept my epistemology, though they've perhaps not thought about it in these terms before. So, all that to say that epistemology is where we have to start, and my epistemology is propositional revelation, basically, “The Bible tells me so.” John Robbins, from whom I've learned much of this, says the truth of the Bible is the only axiom of Christianity. All other truths (God exists, logic is valid, etc.) are derivatives. “Logic is valid.” in particular deserves some attention, since through logic, we attempt to plumb the infinite depths of the Scriptures (and I, at least hopefully, will be using it in the future to convince you what I believe the Bible teaches, though not explicitly).

So then, where does the Bible say, “Logic is valid.”? Almost surprisingly, the Bible isn't much less clear than that. The word 'logic' is a derivative of the Greek word 'logos', which we know from John 1 is in fact the person of Jesus Christ (“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”). Simply put, God is logic. This translation of the word also fits in very well with the understanding of the Trinity Edwards and Piper hold to that I wrote about some time ago concerning Christ being the knowledge God has of Himself. God's statement to Moses, “I am that I am.” is practically a verbatim use of the first principle, the law of identity (A=A) that Aristotle formulated. Or more accurately, Aristotle’s 'brilliant' formulation in the 3rd century B.C. was only about 1000 years after Moses had recorded God saying it. God even says in Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let us reason together.” And while that treads dangerously close to trying to derive an ought from an is, or in this case an is from an ought, when God includes Himself, because of His omniscience, omnipotence and inability to lie, we may safely derive an is from an ought. We also have the abundant examples of Christ and Paul's often complicated logical arguments in the New Testament.

There is a fair amount of debate even among Christians as to the extent of the validity of the use of logic in theology. Just mention the word 'logic' in Christian circles and someone, often with an air of spirituality and perhaps in a voice meant to convey profundity, will likely blurt out, “I don't want to limit God.” or “God is above logic.” I admit there is an appearance of spirituality here, but in actuality it is a covering for ignorance or stupidity. While I whole-heartily agree that I don't want to, nor indeed am in any way able to limit God, that does not mean God has not limited Himself. We know that God is truth and cannot lie. Therefore God cannot lie. Am I limiting God by saying, “God cannot lie.”? We know God is holy. Therefore He cannot be unholy. Am I limiting God by saying, “God cannot be unholy.”? In the same way, since God is logic, He cannot be illogical.

Now that we have established the validity of logic, we have a means of deriving truth that is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. As the Westminster Confession says, “The whole counsel of God,... is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture.” This would seem simple enough, but logic is often misunderstood. People often claim to know something “logically” when in fact they are committing logical fallacies (I'm reminded of the witch scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail). So a brief explanation of what logic is and is not may be helpful.

Logic is the study of valid inference, or as stated above, necessary consequence. It has strict laws that must be followed. This definition itself is often misunderstood since the terms valid and necessary are often misunderstood. For logical purposes they are synonymous describing an argument in which the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. This is deductive reasoning. It can also be understood as reasoning from the general to the specific. The classic example is :
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Here the reasoning goes from the general (all men) to the specific (Socrates). This is a valid argument. If the two premises (All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man) are true, the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is necessarily true as well.

Inductive reasoning, or reasoning from the specific to the general (and what people often mistake for logic), is actually logically fallacious (and can therefore at best give us probabilities, not truths). Taking the same statements above but reasoning inductively we have:
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal.
Here the reasoning goes from the specific (Socrates) to the general (all men). While the invalidity of this example is not easy to see because “All men are mortal.” is generally accepted as true, it is nonetheless invalid. Another example will show this more clearly.
Midnight is a cat.
Midnight is a good pet.
Therefore all cats are good pets.
Unfortunately we do not have the present voice of those who have been killed by large cats such as mountain lions and tigers to attest the fallacy of this conclusion, but nevertheless we know that not all cats are good pets. Here we have true premises (Midnight is a cat, and Midnight is a good pet) but the conclusion (Therefore all cats are good pets) is false. It is important to understand the only differences in this argument and the second Socrates argument are the subjects and predicates. The form is the same. Symbolically they both could have been written as
X is Y
X is Z
Therefore all Y is Z
where X = Socrates or Midnight, Y = Man or Cat and Z = Mortal or Pet

Regardless of how written and regardless of whether the conclusions are true or not, the arguments themselves are invalid and cannot prove anything. It is worth noting that this inductive reasoning (from the specific to the general) is the only reasoning available to the scientific community.

In contrast, the initial Socrates argument can be written as
All X is Y
Z is X
Therefore Z is Y
where X = Men, Y = Mortal and Z = Socrates

Regardless of the symbols used, this argument is valid. This is an important concept to understand regarding logic. Validity refers to the form of an argument, not the content. The premises in a valid argument may be true or false, but if they are true, then the conclusion is always true as well. And since this argument is valid, any subjects and predicates substituted for X, Y and Z that make true premises (All X is Y, and Z is X) will necessarily result in the conclusion (Z is Y) being true as well.

So then, to arrive at truth we must not only have valid logical arguments (deductive rather than inductive), but we must have valid arguments with true premises. As we've seen, valid deductive arguments are fairly easy to construct, but where do we get true premises? From valid deductive arguments with true premises. But again, where do we get these new true premises? From more valid deductive arguments with true premises. This reasoning would result in infinite regress (and does for the rationalist, though Aristotle unsuccessfully attempted to explain it away) except that we have truth in the form of propositional revelation in the Bible. This is my starting point, or to use more intellectual language, it's my presupposition, and therefore, by definition, unprovable. Hence it would be pointless (and Robbins says even detrimental) to try and prove that which cannot be proven. (I believe he maintains it is the work of the Holy Spirit to prove the unprovable). This commitment (that everyone necessarily has, though perhaps unknown) to some presupposition is why all reasoning is ultimately circular. There must be an unprovable beginning. (It's quite ironic, and somewhat funny, when people think they are being logical and intelligent by asking someone to prove their presuppositions. In case you don't see the humor, rather than showing their intelligence, they're showing their ignorance of even the definition of the term.) So while all reasoning is circular, not all reasoning is self-defeating. Well, I should say one reasoning is not self-defeating, namely logical deduction from the Bible, or simply biblical Christianity. All others are not only circular (as biblical Christianity is) but also self-defeating (as biblical Christianity is not). This understanding has led me to expand my view of the Bible. Growing up in Southern Baptist churches, I was taught the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible. It wasn't until I came to a Reformed understanding that I came to see it as sufficient for “all things pertaining to life and godliness.” Now however, I've come to see it not only as true and sufficient, but exclusively true. There is no truth apart from the Scriptures (which Calvin and the other reformers taught, but I've just now understood).

The sciences, or rather ignorant and/or deceptive scientists, have somehow fooled the average person into thinking that the sciences belong with logic in the realm of truth assertion. This is simply not the case. The only method of reasoning available to the sciences is inductive reasoning and that from false premises. Einstein himself said he would never accept his theory of relativity as true, even if all of its predictions were accurate. He acknowledged that it more accurately predicted things than Newtonian physics, but through any number of points, there are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through those points and therefore an infinite number of formulas for those lines. If there are an infinite number of possible answers, the probability of choosing the right one is 1/infinity. So not only are scientific theories not likely true, they are certainly not true. And from these certainly false theories (premises), more inductive and fallacious reasoning is done to arrive at more theories. This is done through many stages with the end result being scientists supposedly proving something and giving us truth. While many contemporary “intellectuals” have not acknowledged this, some have. Karl Popper, an agnostic and one of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century said,

First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it...[W]e know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses... in science there is no “knowledge” in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement; … our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural; … it consists of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths.

Bertrand Russell, another highly regarded secular philosopher and logician who was also quite antagonist towards Christianity, was even more condemning of the contemporary sciences when he said,

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true; now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say; “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

This formal fallacy that he mentions is so common it has been named, but despite its widespread use, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is still fallacious. And yet, as Russell said, fundamentally it is upon this fallacy that “all scientific laws are based.”

My older brother, who certainly disagrees with my epistemology, acknowledged this and said that any decent scientist knows it. Perhaps he's right. He himself is quite intelligent and more well-read than I am concerning the sciences and philosophy, so it would be reasonable for him to be familiar with this understanding. However, the fact that I went through elementary, middle and high school along with five years at three different universities (and got a degree) without ever having this basic understanding of the limitations of science explained to me seems questionable. The atheists and evolutionists I've talked to certainly don't have this understanding. Even the debate about whether evolution should be taught as fact or theory is evidence that the education system doesn't understand this limitation. How could anyone argue for some scientific proposition being taught as fact when science is incapable of arriving at any fact or truth? Unless of course one is making decisions based on one's presuppositions (which one necessarily asserts as true) rather than on what is actually provable. Unfortunately most supposed and even true Christians don't understand the impossibility for science to give us truth. Nor do they have the above menioned exclusivistic view of the Bible as true.

