Hobbes lives at our house

If you've been around our son Jack for long, you probably know that he dearly loves his stuffed dog, appropriately named Puppy Dog (often just "Puppy" or "Pup"). He also has a number of other dogs (depending on the context of his life, these other dogs take on various functions: baby puppies for Puppy Dog, rescue dogs of all sorts-- police, fire, etc., or just a crowd of companions to have along, his own personal entourage). But Puppy is the special one. He loves Puppy Dog with a true Velveteen Rabbit love. If you've ever seen the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, then you have a sense of how special and alive Puppy is for Jack.

A couple of days ago Jack commented that one of his dogs had knocked him over! This was hard to dispute-- he was literally picking himself up off the floor as he said so. Marcie and I laughed, and commented again about how prescient the Calvin and Hobbes comic was. Surely, Watterson had a boy like Jack.

That reminded me of the first time I made this connection. A couple of years ago (Jack was probably barely 3 years old), I was watching football, and for the first time Jack took enough interest to ask what they were doing. As I explained a very basic version of the game to Jack, I mentioned tackling, and he said, "Daddy, what is tackling?" I told him what tackling was, and he said, "Puppy does that to me all the time, and I DON'T LIKE IT!"

We're so thankful for Puppy Dog-- Jack's life (and ours) would be a little less without her.

Kate Snodgrass

Marcie has mentioned Kate Snodgrass to many of you; Kate is someone we know from a St. Louis church where we were members. She has been battling cancer for some time now, and she has chronicled her struggles (and the lessons God has taught her through them) on a blog.

If you're interested, you may read Kate's blog at this link.

Haiku #5

Tom turkeys flapping,
strutting, showing off for the
hens ignoring them

Wildlife Watch, 12/10/07

One of the "perks" of my job as Pastor of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church is the view I have from my office window. I often get to watch wildlife eating, playing, or just moving around in the field behind the church property. I rarely tire of taking this in, and I keep a pair of binoculars by my desk to facilitate.

I want to keep a log of what I see, mostly for me-- though some of you might find it interesting too. So I'll keep my log on this blog. Here's the list for today:

16 wild turkeys, including 3 really big toms, 4 jakes, and 9 hens!

Stem cells and life issues

One of the issues that has confused Christians for nearly a decade is that of stem cell research. While many of us have heard the claims that "stem cell research will cure the world's diseases and afflictions," these claims are sometimes challenged, often unsubstantiated. And just as the issue was moving to the fore of public interest, the 9/11 terrorist attacks (rightly) took our attention off of it.

What is going on with the stem cell question? Proponents have long argued, as I mentioned before, that the key to solving a great many medical problems may lie in investing in stem cell research, specifically embryonic stem cell research. In fact, they have maintained that only embryonic stem cells offer the possibilities that medical science hopes for. Opponents claim that, in the case of embryonic stem cells, there is a moral/ethical sticky wicket involved: in order to obtain these cells for research, a human embryo must be destroyed. Since many believe that human life begins at conception, this means that, a human life must be taken in order to perform the research. This was the state of the debate 6 years ago, and for a long time there was little change in this impasse. Immediately prior to 9/11, President Bush issued an executive order substantially limiting stem cell research, and that further ceased any progress in the discussion.

Fast-forward to June of this year: a bill (one of a series) was passed by Congress to approve funding for embryonic stem cell research, and President Bush vetoed it. At that time, he put forth the argument that he (and many other opponents) have offered before: there are other, better sources for stem cells than living human embryos, and these offer as much possibility as any embryonic cells do. While many proponents snickered or jeered at Bush's dogmatic take on the research, a few scientists (specifically in Kyoto, Japan and Madison, Wisconsin) plodded ahead with just such an effort.

This fall, they announced their success in two medical journals (Cell and Science): they had succeeded in creating human stem cells ("pluripotent" ones-- meaning they have the potential to take many forms) from existing human skin cells. What is more, because these stem cells are created from a human's own cells, they theoretically offer better potential at organ replacement, for example, because of a lesser likelihood that the organs will be rejected. And this obviously removes the ethical concern, as no embryos are required for this process. They declared their discovery an "ethical and political win-win."

This advance, however, is not welcome news to the ears of everyone interested in this medical technology. It turns out that other implications have emerged from this research, as well: stem cell research may not be the promising cure-all that many hoped it to be. Instead, it may simply contribute to the study and advance of existing cures for diseases, rather than offering exciting and near-miraculous new approaches to curing things like paralysis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, or heart failure.

Many still claim that embryonic stem cells still offer this promise. Yet the truth is starting to come out: as Paul Nurse (a medical Nobel winner) said at a stem cell conference, "Creating cell lines for transplant is unlikely to come down the pike any time soon. Opponents recognized that this was an overselling of the technology" (Newsweek, 12/3). Even if the strongest opponents are right about embryonic stem cells, that still leaves the ethical dilemma of the use of embryos for research purposes. Thus, this revelation (about the realistic limits of stem cell research) at best puts us back to the stand-off that has been status quo for the past six years.

Two things need to occur to reasonably advance this issue for Christians and others: first, attentive thought should begin to debunk the myth that "funded stem cell research = cures for all our ills." Until our world begins to understand this more fully, no profitable discussion on the matter can really take place.

