Why did God allow this to happen in Newtown?

The murder of so many little children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday, December 14^th, is a hard thing to face and leaves everyone a little bit short of the answers they seek.  In response the sadness my sister felt over the event, she told her friends and co-workers that while we’ll never find a satisfactory answer for why this happened, “we can all pray for God to comfort all the parents as we’re reminded of how little control we actually have over life and death.”

The first response she got was, “The same god who allowed this to happen?”

Psalm 24 begins with the reminder, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.”  Every person and every place in this world are subject to our God’s sovereignty.  So why did God allow this to happen?  How can we pray to a God that has the sovereign power to remove evil from this world, but allows children to be shot in their schoolroom?

This not an easy question to answer, and when we find an answer to hold on to, it will inevitably leave us wanting something more satisfying.  Christians have been faced with this type of question since the foundation of our faith.  Even the Apostle Paul dealt with great sorrow when faced with the accusation that God is unjust.  If we could handle the issue better than one who saw the risen Christ with his own eyes, it would be a miracle.  People have struggled with the problem of evil in this world for millennia, though some have handled it better than others.

In every case our questioning of God’s sovereignty is met without any direct answer.  Job never got a reason for his troubles, and God replied by asking, “Who are you to question Me?”  Similarly, Paul rebutted his accusers by asking, “Who is man to question God?”  We continue to do it anyway, though.  We question God every time we can’t understand why such bad things happen.  These questions are real and they are serious.  They force Christians to take a real look at the state of this sinful world and at the character of the God we serve.

When we do respond to questions about God in the face of tragedy, and we must, we have inspired scripture as our guide.  We know that God will return and remove evil from this world, and when that happens, it will not be a job half done.  The problem for those asking for God to swoop in and keep evil things from happening is that when God returns to remove evil from this world, this world will end.  It will all be over when our good God keeps bad things from happening.  It won’t just be the crazy mass murderers that are taken away, but also those who lied even once, those who cheated just a little, and those who disobeyed a single thing their parents said.  Grades of punishment for different sins are given only for mankind’s governance of this world.  In the presence of a perfect and holy God, the slightest sin is a damning sin.  When we ask for God to stop the evil in this world, we are asking Him to either deny His own standard of perfection, holiness, and justice or we are asking Him to end this world.

Well then, what’s stopping Him?  Why can’t he just get it over with so we don’t have to struggle through murders and disasters?  The Apostle Peter tells us that we suffer through these things during his so-called delay because He is patient with us.  We suffer in this temporary place so that every person possible has a chance to hear the gospel and have fellowship with God for eternity.  Such is the severity of the punishment we face after death without the salvation found in Jesus Christ.  Such is the desire of God to save His children.  That this answer leaves us wholly unsatisfied points out our inability to comprehend the severity of Hell compared to what we suffer here.

I am under no illusion that this answer makes this situation easier for the parents and family of those who died in Newton, Connecticut.  This answer does not make the loss of a child more bearable or take away the intense grief when a family member dies.  This answer leaves us wanting.  Even Jesus wept at the loss of his friend Lazarus when he knew full well that he’d just call him out of the grave five minutes later.  Life is precious and of great value.  This answer won’t dry any tears, but I do believe this is why God does not swoop in and keep disturbed and sinful people from making their evil choices.

So what good does it do?  What comfort can such a God possibly bring in this situation?

The answer to this question is easier to bring into focus.  God addressed the needs of each person in that town long before this tragedy took place.  He provided for them though the sacrificial act of atonement of Jesus Christ who died in our place so that sin itself would be condemned.  Through the death of His only son, Jesus, God took care of the eternal destiny of the children and the eternal destiny of the murderer in the same act.

Because of scripture passages such as Deuteronomy 1:39, Matthew 18:3-6, and Matthew 18:10-14, we can be certain that God holds children in a separate category from those who understand the difference between right and wrong.  Many also believe that 2 Samuel 12:21-23 is an example of David expressing belief that he would see his dead son again after he dies.

God provides comfort to the grieving parents in Newtown by assuring them that their children are in heaven and that through faith in Christ, they will see their children again.

The one who committed the act of murder now faces God’s judgement.  He does not face jail on our government’s dime with free food and clothes for the rest of his life.  He faces eternal torment for his sin.  Some may find this disturbing because of his known mental problems.  But there is no escaping the plans and choices this young man made over an extended period of time that led to this event.