For those who reject my view, you are in a difficult position. It's precisely because I have a Christian view of logic that I can expect your mind and thought processes to be conformed to the laws of logic. Logic is valid because God thinks logically. Man is made in the image of God, therefore man thinks, or at least should think, logically. Notice here I am arguing why logic is valid, not how we know logic is valid as I was above. Without this basis, how do you impose the standard of having to be logically convinced that I am correct? Or why do you think, supposing you were able to do it, that convincing me logically of your position should have any effect on my beliefs? The most common answer to this question from atheists is something like, “Well everybody knows that.” or, “Because....” and then nothing. And people accuse Christians of taking a “leap of faith” and being irrational. It is so ironic that the accusers are guilty of exactly what they accuse others of being but are too deceived to see it in themselves. We should never be ashamed of admitting our presuppositions. They are unprovable, yes, but everyone has them, and the Christian presuppositions are the only ones that fit in with the world we see, the way we think and the experiences we have. The evolutionist/atheist must admit (though they usually will not) that the true love that they long for, the truth they yearn to know and the purpose they hope to fulfill are logically inconsistent with their presuppositions, but they cannot disregard the reality they feel. They must live inconsistently or not live at all. The Christian alone can live and live consistently. And yet every time we sin, we act as though God does not exist.

For any seriously interested in these topics, I'd recommend John Robbins' mp3 lecture serieses which can be found at www.TrinityFoundation.org (for free via download) and Michael B. Yang's Reconsidering Ayn Rand (which draws heavily from Robbins' works as well as Robbins' mentor Gordon Clark's works). If you are already very familiar with philosophy and philosophers (or are simply much more intelligent than I am), jumping straight into Clark's An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, A Christian View of Men and Things, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God or Thales to Dewey would probably be the most direct path. I've begun An Introduction to Christian Philosophy and have never felt like such an idiot while reading an Introduction book.

Just to whet the appetite

Not sure when I'll get them done, but to all of my adoring and fanatical readership out there waiting for my next blog like the next Harry Potter book or Twilight series, I'm working on three titled

The Superlative Nature of the Single State
Understanding the Nature of Sacrifice, Insight from Ayn Rand
and lastly,
Rethinking Polygamy

Of course, I wouldn't even be interested in writing on these issues unless I thought I had some brilliant insight into an issue that seems to go against modern "Christian" teaching.

And to any who thought I was serious about the Potter and Twilight series comments, I say that in deprecation of myself. I bought the last of the Harry Potter books on the day it came out (and read it with only bathroom and food breaks) and I just finished the Twilight series last week (which though I didn't starting them until they were all out, it took me no more than 2 days to read each of them).

My Mars Hill Church experience

As some of you know, on my recent trip to Washington I visited Mars Hill Church in Seattle. This is my critique of it. I know that's somewhat lame, critiquing a church and church service, but there are a few who have asked about it, so here you go. If you know nothing about Mars Hill, it's where Mark Driscoll is the main preaching pastor. The church is considered one of the most influential in America and is one of, if not the, flagship church in the Acts 29 Network. Driscoll has a fair amount of popularity (or in some cases, notoriety) for his books and for throwing out some curse words from the pulpit (which I've heard he has repented of). In a recent NY Times piece on the resurgence of Calvinism, Driscoll was the man they picked to talk with about it. His openness about pornography, masturbation, sex and a host of other issues not often dealt with from the pulpit has given him somewhat of a cultic following. The only book of his I've read, Porn Again Christian, is available as a free download and was even a bit surprising to me (it's more of an article than a book, really quick read). You just don't hear the issues he addresses addressed anywhere else from a Christian worldview and perspective. So all of that is the baggage I had going into the service.

A little anecdote is worth telling here, since I think it shows the character of at least some of the Christians at Mars Hill. Before leaving Jackson, I had posted on facebook a short itinerary of my trip and mentioned that I was going to hear Driscoll preach. I got a message from a facebook friend (one of those people who you've never met and probably never spoken to, but have some thin tangent of connection to) saying that he typically preached in person at the Ballard campus. I assumed she went there, so I replied giving her my number (internet access isn't always a sure thing when road tripping, so I didn't know if I'd get her response even if she did send one) and saying we could meet up Saturday if she wanted. I got to Seattle early Saturday (I slept in a parking lot a little south of the city) and headed straight for my favorite place in any city, the public library (restroom facilities are usually pretty decent, the internet is high speed and free and it's a quiet, warm place to read). I forget the details, but we ended up talking on the phone. She was unfortunately busy that evening throwing a birthday party for her roommate, but I, having not had a real conversation with anyone since the previous Sunday and my head brimming with the twenty plus hours of lectures and sermons I'd been listening to while driving, kind of fished for an invitation. It was maybe a bit awkward, but such are real life introductions that begin on facebook. Anyway, I got one and headed out to her place. The party was fun, I met and talked to a few people. Turns out she, my new friend, didn't go to Mars Hill (used to), but her roommate did and several other people at the party. One guy, who I met just as he was leaving with his girlfriend, I had a great, though brief, conversation with and knew he was the type of guy I would like. They left, but a short while later the birthday girl got a call from the guy's girlfriend asking where I was staying. I ended up talking to the guy again and saying that I'd probably find a parking lot somewhere, and so he offered his couch. I of course was more than willing to accept and he gave me the address and left the key out for me. I ended up staying at the party until midnight or so, took a delightful walk along Alki Beach (where the below Seattle skyline night photo was taken) with my new friend discussing all manner of theological and personal issues (And to her credit, she patiently listened as I very poorly tried to convey the gist of the Logic lectures I'd listened to. I'm sure I could not have sounded more boring nor more like an idiot.). Anyway, she, her sister, the birthday girl, the guy I stayed with, his girlfriend and I all met at Mars Hill the next morning to worship. Afterwards we went out to the Pike Place market (saw the famous fish market, the first Starbucks, etc) and I ended up spending another night at his place. I went out to Olympic National Park, but came back through Seattle and stayed another two nights with him. His phrase was “Mi casa es su case.” and I believe he meant it. I also went out again with my friend who was willing to take me to all the other Seattle sites (“Waiting for the Interurban” photo below being one). I was also able to go with the guy and his girlfriend to their “Community Groups” which meet during the week to eat, fellowship and discuss the sermon. It was a wonderful time. In fact, of all the beautiful places I visited (Columbia River Gorge, Crater Lake National Park, Redwoods National Park, Oregon Coast, Olympic National Park), Seattle, because of the beauty of the believers, was the highlight of the trip. Obviously God was looking out for me and orchestrating everything and perhaps He did direct me to the only Christians at Mars Hill who are living out their faith, but I kind of doubt it.

But I digress. I'll get to the original point. What was the church service like? (Though I do wonder if what I just wrote is the main point, and the church service is the secondary issue.) Driscoll preaches five times on Sundays. They have (I believe) eight other campuses that receive the video feed of his teaching/preaching. All other aspects of the service (singing, prayer, Lord's Supper, etc.) are handled individually by the campus pastors. The services are extremely simple. We began with some singing. Now in general, I think it's really lame to begin a service with singing. Particularly if it's just trite choruses written by people whose theology hasn't gotten out of Sunday school yet. Not that singing, i.e. praising God, can't be used to begin a service, but when that is the “worship time”, despite the fact that your intellect hasn't even begun to be engaged, then I think you have a pretty superficial understanding of worship. But fortunately, it was neither. Content wise, it was a mix of contemporary and old hymns. Providentially, one hymn was Nothing But the Blood, one of my favorites, and one contemporary was In Christ Alone, probably my favorite Christian song written in my lifetime. The worship pastor (believe that was his title) made some comments in the midst of it and there was some prayer before or after as well. Then Mark got up to preach. And he preached for like an hour. Now, that's nothing that I'm not used to. My current pastor I believe has done some hour and half sermons and anything less than forty-five minutes I start to question how much preparation the preacher put into it, but I didn't expect a well known pastor, the service which I'm attending is packed, and who's broadcasting to eight other locations, and is going to preach that same sermon five times that day, to bust out an hour long sermon. And one who is openly Calvinistic from the pulpit, a hardliner on men's and women's roles, and who preaches expositorily from the Bible. It still excites me. That's freaking awesome. After the sermon, there was some more singing (Which I love. I much prefer to sing after my heart has been pierced by the Word, and my singing is an expression of the emotion that my intellect has created from understanding the truth just taught rather than an emotion I have to try and work up. That's a good contrast with the superficial worship I referred to earlier.) We also had the Lord's Supper, which they do every week, which I also love. While I won't say it's commanded to do so every week, all of the arguments I've heard against it (thus far) are lame. If doing something weekly or regularly necessarily makes it less meaningful, then quit telling your wife you love her, quit praying and singing praises to God. In fact, you should probably only go to church once a quarter as well. Surely your soul will remain in tip-top shape from those four services a year (Now if you listened to Robbins lectures on Logic, you'd know that's an ad hominen argument.) But again I digress from this digression.