Second, however, is the imperative that everyone, even (and especially) Christians, must begin to accept: the bio-ethical issues of the value and sanctity of human life, so core to many Christians' understanding of how we understand things like the abortion issue, needs to be explored more fully. We must not accept a weak, inconsistent application of life-value, but must realize the full extent to which this value applies to our world. It includes (but is not limited to) embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and abortion; but it also includes questions about elder care, certain fertility efforts, and even warfare. From my perspective, we (as a Church) have been careless about thinking through the consistent application of our claims to be "pro-life" in the big-picture sense.

Sources:
"Where they stand" by Richard Ostling, in World magazine, December 15, 2007 issue.
"Reality Check on an Embryonic Debate" by Sharon Begley, in Newsweek magazine, December 3, 2007 issue.
"Scientists Produce Embryonic Stem Cells from Skin" by Joe Palca, on All Things Considered, November 20, 2007 episode.

Food for the hungry

My friend Megan posted a challenging post on her blog a few days ago. It turns out that Megan read an interesting article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about the struggles that many food banks and food pantries face around this time of year: they simply run out of food, and are forced to limit their services or close doors altogether.

The article points to the unexpected downside of our technological advances: the accuracy of inventory systems in grocery stores means that stores seldom over-purchase, and food packagers don't over-produce, in the quantities that they used to. The net result is that food banks and food pantries don't have the supply of food from the grocery stores and food packagers that they used to. As a result, they run out of inventory themselves.

Megan asks a hard question: what is their personal family responsibility for this problem? I love this question, as it reveals Megan's faith as real and practicable. I also love it because it forces me to consider this for myself, and my family.

In her post, Megan invites interaction about this subject, and I wanted to bring that discussion here, as well. I've also invited my friend Russell Smith to join the conversation. I'd like to work together toward some real answers to this problem-- something that we (as a community) can put into practice on a regular basis.

What do you think? We have a food pantry right here, through Fayette Cares-- my guess is that they are facing the same struggle. How can we answer? What should our personal responsibility in this problem be?

Thoughts on the Golden Compass

Philip Pullman's fantasy novel, The Golden Compass, has been made into a movie and is slated for release this weekend. This movie has created all sorts of hubbub in the Church, mainly because Pullman has been quite candid about his opposition to Christianity and to organized religion in general, and his novels (The Golden Compass is the first novel in the fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials) are sort of the anti-Christian answer to C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. The backlash from this movie so far seems to point to the potential for it to be the next Da Vinci Code in terms of the Church's response to it.
It's a reasonable question to ask: how should Christians handle this movie (and others like it)? I'm sensitive to the need for better understanding on this, and I'd love to provide a comprehensive guide to understanding The Golden Compass from a Christian perspective.
The problem is, I haven't read the books, nor have I seen the movie. I'm not certain I will, either-- fantasy is not usually my genre of choice. So instead, I'd like to point you toward those who are familiar with these, and encourage you to benefit from them.

• My old friend Russell Smith, a pastor in Cincinnati, Ohio, has also blogged about the movie in a post entitled, "Why is the Golden Compass a big deal?" Russell offers brief but solid advice for how to think about this film and the lack of good NEW stories being told by Christians.


• Dave Burchett writes thoughtfully about many things, and I appreciate his perspective on why this movie shouldn't be a big deal. His post, "Christians Shouldn't Lose Their Bearings Over a Golden Compass" (which gets extra marks for a clever title) is a great effort to disarm the threat, and also a call to more cultural engagement.


• Those who want to understand the underpinnings of the story, and how Pullman is both an excellent writer and an effective apologist AGAINST the Church, need go no further than Mars Hill Audio. The most recent edition of Mars Hill Audio's Audition podcast is a very informative conversation with literary critic Alan Jacobs about Pullman's writing and stories. It will serve not only as a helpful orientation to Pullman's fantasy world, but also helpful advice about understanding the story without getting sucked into its worldview.

I'm grateful to these men and the resources they provide. I hope you, too, will approach this movie (and other cultural artifacts like it) thoughtfully and willing to engage culture, and not run in fear from culture.

Faith and Anxiety (and other emotional struggles)

Faith and anxiety are not absolutes. That is, if you experience one, you do not eliminate the other. Faith can keep company with many sets of ordinary feelings that can be handled and lived with but never removed. Those who insist on a "pure faith" unstained by human emotionality make the denial of reality a condition of faith. But the encouragement of the Scripture is to "take heart," not take cover. We take heart because we believe that human life in its totality becomes enormously fruitful in the hands of God through the power of God's gracious promises.

Peter L. Steinke, How Your Church Family Works

Haiku #4 (Advent Haiku)

Anticipate Christmas
God descended from heaven
to be our Savior

Why amen?

Why do we say, "amen?" We read it in the Bible. We say it when we pray privately, and when we pray together. We find it many times in our worship service. It used to be common to end every hymn with a sung "amen." Some might even be inspired to shout it in response to part of the sermon! What does this mean?

Literally, the word "amen" means "truly" or "verily." When we say this in response to something someone else has said, it means, "I fully agree" or even, "may it be for me as he has said." It is as if someone has issued a statement and we are, so to speak, signing our name to the bottom to demonstrate our agreement.

Interestingly, Amen is more appropriate as a response by others than as simply a conclusion by the one speaking. If someone is praying, we might agree with them in prayer by saying, "amen" when they have concluded (or even during their prayer, in a subtle and quiet way). If someone proclaims a needed or particularly poignant word in preaching, someone might call out, "amen!" to show their embrace of that word. It is an act of participation. This is why those leading a group in prayer might conclude with an invitation to the group to say, "amen" by saying, "and all of God's people said..."