God can provide comfort to the people in Newtown by assuring them that effective justice for the murder of their children and family members has been dealt.

God did not prevent this terrible event from happening, but He has not ignored it.  Nor did it catch Him by surprise.  God sent his only Son at just the right time so that those children could spend eternity in heaven and so that justice could rightfully be given to a murderer.  Let us mourn with those who mourn, and pray that Jesus comes quickly.

My sister summarized it well.
“The same god who allowed this to happen?”
“Yes,” she replied, “the same One who also understands the real pain of losing your child.”

How important is four months of life?

On September 25th, 2010, an article was put out by Associated Press titled "$93,000 cancer drug: How much is a life worth?"  The basic story was one of huge medical bills charged to cancer patients for very little return in length of life.  Insurance picks up most of the tab, but the money does have to come from somewhere.  And so the question, how much is a life worth?  If it costs $100,000 to add four months to someone's life, do you spend it or decide that the gain is not worth the cost?  What about $21,500 for 11 weeks?  What about $24,000 for 12 days?

An answer to this question can come from at least three points of view: from the cancer patient, from the strangers in the insurance office, from the family and friends of that cancer patient.

If you knew you would only live another 4 months, would you ask your family to give up what would likely be a large portion of their retirement savings?  If you knew you would only live another 12 days would you ask your family to give up a significant portion of a year's salary?  Weighing cost and benefit like this, it would be easy to say no.  I don't think I would ask my family to trade in real opportunity for real trouble just so I could die a little later.

If a stranger was tasked with overseeing a fixed amount of dollars that could be spent on helping to pay other people's medical bills, how does he or she approach the question?  He can either give one person 4 more months, or give 4 people 12 more days.  He also could do neither and give 100 people prescription drugs that raise the quality of life indefinitely (or years beyond the time scale considered here anyway).  He could say that one person's 12 days aren't worth the suffering of 100 people for years.  The decision does have to be made, after all.  There is a fixed amount of resources and an ever growing number of people asking for them.

The third viewpoint is the hard one.  Would you spend that money so that the family member you love would live another 4 months, or even 12 days?  How would you even begin to think about it?  It seems that if the decision is based solely on your emotions, then your own recent history is what determines the fate of your loved one.  If you've been stressed out about money then the prospect of having to pay such a huge sum is just going to send you into despair. If you have been doing well, then anything is worth the effort of raising the money to help your family member live even 1 day longer.  Is one answer correct or does it just depend on the situation?

I'm not trying to set aside quality of life issues.  No one wants to prolong someone's groaning pain by artificial means, but that is not generally what people are asked to do.  That is not what the drugs in the AP article do.  They give a decent quality of life for the amount of time that is given.

And so, is the value of life really dependent on our emotional state or size of our bank account?

It is most comfortable to say that the value of a person's life, loved one or stranger, should not be determined by economic reasoning at all.  Nor should we have to rely on our fickle emotions to guide us.  Each human being is unique and has value that is independent of the power of a dollar.  The measuring stick is wrong, like asking for the color of the wind.  I think that is why the question makes you feel like you have to disembody yourself from human experience to come up with an answer that makes sense.

What brought this question back to mind was a story tonight on Rock Center with Brian Williams about making end of life decisions along with your family instead of waiting until your family members are the only ones capable of answering.  One of the points in the story is that quality of life can be better than quantity of days.  It is not a story about euthanasia.  Killing yourself is an absurd decision that is made from a place of despair and ignorance.  The Rock Center story is one about having the discussion of when to deny treatment in favor of palliative care, and focus on comfort of the person.

The topic of the Rock Center episode seems to be slightly different than the question of cost of care, but another point in the story is that the ultimate cost of care goes down when these decisions are made ahead of time.  Rather than the default always being incurring more cost in hospital stays and treatments, many decide on comfort rather than more days to live.

In the Old Testament it always seems so much easier.  Abraham just laid down and died peacefully.  Jacob gave everyone a verbose farewell and laid down and died peacefully.  Moses gave a huge speech and went off into the mountains.  It didn't cost any money at all to die back then.  How do we take guidance about answering this question from those types of examples?

