The Intelligence Behind Jellyfish

Something To Think About The Intellegence Behind Jellyfish:

Because of the kind generosity of some colleagues here in Palau Kathy and I were privileged to an unforgettable afternoon trip.  We flew over one of the wonders of the world, the Rock Islands of Palau, to the site of a major World War 2 battle, Peleliu.  Again, and again, I and the other three passengers in the little plane asked, “How can you take it all in?”  The answer is, You can’t. One of the wonders we flew over is the “Jellyfish Lake.”  Actually the lake is one of several marine lakes in Palau, each inhabited by a unique strain of jellyfish.  This is the best known of the lakes because it is open to visitors.  Several years ago I was privileged to make the short hike over one of the ridges that separates the Jellyfish Lake from the lagoon, and slip into the quiet water and swim with the strange, beautiful creatures.  It’s not like you see one here or there; the delicate creatures totally surround you.  It’s like swimming in a giant bowl of soggy Cheerios. You can read more about this natural wonder here.  The symbiotic relationship of lake, jellyfish, algae-like creatures, sun, and water is utterly amazing.  The jellyfish derive nourishment from microscopic creatures that inhabit their gelatinous bodies.  To maximize the photo-synthesis of these creatures the jellyfish migrate back and forth across the lake on a daily basis.  They congregate on the sunny side of the shadows cast by the vegetation on the shore, thus avoiding the region where their prime enemy, a breed of anemone, lurks, looking for jelly for lunch.  I figure if you take all the intelligence in that lake and put it together you wouldn’t have enough smarts to learn to not look up in the rain and drown.  Yet, there it is, a precise, beautiful, delicate, complicated dance, repeated day after day, and it works.As we were flying I asked our pilot about the manufacture of the airplane.  He told me that they found it, gassed and ready to fly, on the downwind side of a junkyard after a typhoon had blown through. In case you didn’t catch that, that was a joke—a joke with a point. It’s STTA.

The Absolute Rule of WHATEVER:

Something To Think About, WHATEVER:

Roger Olson uses a word near the end of his excellent commentary on today's American culture--"anomie,"  A simple definition I found for the word is: "lack of the usual social or ethical standards in an individual or group."  I tend to agree with Olson.  Some of our culture is already there; much of the rest appears to be following.  We are rejecting any norms that go beyond personal interests and desires, which leaves only personal interests and desires, and leads to the one standard that appears to be rising to absolute dominance in our public behavior and discourse--whatever.   Whatever your decisions and desires, whatever lifestyle choices you make, I should respect those.  Not only should I tolerate them, I need to embrace them.  It is the absolute standard of Whatever.   There is one caveat to the rule of Whatever.  No one should do anything that hurts anyone else.  But even this amendment has been severely narrowed for those who find Whatever to be a rule of life that is lacking.  In broad terms, personal freedom, and opportunity for individual expression trumps all broader societal concerns.  In the world of Whatever when one side of an argument is "This is what I want."  and the other side is, "This is where these personal decisions will lead."  the now and personal will always win.  It's like the old playground basketball standard, "No blood, no foul."  Unless it can be clearly demonstrated that one person choosing Whatever, will bring clear and immediate harm to another--and violated religious standards don't count--then the Whatever choice should stand. Olson raises the question of whether such a social order can stand. But since that question cannot point to any blood on the pavement, SCOW (the Supreme Court of Whatever) declares that the objection has no standing.  The Main Street Journal, in a recent one-word op-ed piece summed it up well: WHATEVER! Again, I refer you to Roger Olson's excellent article. It's STTA.

What the World Needs:

Something To Think About, What the World Needs: 2/28

It's doesn't take a news junkie to see that the world is in a mess.  Words like genocide, refugee, militants, and mass-starvation have become way too familiar over the past few years.  Cities on fire, angry mobs in streets, and children with blank faces and emaciated bodies have become way too common as images that daily assault us.   Luke is a historian.  When we read his gospel and his history of the early church we get some idea of the world in which the Good News about Jesus first made an impression.  It was a world where on one occasion the disciples told Jesus about some  Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.  (Luke 13:1)  When you read some of the central chapters of Acts you can see the lines of refugees leaving Jerusalem, persecuted for their faith.     “Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1–2)  Luke's friend Peter writes about the struggles of these displaced persons, the victims of religious cleansing, working hard to make a new life in a new place.  Peter addresses them as "Those who reside as aliens." The Roman Empire of 2,000 years ago was not unlike our world today. If we could back to that world we would observe many needs:  People needed housing, food, medical care, and education--again very much like our world. You can't spend much time in the New Testament, though, without coming to the clear understanding that above all those things, and, in many ways, as that which would lead to a solution for those problems, people needed the Lord. They still do. I'm not saying we shouldn't seek to feed the hungry and house the homeless. We should--especially when those in need are helpless children.  What I am saying is we need to make sure we don't neglect what is most important. This bad news world needs to hear THE GOOD NEWS!   It's STTA. Explore this Good News here.

"Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political . . ."

As is happening around our country, from time to time these days, the citizens of Minnesota are being called on to make a decision about the definition of marriage. Two leaders in the church are being called on the political-activism carpet, for what is being seen as their non-participation in the campaign.  Leith Anderson is former president of the National Association of Evangelicals.  John Piper is the long-time pastor of Bethlehem Church.  Of the two, I have much more familiarity with Piper, so I'll limit my comments to him.
The controversy concerning the well-known preacher centers around these words delivered from the Bethlehem pulpit.

Your Pastor Is Not Your Political Activist

  "Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative initiatives, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word, and to the cross."

At the risk of exposing myself to the same kind of criticism as my Minnesota colleague, I basically agree.  Having said that, I feel a bit like a member of one of the old women's lib. groups standing at the entrance to a restaurant, wondering why no gentleman will open the door.  "Because you told us not to.  That's why."
Unfortunately, Evangelicals have become known for the politics associated with their movement, more than the Evangel--the Gospel--the Good news--from which the group's name comes.  I'm not saying Piper did this.  I don't think he did.  But he and Iare associated with a movement.  I didn't sign up to join, but it is the Theological pigeon-hole where I best fit.  Ask the average person-on-the-street about Evangelicals and they will likely begin their description with the political rather than the Biblical.  Sad!
Some critics of Piper are making comparisons to the ineffective church in Nazi Germany during the rise of Adolf Hitler.  No.  I think the case can be made that the problem with the church in Germany was not that they were not sufficiently involved in politics, but that they were involved up to their clerical collars.  Many leaders in that church made the mistake of thinking that a political leader, and regime, could "fix it."  Wrong. Piper has spoken unequivocally about the Bible truth on marriage.  I think he is right when he says to his congregation.  "It's up to you."
As a less well-known pastor, me, recently said: "The battle will not be won in the political realm, but in the heart."

John, if you would like to come, Sunday, and say "Amen!" you are welcome.  I speak on what our response to the Debate on the definition of marriage should be.

  

It's STTA

A Word to Christians and Muslims, #2:

Something To Think About

SOMETHING  TO THINK ABOUT     There is a two letter "word" that I find just about as offensive as four-letter words.  The two letters, P-C have been used to silence students, workers, children and even preachers.  It seems that everyone thinks they are entitled to live in an offense-free zone.  Frankly, that offends me. Yesterday I spent part of my space, here at STTA, encouraging Christians to not be needlessly offensive to people of other faiths.  I used that word "needlessly" on purpose.  One totally unacceptable solution to offense related problems is for Christians--it seems we are most often the target--to simply not make any truth claims, or to so water down our proclamation that the only possible offense is because of excessive blandness. A verse I referenced yesterday, 1 Peter 3:15, says, "Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;"  Make a defense, give an account.  The first word is "apologia"--not "I'm sorry," but a thoughtfully crafted case for the truth of what is believed.  The second word is "logos," word or speech.  The progression is: Live the truth. When asked, Make your case, but Be sure to do it with "gentleness and reverence." The Apostle Paul's message on Mars Hill, is a marvelous example of what his friend Peter was talking about. God has not guaranteed we Christians an exclusive voice.  He has sent us to be a voice--clear and strong.  Sometimes speaking the truth will be costly.  It is a cost we must be willing to pay. To those of other faiths, know that those of us who are committed to follow Jesus, and to obey His word cannot be quiet.  We must speak the truth.  Those of us who, in my humble opinion, see the issue most clearly, do not expect you to be quiet.  I expect you to make your case with your best rhetoric and writing.  I'm fine with that.  Just don't ask me to make my case with one hand of persuasion tied behind my back. To my fellow Christians, the victory will not come from silencing others.  It comes from winning others.  If we are able to proclaim the truth, that truth will bear fruit.    It's STTA.

