Check out this article on religious persecution.
While the article acknowledges this, it looks exclusively at religion from a sociological perspective. It promotes that people always do various things for various sociological reasons. It ignores the simple power of ideas. People do extraordinary things based upon what they fundamentally believe about the world. Ideas are powerful, and so looking at people as solely responders to stimuli is overly simplistic. I am in control of my ideas, are you?
7/31/08
7/30/08
The relevance and pertinence of Christianity
Wellspring Anglican Church in Englewood, CO has produced a weekly summer lecture series with fantastic Christian scholarship.
You can listen to the audio files here (mixed with Sunday sermon audio files as well).
The subjects range from contemporary topics such as the Middle East and U.S. Immigration to current Christian historical and philosophical issues such as the resurrection of Jesus and current Christian apologetics. The primary site for the lecture series is found here.
The final lecture is this upcoming Friday.
You can listen to the audio files here (mixed with Sunday sermon audio files as well).
The subjects range from contemporary topics such as the Middle East and U.S. Immigration to current Christian historical and philosophical issues such as the resurrection of Jesus and current Christian apologetics. The primary site for the lecture series is found here.
The final lecture is this upcoming Friday.
7/29/08
President Bush and Africa
President Bush has been vilified for much of the past 5 years on many political and ideological fronts. Yet, one of his most significant achievements may be going unnoticed by the public at large: his campaigning for the continent of Africa and its AIDS crisis. Last Friday, Congress passed his "plan" for the tripling of AIDS relief to Africa, totaling 48 billion. It's also no flash in the pan either.
Check out this article from the G8 summit when Bush lobbied for Africa.
And from back in February, an opinion on Bush's trip to Africa.
Check out this article from the G8 summit when Bush lobbied for Africa.
And from back in February, an opinion on Bush's trip to Africa.
7/28/08
Faith and the Government
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof," so says the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Together these phrases make up what is known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The phrase, "the separation of church and state," is often bandied about with little knowledge to where it comes from, so I thought it relevant to preface it here. The idea of church-state separation did not originate in the United States or other secular governments in the West, but has strong historical roots in the Anabaptist stream of the Protestant Reformation (Luther, Calvin, and the Roman Catholic church favored what could be called church-state governments). With that prior introduction, I wish to engage a few church-state issues in the news recently.
First, Barack Obama surprised many when he decided to enter the religious foray with his rhetoric on the Bush Faith-Based Initiatives. Yet, Obama hopes to change the Initiatives in one very critical way. Here's a pertinent quote from the article:
"But Mr. Obama’s plan pointedly departed from the Bush administration’s stance on one fundamental issue: whether religious organizations that get federal money for social services can take faith into account in their hiring. Mr. Bush has said yes. Mr. Obama said no."
In other words, Obama would make churches, parachurches, and other faith-groups that do significant amounts of social work subject to "fair" hiring practices if it accepts government money. If it is a Christian group that has fed the poor for years but accepts government money to help it run, then Obama's plan would require those organizations to hire people of other faiths or no faith at all.
I know I'm delving into the political sphere here, and that can be tricky. So I just want to make some observations. 1) The government wants to help poor people. 2) Churches and other faith organizations are already doing this, and generally do so on the basis of their religious convictions. 3) So on the basis of the first two, Barack Obama's plan doesn't seem to make sense, because it leaves him with two options. EITHER non-profits maintain their religious integrity and don't accept federal dollars which means that poor people are not helped as much OR non-profits actually lose their Faith-Based intention altogether and accept federal dollars to aid the poor. In Obama's plan, "Faith-Based Initiatives" are a contradiction in terms. All of that rhetoric aside, I am neither endorsing his plan or challenging its integrity. I am merely trying to illuminate exactly what it is and is not.
The second issue involves a court ruling. The 10th Circuit Colorado Court of Appeals ruled this past Wednesday that Colorado Christian University can receive state aid for student scholarships (AP article here and Inside Higher Ed article here). There are certainly practical issues at hand- CCU wants to make it easier for kids to afford their college. There are certainly theological issues at hand- what is the proper distinction between church and state? And there are certain governmental and philosophical issues at hand- should the taxpayers bankroll explicity evangelical teaching? Here is an excerpt of how the court ruled:
“The sole function and purpose of the challenged provisions of Colorado law is to exclude some but not all religious institutions on the basis of the stated criteria,” the court ruled. “Employing those criteria, the state defendants have decided to allow students at Regis University, a Roman Catholic institution run by the Society of Jesus, and the University of Denver, a Methodist institution, to receive state scholarships, but not students at CCU or Naropa University, a Buddhist institution. This is discrimination.”
In other words, based on the First Amendment, the government isn't establishing a religion but it has been discriminating the free exercise of it based upon who it has given scholarships to. The Free Exercise clause is the same reason why churches and other non-profits are tax-exempt.
What are some of the issues at stake? There are plenty of colleges with religious labels that don't teach their true doctrine- I've noticed this at Baptist, Wesleyan, Covenant, etc. colleges all over the country (including DU cited above). Even if their institutional teaching isn't explicity religious, they are still a religious institution. And if one religious institution gets federal or state dollars for student financial aid, then all religious institutions must receive similar aid based upon the Free Exercise clause as the court properly ruled.