Well, for one, the value of life is everywhere upheld and purposefully ending your own life early is everywhere rejected.  The bible also reminds us that, for those whose faith is in Christ, this life is not the end and that better things await.

Wait.  That's not helping.  It just means you should stay as long as you can, but don't bother with staying as long as you can because it's better elsewhere.  Those types of tensions are found all over the place when looking in scripture.  Each one reminds us that we are not in control.  At some point we have to look to God and let him show us when it is time.

So here is my take on the issue.  Get the best insurance you can so that cost is taken up in other ways, because we should seek to honor the life of our loved ones even if that life will last only 4 more months.  That time with your loved one is worth the cost.  But when you come to the limit of what your economic situation in life will allow, don't feel guilty about seeking comfort over length of stay.  God has allowed you to live in the place where you are.  He is in ultimate control of when we are called home no matter how much treatment we receive.

The tension and sorrow at these times is real.  There is no such thing as an easy and comfortable loss of a family member.  It is very easy to second guess after the end of life decisions are made because life is worth whatever cost we can bear.  But remember that maybe the death of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses are portrayed in such peaceful manners because that is how it is supposed to be.  Quality of life is worth the cost.  But as we try and color the wind we can also remember that we are not in control of our number of days.

What neuroscience has to say about Romans 7

I recently listened to a couple of interesting podcasts on neuroscience that gave insight into a hard passage in Romans. Read Romans 7:15-25 and then take the time to listen to a couple of episodes from the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast put out by How Stuff Works.  The 9/15/11 podcast "Is free will an illusion?" which lasts about 40 minutes and the 11/8/11 podcast "This is your brain on art" which lasts about 44 minutes are both worth listening to. The first gives insight into how our subconscious can be at odds with our conscious mind and the second describes how we can force ourselves to re-evaluate what the subconscious presents and make different choices.  Of course, both over state the case of what the science actually reveals, but the relevance to the passage in Romans was interesting to me.

Stuff To Blow Your Mind on iTunes

Your clothes are talking to me

An article posted recently on the Christianity Today website speaks rather well to the issue of clothing people wear to church.  There is an idea sneaking into the more contemporary religious mind that the clothing you wear to church makes no difference at all.  It would seem that anyone who has something to say about your dress is simply guilty of judging you.

Some point to passages like 1 Peter 3:3-5 that say your adorning should be from the inside out and pretend this means your clothes are irrelevant.  Others would point to the words of Jesus, such as Mark 12:38-40, which point out that fancy clothes are not signs of true righteousness.  But neither of these passages are really addressing clothing.  They are addressing your heart.  A fancy outer shell will not make up for a dirty heart.

Maybe someone can show me where the bible says a clean heart is best recognized by shabby clothes?

People seem to forget that your clothing speaks.  Clothing is not personal.  Clothing is what you are showing everyone else.  If you follow the warnings of the previous scripture references, it will show up in your clothing.  Non-verbal communication is still important when you go to church.  The apostle Paul obviously thought non-verbal communcation as it applies to clothing absolutely did matter.

Here is the conversation we have when someone walks up to lead worship wearing tennis shoes and faded jeans:
"I'm lazy and can't be bothered to show you any respect."
"You seem lazy and can't be bothered to show me any respect."
"Hey! Don't judge me!"

My dad addressed this same issue in a few handwritten paragraphs I found that were meant for his short lived blog.  What would you think if you walked into the doctor's office and the person who was supposed to be the authority on healing your body was dressed in a Hawaiian shirt and sandals?  You want your doctor to be dressed professionally.  It shows that he respects you, that he is serious about being a doctor, and implies that he can be trusted.  Walking around UVA there is no doubt which students are in the medical school.  Even underneath the clean white coats they are all dressed very well.  They obviously realize that non-verbal communication matters.

Remembering that clothing matters doesn't directly translate into a coat and tie in every situation (I have no idea how to describe fancy women's clothes, sorry).  There are cultural norms to consider that will be different in every place and that change over time.  It obviously doesn't mean booting visitors or treating them poorly because their clothing isn't nice.  But that does not make your clothing irrelevant.

Let your clothing reflect your heart appropriately for your situation instead of hiding or disguising your heart in a lazy dress code.  In doing so you will show respect to those around you and better reflect what these passages of scripture are teaching.

