web analytics

According to Plan Means trusting the Planner

Naturally, when you get through Dawkins’s attempt to create a universal moral code apart from religion, he wants to add his private view that a little more flexibility about sexuality would be nice… so he adds that into his preferred new ’10 commandments.’  C.S. Lewis speculated that it is “Thou shalt not commit adultery” that burns people the most.  They can live with the ones against murder and theft. 

On another note, Dr. Dean Udell just took offense on his radio program to arguments that marriage is meant for procreation… “What about the infertile?!?” referring to a program in some state to require hetereosexuals who get married to have children within three years or else have their marriage annulled- “For after all,” he snidely jabs at social conservatives, “Isn’t that what marriage is for?”  Thus, if they can get married, but they don’t have children, what’s the real difference between the hetereosexuals and homosexuals who want to get married?  Dr. Dean misses the real argument:  the only grounds that the government has for meddling in marriage at all is out of some interest for civil structure.  If not for that, they should get out of the business altogether- this the homosexual marriage activists do not want because what they’re really after is a stamp of approval on their relationship and activities from the rest of us.

And lastly, not too long ago the NYT (link) reported that 51% of American women were single- the first time recorded when single people outnumbered married people in the US.

What is the thread underneath all of these things and how does it relate to Christianity?  Well, the whole idea in all of this is that the human being can be tampered with.  From Christianity’s point of view, it is not a religious assertion to say that humans were specially designed (like everything else) and things are going to go bonkers if you mess with that design.  Its not an article of faith, is an explicit deduction and… completely borne out in our experiences of the world.

If you try to drive a car under water, it won’t work.  It doesn’t mean the car or the water is bad.  If you try to drive a submarine on land, it won’t work.  It doesn’t mean the submarine or the land are bad.  Sometimes an object has become broken and it is unclear what this or that function was supposed to do.  In such cases, a logical thing to do is go and ask the designer of the thing.  Now, you could trust the designer… and possibly get the object to run smoothly again, or you could thumb your nose at the designer and decide to do things your own way.  Besides being irrational and illogical, it makes the rest of us wonder if you have some other agenda.  But it always comes down to whether or not you’re willing to trust the designer at all.  Since many do not, the consequences, while not being specifically predictable, are generally predictable.  The car will gurgle and stop and the submarine will rust.  One isn’t being pejorative and judgemental if all you’re doing is pointing out what will happen.  One can have that sort of confidence (about what will happen) when one does trust the designer and knows how it was supposed to work.  One need not observe it first.

We live in a society now that aims to experience calamities before doing something about them rather than be ‘judgemental’ and stop them before it happens.  In all of the examples above, those who will bear the fruit of our actions today are the generations that follow.  But we can live with that, right?  Its not like WE will have to pick up the broken pieces.  Right?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

5 × 4 =