My one point of contention was with the music. I guess not really with the music itself, but with the presentation of it. I'm all for music. I'm all for instruments. I'm even all for musicians playing their instruments passionately and getting into it. But I don't really understand why they need to be up front on the stage. It does make sense if you want to make it like a concert. I mean that's why people will pay $60 to go to a concert when they already have the album and can listen to the music anytime they want. Concerts are all about the performance. It's all about the musicians themselves. People wouldn't go to concerts if the band was playing behind a curtain and never came out. That would be a concert all about the music and not all about the musicians. But as I said, nobody would go to those concerts, but that's the kind of concert I think needs to be taking place in the church. Now I understand this isn't very popular, particularly with musicians. They, perhaps even more so than your average Joe, are prideful and self seeking (I say that as a wanna be musician. The things that make me most self-seeking are the same things that make me want to be a musician.). They like being up there. And I can understand them wanting to be up there. But all that means is that even for their own sakes, we shouldn't put them up there. Even if they honestly could do it sinlessly in themselves, they are a huge distraction to others (to me if no one else). The girl who was up there I thought was exceptionally attractive, and though not dressed particularly immodestly, I was still constantly aware of her presence. Admittedly, that's an issue that I'm hypersensitive to (I just called myself hypersensitive. That's never happened before.), but I don't think the service would have suffered at all had she not been up there and it certainly would have been more beneficial to me. I believe they are in a logical dilemma. If they are the type of people who don't care about being up there, they'll have no objection to not being up there so as not to distract others. If they are the type of people who do care about being up there, they don't need to be up there for that very reason. Either way, they shouldn't be up there.

I do not have this objection primarily for myself. If I honestly am the only one and the church at large is benefiting immensely from having concert style praise, then so be it. I'll gladly sacrifice my preferences for the greater good. Or if only the strong are distracted while the weak are not, then they (the strong) have the biblical obligation to bear with the weak in this and all other matters of preference. Again, I am willing to do this. Mainly I throw this out there as an issue of contemplation. I do not think the Bible is as clear nor as strict on this as say female elders, what to preach, etc. I trust the leadership at Mars Hill has thought the issue through and has come to where they are through prayer and the application of biblical principles. Nor do I say this to detract from the wonderful work God is doing there. I have a strong desire to move there just to be a part of that church. Any who go to Seattle I would encourage to visit Mars Hill (in fact I've got some friends there who I'm sure would love to meet you). I think the reformed community could learn a lot from them. I'd be overjoyed if several churches that I know of or have been a part of became more like Mars Hill. Not that it's a perfect church, but it's striving to reach the world with the gospel. The pure, unadulterated life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. And they are succeeding.

One other note. At the party I asked a guy who attends Mars Hill what a typical member of the congregation was like. I believe I specifically mentioned Calvinism and that I knew Driscoll was but were the people attending the church. His reply was basically that many of them were clueless, even people who had attended for a substantial amount of time. What? How is that possible? I know Driscoll doesn't hide his nor the church's position. In the few sermons I downloaded and listened to, he said he was a Calvinist and that he thought it was the doctrine taught by scripture. I don't even think he went in to an apology for the terminology. This is still incredible to me. People can attend the church, know Driscoll's a Calvinist, not be a Calvinist, and still not feel condemned or belittled enough to leave the church. That's fantastic. I confess I still struggle with not thinking that every Arminian is an idiot and not wanting to immediately show them how ignorant their view is. I trust I am getting better at it and more ready to let the Spirit work and less ready to blast them, but it's not my natural disposition. What an accepting body of believers! How much greater sphere of influence they can have then my extremely limited one. I wouldn't be surprised if I could talk theological circles around 90% of the people at Mars Hill, and yet, I'd be less surprised if 90% of the people at Mars Hill weren't being more used by God as instruments of His grace and mercy than I am. That is humbling. And it's good to be humbled.



A couple photos from the trip

Seattle Skyline from Alki Beach



Waiting for the Interurban statues

The Confessions of Saint Seth

I use 'saint' loosely and merely as a literary ploy. For any who have read The Confessions of Saint Augustine, the title and our particular area of struggle is the extent of the similitude between the proceeding work and that brilliant piece of literature.

This is, in a way, a bringing together of many of my recent musings. From my own personal failings and that of my family (of which I am a part) to the more general failings of churches (of which again I am a part), this is my attempt to destroy whatever good there is in my name, that I might have no pride in anything, save Christ and Him crucified (Galatians 6:14). Indeed, the world has been crucified to me, and I am invincible. As John G. Paton said, “I am immortal until God's work for me to do is done.” If God is for me, who can stand against me? (Romans 8:31) And who dares to bring a charge against God's Elect? It is God who justifies. (Romans 8:33) If the whole world were arrayed against me, I would, I trust, stand just as firm as Athanasius until they could not help but say, “Seth contra mundum”, “Seth against the world”. It is impossible for me to care less what you think of me. My hope and worth are completely bound up in the person of Christ and His work, and there it rests securely, untouchable. This is at last my disposition. It is only from this position that I feel safe enough to write this. My sincere desire is that you will join me. Free yourself from secret guilt and shame. Cast off the shackles of that easily besetting sin. Acknowledge your sinfulness and seek the Divine Help. How many wallow in sin because they refuse to admit it to themselves? And of those that can admit it, how many fight alone, whose struggling only sink them deeper and deeper into the quicksand? Brothers, sisters, we must help these poor tortured souls! They are your brothers. They are your sisters. They will be your children. I throw myself out there. Whatever sin you struggle with, I have committed it. If not in deed, in mind. And if not in deed, it is only because of an inability, not undesirability. I am a wretch of the first magnitude. I am kin to Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, LaVey, the Pharisees and... Paul. But just saying that doesn't mean much. And so I will show you the darkness of my heart. It is not a pretty sight

(I will remain somewhat general, not to keep things hidden, but for the purity of any who read it. I cannot recommend you read it. I don't know if it will make you struggle. If you wish, you may skip down to the “Now really, why do I” paragraph. You should avoid the sordidness with that.)

Though I'm sure many people could rattle off a lengthy list of my sinful tendencies (and be correct), in some ways, I don't even care about those sins. They are splinters in my foot compared to the beam I know I have in my eye. Not that they in and of themselves are not damnable, but I've never thought it very profitable to spend time cleaning the dirt under my fingernails when I knew I was going to go jump in the pigsty later. Such is, and always has been, the case of lust in my life. I am currently it's master, and have brought it into submission over the last two years, but I hang by a double stranded thread. Those strands are some dear brothers in Christ and the Holy Spirit. Without either of them (Yes, either. Apart from my Christian brothers, the Holy Spirit has not been enough), I know I would immediately run back to it. Ah, perhaps I could last a few weeks or a month, but eventually and certainly, I would run back to it.

My first exposure to pornography was at quite a young age, I assume around five or six. And yes, I can remember some of those images twenty plus years later. At the time I didn't even know what I was looking at, but I knew I I liked it. Since that time I believe I've been addicted to it. Even in times when there was none available, I was addicted to it. Even now, though I do not indulge myself, I am addicted to it. There is nothing I would rather do (except have sex) than look at porn. If someone where to ask me, “Seth, would you like to go climbing, hiking, photographing, out to your favorite restaurant then come back and talk theology?” and I were going to be honest I'd say, “No, I'd rather look at porn.” “But all your friends and family are going to be there.” “That's nice. I'd rather look at porn.” That may come across as an exaggeration, but despite that scenario never having been played out, were the questions asked and were I honest, that's exactly how it would go down. Nor do I say it for shock value. I simply want you to have an accurate view of who I am. It's not that I want that to be my preference, it just is. The Spirit of God can change it, but I cannot anymore than you can arbitrarily change your deep seated preferences. I don't think most people have much to correlate the consuming and obsessive nature of lust with in their lives. An alcoholic might. An OCD person probably does.

If I had lived my life merely with this preference and disposition without any indulgence, than that would be one thing. But I have not. The vast majority of my life has been unabashed abandonment to it. College was not a very good time for me. I don't know what the ratio would be for time spent looking at porn compared to time spent studying, eating and everything besides going to class and sleeping, but it's certainly higher than 2:1. Were I a blatant pagan whose conscience has been so seared or who grew up with abuse or with no knowledge of God and the Bible, that would one thing. But again, I did not.

That is merely the external. The depravity of my thought life is beyond description. The only figures I can use to approximate the imaginative fornications I've conceived would be akin to the number of my heart beats, the number of steps I've taken or the number of breathes I've taken. It is incalculable. And since lust is adultery and the women I have imagined haven't consented, I'm a rapist hundreds of thousands of times over.

This is who I am. Your son, your brother, your friend, Seth Walters. This is me.

