Home // Articles posted by Byron

A Tribute to My Father, on His 80th Birthday

Wednesday June 12th 2013 Byron 2 comments

My dad turned 80 today. While he might take issue with this, particularly this first statement, his mind is good and his body is strong. I have every reason to believe that he will be with us for a long time yet, and that is my fervent hope. I can say without hesitation that I have been deeply blessed by God, privileged to call the finest man I have ever known “Dad”. It is with no fear of contradiction that I say that whatever I am or may yet become, by way of a worthwhile human being, I owe first and foremost to my parents, and to my Dad first as the leader of our family and example of what it means to be a man. In the words of an old Wayne Watson song, “I could do a whole lot worse than turning into Dad.”

I could say a lot of things in tribute to my father; I lack the ability to do justice in a short piece to all that my father has meant to me. I mention five things.

First, my father is a man of immense integrity. He is a man of his word. I don’t remember Dad ever making a promise to me which he failed to keep. He is not as outgoing a person as I am (there are some who question how I could be his son!), but he is polite and friendly, and treats others as he’d want to be treated. Speaking of this, to give one example, I never once have heard my father tell an off-color joke. I never once have heard my father tell, or laugh at, a racist joke; I’ve said that my father is the least-racist person I have ever known. Given the era in which my father was raised, those words are meaningful. I remember an incident in which my father was asked by a family friend to help keep our neighborhood from being integrated. My father refused to join in this effort (no doubt to the chagrin of his friend!). I learned what integrity was by watching my father live.

Second, my dad is a man of great wisdom. He has only a high school education; he went into the military and then began working for the City of Roanoke at a ground-floor level, working his way up to a management position over time. Yet Dad is well-read on a variety of subjects, and a very intelligent man. Beyond this, though, he is a man not merely with a good mind, but a man who is filled with wisdom. I have benefitted time and again from his sage words, delivered humbly from a heart of love and genuine concern. Dad doesn’t force his thoughts on me, but when he considers something important, he will gently ask if he can share a nugget of wisdom with me (he wouldn’t phrase it that way, but you get the idea). And it’s almost always useful.

Third, and related to the second, my dad is a truth-teller. His mind has always been keen and analytical; Dad thinks things through and reaches his own conclusions. I have developed a reputation of sorts as being a “straight-shooter”; I try to find that “truth-in-love” balance, but I don’t have much reticence to speak the truth, at least as I see it. I’ve been thinking about this recently and I realized that this is something I got from my dad. For instance, he is generally politically conservative and yet is unafraid to criticize those ostensibly on “his team” when they are out of line. Funny…my blog is called “The No Kool-Aid Zone” because I try not to “drink the Kool-Aid” for anyone; I try to really call ‘em as I see ‘em, even if some of the things I say ruffle some feathers or surprise some people. My dad may not be as boisterous about it as I can be at times, but that’s my father coming through in me.

Fourth, my dad has always been an example of love, particularly in the way I’ve seen him interact with my mother. They’ve been married 56+ years now, and he has tenderly and lovingly cared for my mom for all of those years. They are affectionate with each other, crazy in love even more than when they married, I am convinced. And my dad has never been shy about showing his love for myself and my sister. I still kiss my dad when I see him; it would seem odd for me to shake his hand (I actually have no memory of ever doing that!), and I will as long as he and I are alive, I am sure. I hear men speak of never hearing their fathers say, “I love you”, and I confess that that is unfathomable to me. My dad still signs every email, “Love, Dad”; we still end every phone call with “love you”, and more than just words, my dad has always shown me his love—sometimes via “tough love”, to be sure—and I’ve never once doubted that my dad was in my corner and would do anything he humanly could for my good, my sister’s good, my mother’s good. Dad models love in how he speaks and lives.