A Word to Christians and Muslims:

Something To Think About

SOMETHING  TO THINK ABOUT     Here we go again.   Several US embassies have been stormed, in some cases    invaded, the US flag torn down, and, in at least one case, personnel killed.  I am a citizen of the United States, and am hurt on that level.  I mourn for, and pray for those who have suffered loss, and hope that my leaders will take appropriate action.   I write today, however, not primarily as an American but as a Christian and a pastor of an Evangelical, Christian Church.  Let me make a couple of points.  I share them with the hope of bringing greater clarity to the thinking of fellow Christians, and, should this be read by any Muslims, to offer some greater understanding. Please understand that the United States is not really a "Christian nation."  It is a nation whose culture and laws have been greatly influenced by Christianity, but it is not Christian--certainly not in the sense that many nations in the world can be said to be "Islamic nations."  This will anger some of myChristian brethren and will likely be incomprehensible to some Muslims, but I am glad that my nation is not a Christian country.  On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) the church was born into hostile territory.  The church is counter-cultural.  I am a citizen of the United States, but I am also a citizen of heaven.  Sometimes those two are in conflict.  When they are, I must serve God rather than man. I do not expect the government to do the work of the church.  If I understand correctly, Islam sees religion and state as a monolith.  The job of the government is to create a society that will encourage, even enforce being a good Muslim.   I am thankful--and I believe it is in the best interest of my society--that by and large being a Christian is compatible with being a good, even patriotic, American, but they are not the same.  I don't want them to be the same.  I want my government to give me the freedom to be a good Christian.  As I see it, that means that my government also needs to extend to people the right to be good Muslims,  Hindus, Jews, or atheists.   There are things that go on in my nation that I object to.  Some, like the liberal laws in regard to abortion, I oppose politically.  Others, like the posting of needlessly and foolishly  offensive videos online, I may condemn, as I am here, but I acknowledge that in a nation that recognizes freedom, such excesses may be necessary.  To put it in other words.  I do not appreciate people using the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as cuss-words.   I figure, though, that if my government tries to make a law against that kind of cussing that they would get it so wrong that it might make it impossible to talk. Just one more, today (I may continue.): I think it is wrong for Christians to needlessly say or do offensive things about, or to, persons or symbols of other religions.  I have spoken against the burning of the Quran.  It appears to me that the Apostle Paul condemned the desecration of temples even though these houses of worship were dedicated to dieties that he regarded as false (Romans 2:22).  When dealing with the idolatry of Athens, he did not desecrate the objects of their devotion.  He entered into intelligent dialogue.  (Sure in the Old Testament we find passages like Isaiah 44:9-17 where the case against the worship of a false diety is made with humor and ridicule, but at this point Isaiah was preaching to what should have been the choir.  When we Christians are speaking to the wider world, the Apostles Paul (above) and Peter--make sure you notice those words, "gentleness and reverence"--ought to be our model. My challenge to fellow Christians: Let's eschew the burning of books that others regard as holy, and let's avoid, and counsel others to have nothing to do with needlessly offensive books, pictures, videos, etc.   To Muslim fellow citizens of the US or the world, know that true Christians do not hate you.  We profoundly disagree with you, but our desire is to live in harmony, and engage in respectful discussion of life's most important issues.   It's STTA.     The heart of that message to which I am committed is found below:   http://covingtonbiblechurch.com/lifesmostimportant.html

The Election: What Does It Mean?

Right now I'm listening to a lot of very smart people trying to figure out what happened? By this time there is little doubt as to who won and who lost. In particular states or regions patterns are emerging--the political landscape is different in some definable way. The big question is, though, what does it mean to our nation?
Tea-Party advocates say their emphasis is the explanation. Maybe, but voters left some very visible candidates holding the bag--tea-bag. Some cynics point out that last night's results show that elections can be bought. A couple of ladies in California would beg to differ with that opinion. Incumbency also brought mixed results. Some were voted out on a wave of anti-incumbency, while others, partly on the basis of the power and prestige of office, kept their jobs in the face of well financed and organized opposition. Tip O'Neill's wisdom that "all politics are local," carried the day in some places, while others lost because the race was "nationalized."

Maybe it just is what it is, the wonderful Mulligan Stew called democracy.

Here, though, is an overarching truth. Babylon wasn't a democracy, but change was in the air when God spoke through His prophet, Daniel, "It is He [God] who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings;" (Daniel 2:21) The same point is made in Daniel 4:17&32, and Psalm 75:7. "He puts down and exalts another," and, "He bestows [power] on whom He wishes." Romans 13:1 says "there is no authority except from God." I'm fairly sure that includes winners I didn't support.

"OK, Merrell, having stated the uber-macro truth, that God is in control, tell us how that works out. Why and how does God do that?"
I'm really glad you asked, because I have an answer. I don't have a clue. Furthermore, I'm convinced that those who claim to explain it don't know either. I'm reminded of the answer a wise--not to mention wise-cracking--father gave to his child when she asked, "Where did God come from?"
Dad's reply: "Anywhere He wants to; He's God."

Here is what I need to know based on those statements of God's sovereignty over politics:
My hope is in the Lord.

It's STTA.