Sorry to disappoint.

Now really, why do I say all of this? Surely I can not give a crap about your opinion of me without intentionally destroying your opinion of me. In fact, going to all this trouble to give you a bad opinion of me is evidence that I do in fact care what type of opinion you have of me. So if I really do find all my worth in Christ, why write? Why set up some awkward moments with any who read it next time I see them or make my most embarrassing and complete failures available to the public? Perhaps more than any other, this blog is for your benefit. For almost the entirety of my Christian life, I have walked without the Spirit. Not that He ever fully left me, but my sins so grieved Him, He could not or would not exert His power in my life. I wonder how much farther in my Christian life I could be had I spent the last ten years in communion with Him. I'm sure I'd be much more holy and much more humble about it. So that is what I missed. What I got instead was an unbearable burden that has oppressed me for the vast majority of my life. Loneliness, guilt, shame and failure are the words that most characterize it. There is a self-loathing that comes from this that you cannot understand unless you've experienced it. Pondering death has often been my only relief. And I am afraid, and unfortunately confident, that you, your brother, your husband, your son or perhaps even your sister, wife or daughter may be now, or will in the future endure what I have endured. Someone you know's life, though a child of God and fellow heir with Christ, may be devastated and made useless by an addiction to pornography. For any in the midst of it, I am here for you. Whatever sin it is, there is victory in Christ. It doesn't matter if it's my struggle or not. Christ can overcome it. Homosexuality, bitterness from being abused, abusing others, whatever it is, I know your bondage. I know your fear of men. I know all around you are a bunch of condemning hypocrites. I know that death seems better than confession. But it's a lie. Satan has deceived you. If you only begin you will see the beauty of it, but you can't do it alone. Have you not learned that by now? You will never have victory in your own struggles. Let me help you. Let me show you Christ's love. There is joy immeasurable on the other side. Please, with all I am, I beg you. Join me. I have tasted it. It is so sweet. James 5:16 “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,” Why? “that you may be healed.” Please, be healed.

For the rest, though you didn't throw me into the quicksand, you didn't help me get out either. Had it not been for some faithful and loving brothers, I'd have drowned there. Had I made shipwreck of the faith, your surprise would have been genuine, even though my course was set towards destruction all the while. Oh, you offered help, right in the midst of saying, “Anyone who does that is the worst type of person. Do you do that?” And while now I can boldly respond, “Yeah. And Christ forgave me and still loves me, but your self righteousness will damn you to hell unless you repent.”, for years I could not. And there are many who still cannot. Your attitude keeps them from crying out. Your condemning and judgmental attitude is why they are afraid to confess, repent and “be healed”. If there is any sin or issue that you assume no true Christian would struggle with, then when one does (and most definitely there is not one but legions), they won't come to you. And if that's the prevailing mindset of the family or the church, then they won't go there either. They'll hide it. They'll fight with all their might, but alone, and ultimately to no avail. Some will, by the miraculous grace of God, survive. Many won't. One of them will be the next Dahmer, another just your average serial killer, another a serial rapist and another a pedophile. We the church, and believers individually, are God's instruments of grace in this world. If not us, then who and what has God given to rescue poor wretched souls from Satan's grasp? The Holy Spirit indeed, but He does not work in a mystic, ghostly way . He works through His word and through His people. We are His hands! As corny as that sounds.

For you parents, if there's any sin that you tell your children is so bad, then you can be certain, when they commit that sin, they won't be coming to you. And for your daughters, if there's any sin you isolate to be “a guy's problem”, then if your daughters have sexual struggles (which is becoming more and more common), then rest assured, they won't come to you. They'll think themselves wicked, evil and perhaps even psychotic, but they won't come to you. And thus, when the infant sin is just taking root and could with but two fingers be plucked from the ground of your child's heart and thrown into the fire, they will hide it from you and allow it to grow. Not that they want to. Not that they don't hate the guilt, but you have forced their deception. Their desire for your love and approval keeps them from bringing that particular issue to you, their parents. And years later, if by God's grace they are able to mortified it, the tree may be dead, but it's roots will have grown so deep that only the resurrection will fully cleanse them. That is where I have been left. The tree has been cut down, but I may always have to fight the new ones that spring up from it's roots. The time of my life of greatest mental aptitude and physical prowess is gone, wasted on fleeting images. I am, more than likely, too scarred to ever marry. The new man could never settle for anyone less than a model of Christian character and above average intelligence, but the old man could never settle for anyone who didn't look like a model. I rejoice that God has saved me, but oh how much the locusts have eaten. Please God, spare my nephews from such a life as I have lived. Kill me rather than have them repeat my mistakes.

So that's why I've thrown myself under the bus. Maybe it'll be easier for someone else to now. Or maybe someone who's already under can get out now. Maybe somebody else will and then another, and eventually the whole of Christendom will be throwing themselves under the bus to help those burdened brothers and sisters in Christ who have been under there for years, constantly being run over by Satan and getting tire tracks down their backs.

Father, forgive me. For these sins and for the sins I've let others fight against alone and for all the rest.
I surrender myself fully to you again. I am your vessel, though weak, ignorant and despicable. Please use me still. May I bring some glory to your name?


Below is one of my favorite hymns. I was so encouraged to hear Mars Hill sing it and privileged to take part. I cannot think of it without tearing up, nor will I ever be able to write something that so well expresses my hope.

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

For my pardon, this I see,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my cleansing this my plea,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.




As a final qualification, if what I've written doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Don't be a little baby and gripe about my generalizations. Yes, I know not every family and every church is like this, but many, if not most, if not almost all, are like this. Use this as a time to thank God for His blessings on you and pray for everyone else. If you were already convinced, be encouraged, the tide may be turning. If you were convicted, repent and change. If you think I'm way off, you're an idiot, but I'm glad you read it anyway.

The idiot comment was said in jest. If you think I'm way off, I think you're wrong. (This is pathetic. I have to qualify my qualifications.)

Oh, and my apologies if you're offended by my forthrightness, but that's also the attitude that's allowing this issue to destroy the church. My email is in my profile if any wish to correspond privately.

Preface to my next blog

I am back from my road trip. Thank you for your prayers and well wishes. I believe God blessed, as He always does. Hopefully I'll get to give a full report on what I did and the intricacies of God's working, but not sure when. I have so much that I wish to express, but here is a summary.

Before I left Jackson I downloaded a bunch of podcasts from Piper, Matt Chandler and Driscoll and began reading Gordon Clark's Logic (which I still haven't finished, though it's a short book.) For the first week or so I mainly listened to sermons while driving and read when an opportune time arose. The sermons were very good and the book great, once I had humbled myself to acknowledge that I was and still am a very stupid person who is not very logical. I did some internet research on Clark (who is nowhere near as well known as he should be) and came across www.trinityfoundation.org. It was run by John Robbins (He died last year. I very much would have enjoyed hearing him lecture), who lectured on much of Clark's works. I downloaded the 18 part series on "Introduction to Logic" which used Clark's book as the textbook. This was tremendously helpful. I went ahead and downloaded the whole mp3 catalog and yesterday listened to a five part series on the justification controversy plaguing the Presbyterian church. It was fascinating. Reformed Baptist churches are so autonomous that their histories, unless personally involved, are rather mundane. Not so with Presbyterians. So after hearing Robbins rip on lots of people who are incredibly highly regarded (Van Till, Wilson and Leihart) in many reformed circles, I am very interested to get the other side of the story. Apparently it has it's roots in the Clark-Van Til controversy in the 40's, whose outcome has since shaped the Presbyterian church and allowed the errors to begin to grow (at least as it appears to me at this time). Clark, and Robbins for that matter, seem to be super solid theologians, and yet I don't think I'd ever heard of them until I stumbled across Logic a couple years ago by accident (and didn't know what I'd stumbled onto until this past week).

So there are like ten books that I want to read now, but I'm trying to exercise a little patience and finish the ones I currently have before going on to these. But anyway, it was a very exciting time. I was trying to think of an analogy of how much I was engrossed in them and the lectures on Logic, but the only one I could come up with was porn. Some will completely understand that analogy and some won't. I currently have a lust for knowledge that I can only compare to sexual lust. I think I am in some danger of making knowledge an end in and of itself, but hopefully I can keep it in it's proper place. I am sure Satan would be just as happy if knowledge became my new idol to distract me from Christ.

Can't wait to see you, family.

Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?

Warning!!! You may (though I hope not) be too emotionally involved with this issue to read this post. I will be as honest and frank as I usually am. I may call you a murderer and tell you that I think you should be killed. So read at your own risk. I say this as a concession. I wish everyone were as I am. I know and acknowledge that I am a murdering, adulterous thieving idolater. It's the truth and there is so much freedom in the truth. But even I will admit that there are times when we should bring the grace and mercy of God (if the wrath and justice of God have already been brought), so if you are in one of those times, you may want to postpone reading this. Despite all that, I believe the information I'm attempting to convey is extremely important for Christians, men and women, to consider. If you've never seriously looked at this issue or want more information without the conclusions I've drawn, I'd highly recommend Alcorn's book Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? Just please don't be content to remain ignorant on the issue.