There is one fifth and final thing I would like to say about my dad, and I think it ties it all together: my dad is deeply committed to Jesus. Dad came to faith when I was a child, and while he has always been a good dad, he became from that time forward a godly dad. My father put some life habits in place upon his coming to Christ, and they had a profound impact upon me. My dad and I shared a love of football, but I used to say that it didn’t matter if there were five minutes left in the game and the Redskins (his team, not mine) were on the 30-yard line and driving for the winning score; if it was time for evening worship service, the TV went off and we got in the car for church. Today some might call that legalism, but they’d be wrong, at least in my dad’s case: Dad has priorities in life, and they begin with God. Though there were times I would have liked to see how the game ended, that example taught me much about what is—and isn’t—really important in life. There are many other examples I could give to illustrate my dad’s commitment to the Lord, of course, and every one of them would testify that he is a humble man with a wonderful God.

These words have done little justice to the rich legacy of a great man, but on this milestone birthday, I felt that my friends ought to know just a little about this treasure of a man many of them will never meet—but whom they meet every time they interact with me, for a little bit of my dad will always, I pray, shine through me.

Tim Keller on Christian Consistency

Tuesday March 26th 2013 Byron Reply

It’s been a long time. I mean, a very long time. I offer no excuses, though I have been busy (currently rehearsing for the role of Daddy Warbucks in “Annie”; spent a week in Nigeria and another in Mexico since last post; very busy at work, other trips, you name it). It is what it is. I still owe my friend Ken an answer and maybe a few others of you as well. I need to get back to this; maybe after Annie is over, I can do so with regularity.

For now, though, I just read a piece that needs to be read by those who profess to be Christians, in order to be able to answer those who suggest that Christians pick and choose from the Old Testament, that in the current debates regarding homosexuality, for instance, we are unfairly taking some passages from the Law and ignoring others. And most of us aren’t as prepared as we ought to be to answer this charge.

Thankfully, Tim Keller has given a robust response to this challenge. Take the time to read it here:

Old Testament Law and the Charge of Inconsistency

Faith and Politics: A Beginning Salvo

Wednesday November 28th 2012 Byron 3 comments

I have been challenged by a friend to be a bit clearer in the linkage between my faith and what may be called, for lack of a better term, my political convictions. Whether or not my friend’s criticisms are all valid, it remains a productive line of thinking for me to sketch out the basics of my fundamental beliefs, and then to delineate how I arrive at the particular outworkings of faith that I do.

I believe that the Bible is without error in the original writings, meaning that God spoke truth in all that He said. I’m not here going to get into arguments for that; it is what I, with good warrant, I am convinced, believe, and I will only add that the professing Christian who believes the Bible to contain errors is forced into some conundrums to which there is, indeed can be, no good answer. If the Bible is, as I believe, “God-breathed” and thus without error as God breathed it, we must believe that it is authoritative for our belief and practice.

There are several things that the Bible teaches that I take as a basis for my political understanding. First, I believe that life is a gift from God, that man is created in God’s image, but by nature and by choice has fallen into sin, in such a way and to such a degree that sin has warped every single facet of man’s character; “if sin were blue, I’d be some shade of blue all over”. Sin infects men as individuals, and individuals make up society and its structures, including human government.

This leads to a second belief, that God instituted human government as an agent to do good. Convinced as I am (and I’ll get to this momentarily) that most governments, including the U.S. government, are far too large, I nonetheless maintain the legitimacy of government as an institution, and further affirm that “the powers that be are ordained of God”. Sometimes—I will resist pontificating here—God raises up those in authority as a part of His judgment of a people. But to whatever end, government is God’s plan, and the rulers that rise up are themselves raised up by God.

A third fundamental building block of my political thinking is that in principle, individual freedom is a good. God does not coerce, nor does he urge his people to coerce others into belief, for instance. Bondage is regularly presented in Scripture as evidence of God’s judgment; freedom as a universal good—bounded politically by the appropriate role of government, etc., of course—is the witness of both testaments. From the exodus of God’s people from Egypt to the freedom that the believer has in Christ, freedom is seen as a good. I maintain that a universal constant can be derived from this.

Fourthly, and probably flowing more from the second point than the third, the rule of law is to be respected. This “cuts both ways”: the citizen is to abide by the laws of the land, breaking human law at his own peril. The government—and this is critical—is also bound by the law, and does not have the prerogative to change laws without due process nor to simply ignore them; indeed, to do either of these is to act immorally, to deal dishonestly with the governed.