You will never "find yourself"

I have heard it a million times.

"Teenagers are just trying to find themselves."
"You just have to let people find themselves."
"Young people are just experimenting to find themselves."

I have always thought that was one of the dumbest things people say as it has no practical meaning, serving only as an excuse for poor behavior.  Thank you to Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and author of The Start-up of You, for finally talking some sense:

“Contrary to what many bestselling authors and motivational gurus would have you believe, there is not a ‘true self’ deep within that you can uncover via introspection and that will point you in the right direction,” Hoffman writes. “Yes, your aspirations shape what you do. But your aspirations are themselves shaped by your actions and experiences. You remake yourself as you grow and the world changes. Your identity doesn’t get found. It emerges.

You cannot "find yourself."  You will never find a "yourself" somewhere that you don't already know about.  What you can do is... do something.  By doing something you put experience to your ideas and find what is possible and what is not possible right now.  You do not find some "yourself" and a magical path that will allow your "yourself" to blink happiness and success into existance.
Like the quote above says, what you do shapes your aspirations.  If you let your peers or children or whoever choose foolishness in the name of "finding themselves" then you are letting them shape their aspirations with foolishness.  What kind of person can we possibly expect to emerge then, but a fool?  When a person's real choice is to do something, instead of "find themselves," we have a responsibility to try and guide them in a wise manner so that their aspirations are shaped by a solid foundation, not tossing waves.

Related articles

• 8 Job Search Tips From the Co-Founder of LinkedIn (mashable.com)
• 10 Memorable Quotes from the Start-up of YOU (forbes.com)

Online options for organizing your books

Multiple trips to the book fair and bringing home books from my dad's collection has on several occasions left me wondering, "Do I have this book already or did I just see it here last time?"  It is getting harder to keep track of what I already own.  My wife thinks this is good reason to get rid of the books.  I think it is good reason to find a way a better way of cataloging and keeping track of everything so all of the books become useful instead of temporarily forgotten.

 

I have had to reinstall all the software on my computer far too many times this year to bother with a downloaded program (especially when the most recommended software is completely unfree).  In looking around online for the best solution I found four websites that were worth looking at:  LibraryThing, Goodreads, aNobii, and Shelfari.  Most of the reviews of these sites were at least a year old which is approximately one eon in internet time.  So I took a look for myself at how each of these sites are laid out and what they could do for me.

 

All four of these sites have successfully differentiated themselves from each other and it is no random choice as to which one you will want to use.  The comparison most often made is between LibraryThing and Goodreads.  I don't think this is the proper comparison anymore, if it ever was.  The purpose of these two sites is very different which is probably why so many people don't ever chose and just use both.

 

The two comparison groups now are LibraryThing vs. Shelfari and Goodreads vs. aNobii.  The first two are websites that focus on being a good personal library catalog for all of your books, the second two focus on being a social network for people who read books.  This is a big distinction.  In the first case, the focus is on organizing all of your books.  In the second case, most of the focus is on interacting with other people.

 

I wrote up excruciatingly detailed descriptions of each one of the sites, but here is a small summary of what I found.

 

LibraryThing vs Shelfari

These two options are where you should look if your primary goal is to organize the books you have.  Both were able to locate every book I tried to enter.  LibraryThing was more flexible in your choices for organizing and labeling the books and it was very accurate in what edition of the book you were allowed to enter.  LibraryThing's advantage here is being able to search Library of Congress data to identify the book you own.  It is also extremely customizable in what is shown on your home page when you log in, giving you a lot of choice in how to make the site most useful to you.  Shelfari is a much prettier site, but also a much simpler site.  The options for customization are very limited and there is no way to connect with your facebook or twitter accounts.  Shelfari's advantage is its close integration of Amazon.com.  It automatically loads into your account every book you have ever bought online from Amazon.  If you want a record of your books, including the specific editions owned, and would like to be able to customize your log in page, then LibraryThing is the site you want (and the one I chose).  If you bought all or most of your books on Amazon.com and care more about good looks than customization, then Shelfari is likely to be what you will prefer.