So as can probably be guessed, this post was inspired by Alcorn's Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? It was the last of his books that I ordered and had not read. I'm actually not finished with it, but the issue of importance was settled within the first 10 pages or so for me (the book is only about 100 pages, so it's a quick read) so I'm going ahead and writing. It's fresh on my mind and I'm motivated, so it's best if I do it now rather than make an indefinite postponement. I had heard the assertion made years ago by a friend's wife that in fact “the Pill” did cause abortions. I didn't have the technical data of how this happened, but even then I acknowledged that if in fact “the Pill” did sometimes cause abortions, it was morally wrong to use. This was not something that I received with joy. At that time I had much more hope of marriage than I currently do, so the idea that from the outset of marriage, either temporary abstinence or possibly becoming pregnant would be the only options for my wife and I was not something that I was extremely excited about. For the last 15 years there's never been a day when I didn't want to have sex, so getting married and then having to abstain for a certain number of days every month (I don't know the exact number as it has never been necessary for me to know) was definitely not attractive. Being extremely selfish as well, getting married and then my wife immediately getting pregnant was not what I pictured as my ideal plan either (I'm still not sure how much of this view is justifiable and how much is sinful. I think it's an issue of the heart. For some it's sinful, for others it may be sacrificial love. That may be the subject of another post sometime in the future.). All that to say that I sincerely hoped that the “the Pill” did not in fact cause abortions. You may be in the same boat. You may be struggling financially already just as a married couple on two incomes without children. With children on one income seems an impossibility. You may have been using “the Pill” for years and now face the realization that if in fact it can cause abortions, you may have inadvertently aborted one of more of your children. You may think yourself totally unqualified to raise children and something to avoid at all costs. You may gotten married just to have sex without a guilty conscious (ah, a fellow sexaholic) and children wasn't what you bargained for. I don't deny these are real issues (mainly resulting from the sins of the past, but that's irrelevant), but we must never make our judgments about truth based on our circumstances. We must arrive at truth objectively, even abstractly, and then judge our circumstances and make our choices based on that. Without this attitude there's really no reason even discussing anything else. You can and will justify any and everything to suit your desires and circumstances. There is no proof that is valid. There is no evidence that is sound. You have made yourself judge. You have made yourself god. At least acknowledge that and throw off your useless quasi-Christianity and quit trying to pay lip service to God. If you have acknowledged this, that the truth is true regardless of your circumstances, then, and only then, we can have a profitable discussion.

So let's begin with definitions. Up until recently this would not have been an issue and we could understand what the secular world meant when it spoke, but in what appears to be blatant attempts to mislead the public, certain words and definitions have been changed. The most important of these is conception. Obviously this is important since the issue at hand deals with contraceptives, I.e. anti conception. The traditional definition and the one meant in ordinary language is that conception is the point of fertilization. As wikipedia says, “conception (biology) or fertilisation, the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species” (I was actually somewhat surprised that wikipedia has such a good definition). If this were the universal definition accepted and used and contraceptives did in fact do merely that, then there would be no point to discuss. To the question of, “Does the birth control pill cause abortions?” the answer would be a simple, “No. It merely prevents the egg from being fertilized by the sperm which is before conception. Thus no new life has been formed and abortion cannot happen without life.” Of course this is not the case else I wouldn't be laboring so intensely about it. In fact in 1976, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) changed the definition of conception to mean “anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst, which occurs six or seven days AFTER fertilization” (emphasis mine). Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th Edition) defined conception as “the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst.” Now you see how, using either of latter two definitions above, one could market a product as a contraceptive even if it prevented implantation of a blastocyst, which is a six or seven day old human being, and not be technically lying. And in fact this is exactly what is being done. The birth control pill (and by birth control pill, “the Pill”, oral contraceptives, oral contraceptive pills I am referring to all the combination pills containing estrogen and progestin that are what you think of when you think of any of the many different pills that are labeled “contraceptive”) has three means of “contraception”. The first is prevention of ovulatioin. Obviously if a woman doesn't release an egg then it can't be fertilized and she can't get pregnant. The second changes the cervical mucus which inhibits the sperm from entering the uterus, thus also preventing the egg from becoming fertilized. The third makes “changes in the endometrium which reduces the likelihood of implantation.” The endometrium is the lining of the uterus that, in preparation to receive a blastocyst, gets thick with blood vessels and glycogen. No one argues about the first two. They are contraceptive in nature (now there is another debate as to the morality of contraceptives in general, but that is beyond the scope of this blog). The third means, that is by making changes in the endometrium, however, is the determining factor. Bear in mind, what is being talked about is the implantation of a blastocyst. We are not dealing with eggs and sperm here. An egg or sperm cell doesn't implant. Only blastocysts implant (A blastocyst is a fertilized egg of about a week old). All the genetic material you and I have now was present when we were blatocysts. Preventing this implantation is the expressed purpose of “the Pills”'s third means of preventing “conception”. Now you see the necessity of changing the definition. If conception is understood to occur at fertilization, then “the Pill” not only prevents fertilization by the first two methods, but in cases where it fails to do this and fertilization occurs, it clearly works as an abortifacient. The secular world was intelligent enough to recognize this and make the ridiculous change to the definition of conception. This is however what I would expect of the secular world. They are blind and will do and act in whatever illogical way to serve themselves. What is extremely discomforting is the lengths that supposedly Christians go to deny this. In the book Alcorn quotes several Christian physicians who vehemently deny “the Pill” can have any abortive effects. Their attempts at logically arguing this are indeed pathetic. Even using mental gymnastics, a child could destroy these arguments. Really this is the end of it. If you're a follow of Christ than the issue should be settled. “the Pill” has three means of preventing “conception”. Two of them actually do just that, prevent conception. The third however prevents an already conceived human from implanting and thus being able to grow and live. It's like death by exposure. Yeah maybe you didn't strangle your infant, but leaving him outside in the elements with no food or warmth is just the same. You still killed your baby. Yeah maybe you didn't have your fetus sucked out of you with a vacuum, but intentionally creating a 1 mm thick endometrium so that he or she will pass out of you into the toilet is essentially the same thing.

What I've presented thus far is factual (except my exposure analogy and my evaluation of the secular world and their motives). If you read the small print on “the Pill” insert it will say just what I've said or refer you to the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR), which will say it. When someone, particularly a physician, says that “the Pill” is not an abortifacient, they are either ignorant (which actually many are) or have adopted alternative definitions to suit their purposes. As far as I can tell, all contraceptive pills are abortifacients as well. There's really nothing left to discuss. The details as to numbers and what is the primary compared to secondary means is all just that, the details. The principle has been established and decisions are made on that. The book goes into a fair amount of detail and studies which I found helpful and drove the point home even more, so I do recommend it still, but what I've presented I think should be sufficient to convince anyone who is open to the truth.

Now some of you may actually be horrified right now. And to some degree you should be. The fact that it was unintentional is only small consolation to the fact that you may have killed your child. There is some relief that we cannot know for sure. I certainly hope that my mother didn't unknowingly kill one of my siblings or that one of my sisters hasn't unknowing killed one of my nieces or nephews. In fact I'm glad I don't know. But even if we could know, or if we feel guilty even at the possibility, there is forgiveness in Christ. Even as they crucified Him, He said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” What more appropriate language to use now. “Father, forgive us, for we knew not what we did.” Perhaps as Acts 17:30 says, God will overlook these times of ignorance, but regardless, He now commands all men to repent. That is the remedy, repentance and faith. But included in repentance is a turning away from past sins. We must now live according to the light that we've been given. If you didn't know this before, you do now. From now on you can't make a claim of ignorance. You are without excuse. From now on it's murder. But for the past, let us remember that even these sins Christ's blood can cover.

Some of you may actually have known this already and yet disdained it or pushed it out your mind so as not to cause any unplanned ripples in your life. If so, I sincerely hope that the weight of feticide falls entirely on your shoulders and you are broken under the guilt of it. I hope you dream of little babies crying out to you, “Why did you murder me, Mommy?”, “Why did you let them kill me, Daddy?” You have sacrificed your children to your own selfish desires and there will be a reckoning day for it. But even here, there is forgiveness in Christ. (On a side note, it is interesting how closely the Bible relates child sacrifice to pagan worship and how vehemently God tells His people not to do it.)