If I thought a little longer and a little harder, I might be able to offer another plank or two that rises to the level of these four; in fact, I’d offer to any of my readers the opportunity to suggest other planks that rise to this level, though my guess is that most others would be in some way subsets of these four. I begin with these thoughts as a starting point—but I don’t plan to stop here (not that you thought I would, right?). I plan to end–one day–with what I hope to be a reasonably-robust apologetic for what I’d call a “libertarian conservative” approach to politics. Wish me luck…

On Not Becoming “That Guy”

Wednesday November 14th 2012 Byron 4 comments

OK, here’s the straight skinny: at 50+ years of age, and after having been presented numerous times with money-making opportunities of a “Direct Sales Marketing”, or “Multi-level Marketing” perspective, my wife and I have decided to pursue an opportunity. Before I tell you what we’re doing–which will come in a later post–let me first tell you the two things that are important to me in reaching a decision of this nature.

First, the product that we sell must be one in which we fully believe; i.e., it must work, deliver results, and be a product I can wholeheartedly endorse. This has been a problem with some of the opportunities we’ve been approached about: the products offered either were not outstanding products, or they were great products, but not any better than alternative products (which often could be had at a cheaper price!). We have found such a product, one which we have personally tested on three family members, and our results have been pretty impressive. Suffice it to say that Practically-Perfect Daughter, soon to be 18, has decided that when she turns that age, she is going to become a part of our team, because of what this product has done for her. It works–and that’s critical.

But the second issue is equally as important, if not more so: I am not ever going to become “that guy”. You know who I’m talking about: he’s the guy that, when you see him coming, you find a way to turn around and walk the other way, or you duck for cover. Why? Because he sees you as a mark, as someone he will (in a fake-sincere way) try to bring around to buying his product. And he bugs you about it to the point that you just wish he’d go away. Now…it’s altogether possible that some of you wish I’d go away already, but that’s a different matter. I just will not become that guy. I may offer you an opportunity to get involved–and I may not. But I promise that I am going to be the same guy I’ve always been, and I will not treat anyone as a mark.

I will post more about this product later; we just signed up. When I say “I will post more”, that means, in all likelihood, one more post–because I’m not going to become “that guy”.

The Moral Question: “Sez Who?”

The late Christopher Hitchens, a brilliant man and wordsmith par excellence, was nonetheless a militant atheist–but not at his logical best when engaging the subject, imbued with an acerbic tongue and flaming rhetoric, but at some points not with altogether cogent reasoning. He used to love to offer a challenge to theists, a challenge that I found singularly unimpressive. He “challenged” us with this question (I paraphrase, but I’m getting the clear gist): “name one moral act you (Christians) might do in the name of your God that I cannot do in the name of atheism.” To which the answer, of course, is two-fold: one, there is none (you “win”, Chris), and two, Christian faith makes no such claim in the first place–but of course, this point, such as it is, is of little significance, and this for a variety of reasons. One, it’s not about “moral acts” or “moral living”. Two, as I said, this is not a claim theists (of any understanding) would ever make. But three, there is a question that Hitchens couldn’t answer, and that is this: why should anyone act in a “moral” way in the first place? I won’t even get into the source of the very definition of morality…but back to my question, and I’ll put it another way: since we cannot speak of “morality” as a code defined from individual to individual–but rather as a more-or-less universal norm by which to gauge the actions, not only of oneself but others–by what authority can Mr. Hitchens compel any other person to act in accord with his personal definition of “morality”? Morality isn’t about “could”, but about “should”; whereas Hitchens wanted to talk about what he as an atheist could do, we must speak in terms of what all people should do.

And that conversation leads to the reasoning found in this excellent article:

“‘Who Sez?’ The Place of God in Moral Philosophy”

As this article makes clear, those who would attempt to craft a morality on a basis other than some Lawgiver (Whom we Christians believe to be God) will ultimately founder on the rocks of “sez who?”