 

Goodreads vs. aNobii

These two options are social networks designed for interaction with other people.  Neither were able to locate all the books I tried to enter and didn’t handle multiple editions of the same book very well, but they found all of the more recently published books.  Goodreads is stuffed full of information and borders on being cluttered, but currently has the better system for interaction of the community.  The goal of this site seems to be discussions about what you have read and staying a while to digest what you see.  aNobii is a much simpler site, but still has almost all of the functionality of Goodreads.  It is not so focused on interactive discussions, but in making the book collections of other people visible to you so that you can find other books you might want to read.  Both of these tie in closely with facebook and twitter and provide plenty of options for keeping track of what your friends are reading.  The decision between these two sites will likely be down to whether you like a simple interface with no advertisements and a focus on new books you may want to read with aNobii, or do you want interactive discussions about what you are reading and other interactive features like polls and trivia quizzes with Goodreads.  Goodreads seems to have been people's default choice for a while, but aNobii has a distinct look with a lot of customization available that I think people should definitely consider.

 

For my book collection, LibraryThing will clearly be the most useful.  If I want facebook integration it is there, but I can be sure that I will be able to keep track of every book I have, even if it is an old edition.  It is harder for me to chose between Goodreads and aNobii because a social network of readers is not really what I care about right now.  I may try out aNobii to keep track of books currently read and reading goals for the year just because of the simplicity of the interface while keeping a lot of customization options available.

 

If you have a large collection of books, or just like talking about books, I hope this helps in showing you what is available on the web to meet your needs.  If you still can't make up your mind, just take a sample of your books and try out more than one site for a week or two.  The differences will be very apparent as soon as you start logging in and trying to use the systems.

Another blow to gene patents (a good thing)

Thankfully another blow has been made against the ridiculous practice of granting patents on human DNA.

http://bit.ly/drhv04

The Justice Department filed an amicus brief in a case related to patents held by a company called Myriad Genetics that claim ownership of a gene and two mutated forms of that gene which is correlated with the development of breast cancer.  An amicus brief is a document filed by a "friend of the court," someone not directly involved in the case but who has helpful knowledge relevant to the situation.  The DOJ took the position that naturally occurring genes are not patentable.

In the case in question, Myriad Genetics is trying to overturn an earlier ruling that struck down all of their patents related to a genetic test for the likelihood of developing breast cancer at some point in a person's life.  While that decision did go too far because it struck down all of the patents related to the test kit itself, part of the ruling should stand.  There is no unique intellectual property to be found in something that everyone has... DNA for example.  Products of nature are not patentable for this reason.  You cannot pick up a piece of coal and claim a patent on coal.  In the analogy that this DOJ brief makes, you cannot pull a cotton fiber out of a cotton plant and then claim a patent on cotton.  You did not invent the cotton.  Nature invented the cotton, you just picked it.

Myriad had claimed patents on isolated DNA sequences.  They did not invent the sequences, they simply isolated them from a longer strand of DNA.  What this ended up doing was binding anyone else from being able to test for that gene or use the gene in any manner.  If you wanted the breast cancer test, it had to come from Myriad and no one else.  Patents are supposed to spur innovation, not clamp down on it.  With a valid patent, once granted, all details of that patent are made freely available to anyone to inspect.  In recent years, several websites have been put up that let you do just this: search patents and look at their contents.  While you cannot commercially benefit from the information inside, you can use that knowledge to improve upon it, make it better, push forward the state of the art and then make money on your new improvement.  Patents allow you to benefit from your hard work, while still letting others become familiar with the technology so that innovation continues.  How is anyone supposed to push forward the state of the art of a strand of DNA?  DNA is not an invention of any research lab, nor is any segment of DNA.

Patents on human genes have been around for a long time.  It is expensive to isolate specific genes and prove that they have a specific function.  Some companies have claimed that patents on these identified sequences are necessary so they can recoup the money spent on research.  I call that view lazy.  If you want to recoup the money spent then patent a means of targeting the gene.  Patent a means of deactivating, activating, slowing down, speeding up, etc. the action of that gene.  Those are real inventions.  Discoveries, even important ones, are not inventions.

The valid patents in this case is the specific methodology used and physical means to test for the mutated gene in other people.  This is an invention.  This advances the state of medicine and can inspire others to improve upon this test.  The patents on the genes themselves should all be ruled invalid.  That is the position that the Justice Department is taking in this amicus brief.  It is completely rational and clear headed and I believe that all efforts to overturn patents on naturally occurring gene sequences should be supported.