I've recently been thinking about the term “abortion”. I wonder who came up with applying it to a human life? I imagine it was an attempt to make murder or feticide less grotesque. Abortion is merely the noun form of abort. I think of missions being aborted, operations being aborted, but not life. We don't say that someone aborted someone else by shooting him or that a car wreck resulted in an abortion of a 17 year-old drunk driver. Now I understand that they use abortion in reference to pregnancy, i.e. she aborted her pregnancy. This however still doesn't make sense. Pregnancy is the quality of being pregnant. Pregnant is “containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body.” Thus to abort means to terminate the quality of containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body. Do you see the awkwardness of this? If we normally think of abort in reference to missions, operations, countdowns, etc., doesn't it seem strange to apply it to a quality, specifically the quality of containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body? Are there other qualities that we abort? In our acceptance of the language, we have already capitulated so much. I personally will refer to it from now on as either feticide or child murder.

I remember reading an article in a Catholic magazine (can't remember the name but my roommate John had a subscription) dealing with abortion or rather child murder. The main point was that Christians were trying to make a category distinction that the Bible never makes. The biblical language for pregnancy is “with child”. She's not “with zygote”, “with blastocyst” or even “with fetus”. Not that I don't see and understand the usefulness of having terms that refer to a specific time frame in the child's early life (first 9 months specifically), but the point being that from the outset, she is “with child”. The intentional and unjustified death of the child inside of her is just as much murder as the intentional and unjustified death of the child outside of her. The only categorical difference is before and after fertilization has occurred. Everything else is simply a difference of degree, or more accurately a difference of quantity or a difference of location. If you are going to argue that life begins at any time besides fertilization (though this is only a generalization, I would say conception actually begins when the nucleus of the sperm and egg join giving the unique 46 chromosomes for that individual, but this is the immediate action right after fertilization and I don't know the technical term for it) then on that same basis I could argue that females, who are generally smaller than men, aren't as human as men. And children, who aren't as big as they will be, aren't as human as they will be later in life. Of course older people, once they reach and pass their maximum size start to become less human. And we should certainly not look down on or encourage the morbidly obese to lose weight, why, they have become the most human of all. You see how ridiculous this is, but in fact this (or one similar) is the same argument that one has to make if we do not acknowledge that life and humanity begins with chromosomal fertilization (my term to to refer to the above mentioned moment).

My last question is what should be done with these murderers. Though I don't personally know of anyone who has committed child murder, I'm sure I personally know people who have committed it. And since murder by definition involves knowledge and intent, I would not say that those who have killed their child through the use of “the Pill” are murderers necessarily (if done in ignorance), though some are (if done with knowledge). For those in ignorance, I believe, at least before the courts, they are innocent. If done with knowledge (though of course theoretically since we can't know who has murderer their child through “the Pill”) I believe they are as guilty as any other murderer. Actually, they are more guilty than any other murderer in that their victim never had an act of the will that was remotely punishable at all, much less by death. So obviously if I make that statement about those who murder their child through “the Pill” (which is not 100% successful), then even more so those who surgically murder their child are guilty. So the question remains, “What should be done with these child murderers?” Rack my brain as much as I can, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is the death penalty. All of the arguments that would imply something less are inconsistent with the arguments I've made above. The child of 1 day or 1 month is just as much a child as my nephews are. I would certainly demand the death penalty for anyone who murdered any one of them. How can I then reason something less for another child simply because his physical position is still inside his mother or he is only a couple hundred or couple thousand cells while my nephews are already millions. I can't. It's irrational. Now obviously the laws are not in agreement with me (because our law makers are either content to be inconsistent or too irrational to understand the inconsistency). Child murder is legal. But the question is not “What is being done with these murderers?”, but “What SHOULD be done with these murderers?” Are they innocent because they have believed a lie or does not even their own consciences tell them it is wrong? Is not even the Post Abortion Stress Syndrome evidence that they have done what they know to be wrong? Were slave owners justified in killing their slaves because they sincerely thought of them as animals and property? Were the Nazis justified because they sincerely believed the Jews were sub-human? The Nuremberg trials have already shown that the courts still held them guilty. Many of them were even under orders. Nobody is ordering a mother to commit child murder. In fact nobody, including the father of the child, has any legal right to make her or make her not do what she wants. Granted husbands and boyfriends are often guilty of pressuring a wife or girlfriend into murdering her child, and they should be punished, but ultimately (as of now) it comes down to a woman's choice. And while women will always have that choice (just as I have the choice to murder you or not), it should not be a legally justifiable choice but rather a criminal choice with criminal ramifications.

Now I know there are tons of “what if” scenarios you can come up with to try and negate all that I've said. What if she's raped? What if she's going to die? What if the baby is mentally disabled? What if the baby is going to die? There are perfectly good answers to these questions. If you sincerely have them and cannot rationally apply biblical principles to them, then I'll be glad to answer them for you, but only if you first acknowledge the principles I've set out above. Basically that murder (unjustified killing of someone) is wrong, at conception is the only categorical or qualitative change in an egg and sperm cell and thus life begins at chromosomal conception. Therefore what is commonly known as abortion is in fact child murder and is wrong. And since “the Pill” does in fact act to make a woman's endometrium inhospitable to a human child of 6 or 7 days, then “the Pill” can result in the death of one's own child. Intentionally doing this which actually does result in the death of the developing child is murder.

Again, Alcorn's book is much more technical and far less condemning than I am, so if you doubt my arguments I'd encourage you to pick it up.

Lots of randomness

Here are a bunch of random thoughts for the last couple months. I think I might can offend some people with this one. I hope it is only the truth that offends and not incorrect thinking on my part.

I've taken a bit of break from reading theology, though The Fountainhead is a bit more heady than the typical fiction I enjoy (think Louis L'Amour westerns). It's by Ayn Rand, who was supposedly a pretty big deal. Her most popular work is Atlas Shrugged. I may read it as well, we'll see. I'm still not sure whether I like the book or not (or rather the question should be whether I think it's a good book or not), but I'm only a bit over half way through with it. There's much that I agree with in her worldview (Objectivism), but in the end it all ends up being totally arbitrary just like all other false views. I flatter myself, but in several ways I remind myself of her hero Howard Roark. I remember, at least in my adolescent years and perhaps before, thinking of how I wanted to be and consciously trying to make myself. I only achieved it to a certain degree (thankfully), but I think my goal was not too far from who Roark actually is. Whatever the case, the book definitely makes me contemplate myself. Again whether that's good or bad I'm not sure yet. It makes me either want to kill myself or do something, but never be one of the masses. But enough of that, maybe I'll write more when I finish.

Let's see what else? I've read several of Randy Alcorn's books of late (that's why I'm taking a break from theological books, that's all I've done for about the last 2 months) The first two were Safely Home and Lord Foulgrin's Letters. Here's a copy of my thoughts on them soon after finishing them.

“I just finished Lord Foulgrin's Letters by Randy Alcorn. It is, as he readily admits, a modern book in the vein of CS Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. While I greatly enjoyed that book last year and thought it had tremendous insight into the temptations I face, I even more heartily enjoyed Lord Foulgrin's Letters. It, just as Safely Home (also by Alcorn), not only brought me to actual tears running down my cheeks (a couple at least), but is extremely motivating . Alcorn appears to be heavily influenced, or at least in great agreement, with John Piper. Piper's theme of Christian hedonism often comes up in the demon's correspondence, and Piper himself is even mentioned by Lord Foulgrin as one whose books the humans must avoid. This is perhaps why I enjoyed and I trust benefited so much from it. While CS Lewis was a brilliant man and writer, I disagree with him on some major theological points that invariably come out in his writing. Lord Foulgrin's Letters and Safely Home are fiction books written from a worldview I agree with and tout the theological ideas that most echo my soul's cries.”

After finishing those I ordered The Purity Principle, Restoring Sexual Sanity, In Light of Eternity; Perspectives on Heaven, and Money, Possessions and Eternity all by Alcorn. The Purity Principle and Restoring Sexual Sanity were both good, In Light of Eternity was okay, but Money, Possessions and Eternity was one of the most influential books I've read. I'd read a very small book of his, The Treasure Principle, that has the same basic premise (Jesus doesn't condemn us for storing up treasure. He condemns us for storing it up where rust destroys and thieves steal - earth. He then commands us to store it up where rust doesn't destroy and thieves can't steal – heaven.), but Money, Possessions and Eternity was so thorough and compelling. Providentially I was reading it right before and on my way to Haiti. Alcorn, or rather Paul's idea from 2 Corinthians 8:14 that “but by equality: your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality:” could not apply more aptly to the abundance I have and the lack in so many Haitians. Indeed this is why I have been given wealth, not that I can indulge myself or look down on others, but so that I might redistribute it. God certainly could have made all men equal in all things, but then the relationship that can exist between me and a Haitian student who has no means of going to college save the generosity of others, would never be formed. Without the inequality my Haitian brother would not receive the humility of having to ask and depend on others and I would not receive the blessing of giving, prove my heavenly citizenship and have the responsibility of being depended upon. There is so much genius in everything (that may be the most profound thing I've ever said, that and “There's no excuse for disobedience”). I remember hearing Pastor Russ say (I believe referring to something Bavink said in The Doctrine of God) that the universe was as perfect as it could be. This is hard to believe with all the sin and suffering, but only when one has a such small view of God. If, and I maintain that He has to be, God is most concerned with His glory, then the greatest good is for Him to be most glorified, then whatever brings Him the most glory is best, regardless of it's effects on us. And God, again if He is truly God and not an idol we make, could not let anything happen that would not bring Him most glory. So all the sin, all the worst that we can imagine, all the clever sadistic things we do, all the marring of His image, is somehow exactly what must happen to bring God most glory. It may be the glorification of His wrath by seeing justice at last done and every deed repaid, or the the glorification of His love in pouring out His wrath on Christ for our sakes and imputing His righteousness to us. We will all glorify God, it's simply a question of how. Personally I think I am one who will show the breadth and depth of God's grace and love. If He can and does forgive such a sinner as I, who can and will He not forgive? I wonder if some I know will be trophies of His wrath. Men and women much more moral than I, whose lives are not cesspools of sin, who care for others, who speak with the tongues of angels, who give all they have for the sake of the poor, who render up their bodies to be burned, they do all this, but one thing they lack, love and trust in Christ. They will burn forever, an eternal testament to the unquenchable wrath of God, that even these, the best of men, are not righteous enough for God. That's what I've been thinking at least.

I also read To the Golden Shores The Life of Adoniram Judson. He was a missionary to Burma, in fact the first American foreign missionary. It was fantastic. Maybe not the best thing for me since I romanticize all the pain and suffering he went through (it's easy to do when you've never experienced persecution), but I thought it was great. I also began a biography of Hudson Taylor, but couldn't get into it. The writing just sucked. Another excellent book I read was God's Smuggler. It's about Brother Andrew, just a regular guy who smuggled Bibles into communist countries. It borders on mysticism, but I think he just has tremendous faith in God. Our abundance dispels our faith in God because it affords us so many precautions. Yes, I depend on God, but only if I lost my job, then all my savings ran out, then all my friends got tired of me, then the church failed me, the my family turned me out, then the government denied me, then, if all of that happens and only if all that happens, then I'll really pray to God for my daily food. Then I'll really depend on Him. It was so refreshing to read of someone who really trusted in God for everything, money, life, a home, a wife, and God provided. I think, no, I know, that God can be counted on, but I never really give Him the chance to do anything miraculous because I have such abundant natural means. That's an almost unstated premise of Money, Possessions and Eternity, you can give all you've got away like the widow with the two mites, you can give out of your poverty like the Macedonians, we have a God who owns everything. Now I say all this, but don't get the idea that I have done it. I haven't. I want to. I think it'd be amazing. Even if I died of starvation, I think self-starvation for the sake of others would be a great way to go. I get very little encouragement, though in this area. Everyone is quick to talk about what the Bible says about saving and investing and storing up and providing and a whole bunch of other circumstantial or proverbial evidence, but I haven't heard any good exegetical explanations of what the equality of 2 Corinthians 8:14 means besides “the state or quality of” “having the same amount”. Or why the reason we have been made rich is different from the reason God made the Corinthians rich in 2 Corinthians 9:11. I say all this as someone who would love to be convinced that I'm wrong. I love to indulge myself. I love having everything I want. The Canon 5D Mark II looks like an awesome camera. I'd like to have it. The 500/F4 or 600/F4 are both amazing lenses. I'd like to have at least one of them. I am if anything not an ascetic. But I'm also about the most rational person I know, and rationally I just don't see how I can justify it. Honestly I don't see how you justify it either. Oh, I'm not talking to just anyone, but how do you justify it if you honestly believe the Bible? I think it's one of those things that we all feel a bit guilty about because we all suck at giving (even though Paul commands the Corinthians to excel in the grace of giving 2 Corinthians 8:7) so we don't think about it. When the thought does come creeping into our head, we don't rationally justify ourselves, we just think of everybody else who is just as selfish as we are and who also has no rational justification for their indulgence, but has also pushed his guilt to the back of his mind. But enough on that.

Another book I read, quite a while ago but one I never got to write about, was The Five Love Languages. I did enjoy it. I thought it had some good insight, but it also had one glaring omission. His basic premise that we all have our preferential love language is true. His other premise that to express love we must do it in the recipients language, not our own, for it to be received as love is also true. A more general way of stating it is that the the object of affection determines the appropriate means of expressing affection. This is ultimately true of God who is only bound by Himself in how He determines such expression, but also true in human relationships as well, though limited by God's commands (you can't express, even if they want you to, your love to someone by murdering them). Understanding that and the practical helps in determining a person's love language I thought could be very beneficial. In fact the practical examples of couples trying to do that was the best part of the book to me. This whole idea was nothing profound as I had come to the above generalization independently long ago (though that particular phrasing came from Professor Glodo of RTS Orlando where John's going to seminary). So on those points I agree.

His five love languages are words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service and physical touch. Even this I found helpful as I had not really thought of some of those as ways people actually experience love. For example words of affirmation mean little if anything to me. I know what I am. I know what I'm not. Your affirmation or denial of that does nothing to affect the reality of what I am (though I admit I can be wrong about it, in general I think I know myself better than you do). Acts of service also mean fairly little to me. What you did for me I probably could have done for myself, and while I appreciate you doing it, it doesn't communicate love to me. It just says that you like to or at least obediently serve others. Same with gifts. Pretty much anything bought says very little to me. Again, not that I don't appreciate it, but it doesn't say “I love, you” to me. A homemade gift may depending on how much time went into it. This though is because I think of the time value it signifies, which is also why quality time does mean something to me. With my family and with few closest friends, the time we've spent together (whether playing games, doing nothing but talking, driving, camping out, eating, whatever) are what give me a feeling of being loved. Physical touch is also important to me (he explicitly refers to this as non-sexual, which I'll get to later). Those I love I enjoy even just giving and receiving a hug from or fitting five people on a couch. So all of the above I found helpful, and had he written the book with no specific audience, but just a general “This is how you can relate to anyone and everyone better.” then I would think he succeeded. However, every (as far as I can remember) example and case study is of a married couple. Not that I'm saying what he's written doesn't apply to all relationships, but it is clear that the book is targeted at improving the relationship between a husband and wife. Again, nothing wrong with that, but how can you write a book talking about marital love and the ways of speaking it and not talking about sex. It's like talking about communication and the means of communicating through sign language, and letters, and body language and never talking about speaking actual words with your mouth. It is the supreme expression of love in marriage. If you disagree with that, then you're wrong. Oh I'm sure you're being honest when you say that it doesn't feel like the supreme expression of love, but as in everything else, your feelings having absolutely zero bearing on what is true. Deep down everybody knows this, but for whatever reason they don't want to admit it ad try and deny it. Take a married couple for example. A husband doesn't often hide when he's going out to spend quality time with his friends or family (unless of course he's going out to lust or commit adultery, which only proves my point more) nor is the wife usually hurt by this. A husband doesn't hide his affirmations of a friend or coworker (again unless it's an attractive female, which only proves the point again). Nor does a husband hide gifts he gives to friends and family (unless it's an attractive female, which only proves the point yet again). With all of the afore mentioned love languages, you can find examples of where they can and ought to be spoken to those we come in contact with. Not so with sex. It's only supposed to be spoken to one's spouse and when it's spoken to anyone else, whether that a closest friend or a prostitute, there's hell to pay. For most people it's probably the most hurtful thing one can do. This only makes sense if sex is in fact the supreme expression of marital love. Otherwise why can't I go have sex with anyone I want just like I can give someone a word of encouragement or spend quality time with them? Sure, God said I can't and that's sufficient reason enough, but do you really think God's that arbitrary? It's not like if God hadn't said adultery was wrong wives would be fine with their husbands bringing home some hot 20 year-old every night to have sex with in the guest room before he came to sleep them. The reason God has given so many restrictions is because it is supreme. It is the most powerful, both positively and negatively. I really just don't understand why people won't admit what they experientially know.

I hadn't intended on ripping on women, but I think I'm about to. I used to think that women in general were much less selfish than men in general. Maybe that's still true of men and women in general, but as far as good Christians go, men seem much more the ones concerned with pleasing their wives than the wives pleasing their husbands. The Christian men I know who have or are preparing to or even thinking about marriage, have at least somewhat of an understanding of the responsibilities that it evolves. Now certainly they don't have a full understanding but they know that there's more responsibility and in a lot of ways it's going to suck. They can't do whatever they want anymore. They have to sit and listen to things they think are stupid. They have to be patient when she gets offended for no reason. He has to try and explain things that seem self explanatory. He can't buy his favorite toys anymore. He can't spend 12 hours playing computer games. He can't camp out for the whole summer. He can't go backpack for a summer in Europe. I could go on and on about things guys anticipate having to give up when they get married. Some guys aren't willing to give up these things, and I'm sorry that women have become so desperate that they marry guys like that, but the solid Christian guys I know are committed to being a man in their marriage and giving up things, even though in a lot of ways they know it's going to suck. Even the secular “ball and chain” terminology is evidence for it. Guys go into marriage knowing in some ways it's like going to prison. But just as Christ endured the cross “for the joy set before Him.” guys are willing to get married for the joy set before them. That's great. I commend the men I know who love and serve their wives sacrificially. If anybody should, it should be solid Christian men who show the world Christ's sacrificial love. As far as I can tell though, women have no concept of this. From the very beginning it's all about what she'll get, not give. From the pointless waste of an expensive engagement ring to an extravagant wedding ceremony, it's all about how can she be served. You can even tell from the incredible silliness and plain stupidity that girls get when one of them gets engaged that they have no idea of any of this. In the midst of showing off their rock, do they have any idea that they've agreed to enter into the most difficult relationship humanly possible? I don't think so. And here I'm talking about supposedly solid Christian women. With this mindset it's not surprising that in every marriage I know of, it's always the wife whining and complaining about something. How she's not being served. Getting upset for the most childish reasons. It's almost embarrassing when I hear men speak of how their wives act. Unconverted children know better than to behave like that, and here are Christian wives acting like the spoiled kindergarten kid who nobody liked. Of course I can understand her being disappointed when she thought she was entering into a life of get, get, get and now she's being asked to give. Did she really not know that the primary reason guys get married is for sex? It's the “joy set before him”. That's the reason he's willing to deal with all the stuff that makes men think women are stupid.
It's interesting that God doesn't give a whole lot of things for a wife to provide her husband. She's a helpmate, but that's providing help in what he's already doing. She's to provide children, but even then she's got to have a sperm and that's sexually related. She's to be a homemaker, but that's being, not providing. Off the top of my head, the only, or at least the biggest thing, I can think of that she has the responsibility to provide is sex. Obviously good wives could provide more, but the only responsibility is sex. I don't know what Greek word is used so I'm not sure if this applies, but if he who does not provide for his own household is worse than an unbeliever, then what is she who does not provide for her own husband? But besides what the Bible might say, if it's true that the object of affection determines the appropriate means of expressing affection, how many wives are very concerned with how their husbands want them to express their love? Lots I hope, but few I fear.

You may say that I don't really want a wife, I just want a sex slave. Ha. You haven't even begun to understand me. Your right, I do want a sex slave, but not merely a sex slave. I want a slave in every area of life. And not just a slave, but one who is joyfully committed and obsessed with making me happy. And not only is that what I want but it's the only thing I would accept. Now before you condemn me for an egotistical maniac, isn't that what the call to marriage is? Isn't that what love is? As Piper said, “overflowing joy in God that gladly meets the needs of others.” That's all I want is to be loved. Someone who has such joy in God that it overflows and happily meets my needs. And if I ever say “I do” I won't simply be saying “I do agree to marry you” but that I'm committed to joyfully and obsessively make you happy, regardless of the cost to me for the rest of my life. That is the only true marriage. It's not my view that disgraces marriage, but any and every other view.

I'd say this is probably the biggest reason I'll never marry. Very few women would I accept, and even fewer would accept me. So basically you've got a very small probability times a very small probability which results in an incredibly small probability. Only at times is this troubling. As wonderful as marriage is in my imagination, there's no actual physical marriage I've ever seen that I'm envious of. That is a shame. Not just for me, but for Christendom - that Christians can put nothing forward that is enviable or encouraging. When Jonathan Edwards was dying, he wrote a letter to his wife (who to be so praised by Jonathan Edwards, must herself have had an incredible disposition of holiness) about their “uncommon union” that was so sweet it must have been of a spiritual nature and would exist in heaven. But, I am talking about Jonathan Edwards, so who am I to suppose that I could have such a union. I have a half finished blog about the many reasons I won't marry. If I finish it I'll post it.

On my trip to Haiti I also wrote my obituary. I think it a healthy exercise and recommend it to you all. Apparently Alfred Nobel, who before coming up with the Nobel Peace Prize, had made his fortune inventing or marketing dynamite. At his brother's death, a village accidentally printed Alfred's obituary. It condemned him for growing rich on death and destruction. After seeing this it dramatically changed the course of his life and we have the Nobel Peace Prize due in large part to this change. What follows is mine.

William Seth Walters March 22, 1980 to March 1, 2009. Survived by his parents and siblings. Seth was one of the supreme examples of those who “have done so little with so much.” Marked by pride, arrogance and selfishness, he lived his life with little if any regard for the thoughts, feelings and needs of others. His distorted view of God's sovereignty made him almost totally apathetic to the conditions of others, though he himself basked in God's good providences. He did virtually no good for the cause of Christ. His Christianity was primarily of an intellectual and philosophical type with little affect on the way he lived. He is almost certainly in heaven now, but has almost just as certainly suffered incredible loss when before Christ he was shown the massive amounts of wasted time, talents, possessions and opportunities that could have been used for the sake of Christ. He would have been a great man if his selfishness had been eternally rather than earthly minded, or if he had followed through on any of his untold number of good intentions. The only lesson one can take from his life is if God was willing to save one such as he, surely He can save one such as you.

Part of writing that was was also due to reflecting on my upcoming birthday. It is, even for me, hard to believe that I am now twenty-nine years old. It seems like yesterday that I was thinking about thirty being so far away. It seems like the last decade has been just a blink, and I could well believe it, seeing as can't think of anything that I can genuinely look back on with pride in these last ten years, but alas, I am sure there have been ten years, each with 365.25 days for me just as for everyone else. And yet despite the gloom of the past, for what may be the first time ever, I feel some real motivation to live. The motivation I've had in the past has for the most part been, “I'm alive so I might as well live for something or at least do something to occupy the time and this seems as good as anything else.” but I wouldn't call it real motivation. It's in large part due to Alcorn's books and the more full understanding of heaven I've gotten from them. The biggest being that heaven won't be the same for everyone. There'll be levels there just as in hell. Some will rule, some will be ruled. Some will have great treasure, some will have none. Now what all this treasure will be used for and what type and size of mansion we'll each have, I still don't know, but just using the word treasure means it's a good thing. As of right now I don't have much treasure. I want a lot of treasure. You can try and be all holier than thou and say that you don't care about treasure, but it's Jesus who tells us to store up treasure in heaven and gives us the motivation. Even more so than this however is in thinking about experiencing fullness of joy in God in heaven. Obviously everyone there will be full of joy, but the capacity or size of the container will be different. Right now I think it would take about a teaspoon to give me “fullness of joy” while with men like Paul, Edwards, Brainerd, McCheyne and Piper, God will have to empty out the oceans to fill them. I want to have my capacity stretched. To be honest, I want it to be stretched to the limits of what God allows the human heart to be stretched. I imagine this must be painful, as any stretching is, and suffering is the key. It's so hard to voluntarily suffer though. Richard Wurmbrand, author of Tortured for Christ, said something to the extent of ninety-five percent of Christians pass the test of suffering while ninety-five percent of Christians fail the test of prosperity. I have thus far definitely failed the test of prosperity. Coming from someone who spent fourteen years in prison, that is somewhat comforting hearing that I would likely pass the test of suffering if presented with it. But it's so hard to suffer when you don't have to. We, and me more than most, are such slaves to our comfort. Really, that's what it is. We are in bondage to our own ease. I can't do this because it would hurt. I can't do that because I'd be uncomfortable. For all our talk about money giving us freedom to do this and that, I think it keeps us from doing more than it enables us. When John Wesley was told that his house had burned down, after careful contemplation he said, “The one I have been living in belongs to the Lord, and if it has burned down, that is one less responsibility for me to worry about.” I want that attitude. By God's grace I shall have it.

Sorry for the randomness, just had a bunch of stuff I wanted to put down on paper.

The winter season is drawing to a close here in Jackson. If all goes as planned, then I'll be leaving April 6 for a week in Utah at Canyonlands National Park, come back for a 2 or 3 week road trip up to the Oregon and Washington coasts (and some National Parks as well), then back to Jackson to catch a ride back to TN (actually I'll probably get dropped off in Louisville, KY, so I might hitch-hike the rest of the way) to see my new nephew who's due at the end of May and spend time with family and friends. Come June 12 hopefully I can fly out to Los Angelos, CA for a Resolved conference (Piper will be there) and then ride back with some fellow church members to Jackson to begin the summer season. Lord willing it should be a fantastic time. I am curently enjoying one of those rare but wonderfully intimate times with the Lord. I think I can actually say that "the things of earth [are growing] strangely dim, in the light of His glory and grace".

I have many things to write about, as the last several books I've read have significantly altered some of my views. Hopefully I'll have the time now that my second job has ended.

Love and miss everyone. Can't wait to see you. If not here, than there.