Another issue is that the government generally doesn't understand the difference between an established religion and entrenched worldviews. Students go off to major universities every year and get indoctrinated into political liberalism, philophical naturalism, and postmodernism. Why should a Christian worldview be distinct from these? The issue of what tax dollars support does make the issue murky, but then why should my tax dollars support completely abhorrent thinking with which I disagree? Many may retort on the basis of the first amendment, to which I would argue the very same thing with respect to Christian colleges.
First, Barack Obama surprised many when he decided to enter the religious foray with his rhetoric on the Bush Faith-Based Initiatives. Yet, Obama hopes to change the Initiatives in one very critical way. Here's a pertinent quote from the article:
"But Mr. Obama’s plan pointedly departed from the Bush administration’s stance on one fundamental issue: whether religious organizations that get federal money for social services can take faith into account in their hiring. Mr. Bush has said yes. Mr. Obama said no."
In other words, Obama would make churches, parachurches, and other faith-groups that do significant amounts of social work subject to "fair" hiring practices if it accepts government money. If it is a Christian group that has fed the poor for years but accepts government money to help it run, then Obama's plan would require those organizations to hire people of other faiths or no faith at all.
I know I'm delving into the political sphere here, and that can be tricky. So I just want to make some observations. 1) The government wants to help poor people. 2) Churches and other faith organizations are already doing this, and generally do so on the basis of their religious convictions. 3) So on the basis of the first two, Barack Obama's plan doesn't seem to make sense, because it leaves him with two options. EITHER non-profits maintain their religious integrity and don't accept federal dollars which means that poor people are not helped as much OR non-profits actually lose their Faith-Based intention altogether and accept federal dollars to aid the poor. In Obama's plan, "Faith-Based Initiatives" are a contradiction in terms. All of that rhetoric aside, I am neither endorsing his plan or challenging its integrity. I am merely trying to illuminate exactly what it is and is not.
The second issue involves a court ruling. The 10th Circuit Colorado Court of Appeals ruled this past Wednesday that Colorado Christian University can receive state aid for student scholarships (AP article here and Inside Higher Ed article here). There are certainly practical issues at hand- CCU wants to make it easier for kids to afford their college. There are certainly theological issues at hand- what is the proper distinction between church and state? And there are certain governmental and philosophical issues at hand- should the taxpayers bankroll explicity evangelical teaching? Here is an excerpt of how the court ruled:
“The sole function and purpose of the challenged provisions of Colorado law is to exclude some but not all religious institutions on the basis of the stated criteria,” the court ruled. “Employing those criteria, the state defendants have decided to allow students at Regis University, a Roman Catholic institution run by the Society of Jesus, and the University of Denver, a Methodist institution, to receive state scholarships, but not students at CCU or Naropa University, a Buddhist institution. This is discrimination.”
In other words, based on the First Amendment, the government isn't establishing a religion but it has been discriminating the free exercise of it based upon who it has given scholarships to. The Free Exercise clause is the same reason why churches and other non-profits are tax-exempt.
What are some of the issues at stake? There are plenty of colleges with religious labels that don't teach their true doctrine- I've noticed this at Baptist, Wesleyan, Covenant, etc. colleges all over the country (including DU cited above). Even if their institutional teaching isn't explicity religious, they are still a religious institution. And if one religious institution gets federal or state dollars for student financial aid, then all religious institutions must receive similar aid based upon the Free Exercise clause as the court properly ruled.
Another issue is that the government generally doesn't understand the difference between an established religion and entrenched worldviews. Students go off to major universities every year and get indoctrinated into political liberalism, philophical naturalism, and postmodernism. Why should a Christian worldview be distinct from these? The issue of what tax dollars support does make the issue murky, but then why should my tax dollars support completely abhorrent thinking with which I disagree? Many may retort on the basis of the first amendment, to which I would argue the very same thing with respect to Christian colleges.
7/27/08
McCain and the Dalai Lama
On Friday in Aspen, Colorado, John McCain met up with the Dalai Lama.
Most of their conversation apparently revolved around the upcoming Olympic games and the opportunity to shine a spotlight on Chinese human rights, with a particular emphasis on Tibet I'm sure. The article doesn't really summarize this curious meeting in its entirety, and focuses more on how liberal Aspen protesters oppose John McCain. But the meeting was curious for many reasons- in Aspen of all places, the world Buddhist leader of extremely oppressed people meeting the presumptive Republican candidate for President, the fact it was a last minute meeting, and the fact that it has received little press attention compared to Obama's travails in Europe.
What's the redemptive angle here? I'm not sure if any overarching statement or theme can be culled from this news about Presidential campaign politics. But I will say this: John McCain is classicly known as a former POW who was tortured for months, and he just met with the leader of some of the world's most repressed (dare I say persecuted?) people. To some extent in geopolitics, a candidate's experience does matter.
Most of their conversation apparently revolved around the upcoming Olympic games and the opportunity to shine a spotlight on Chinese human rights, with a particular emphasis on Tibet I'm sure. The article doesn't really summarize this curious meeting in its entirety, and focuses more on how liberal Aspen protesters oppose John McCain. But the meeting was curious for many reasons- in Aspen of all places, the world Buddhist leader of extremely oppressed people meeting the presumptive Republican candidate for President, the fact it was a last minute meeting, and the fact that it has received little press attention compared to Obama's travails in Europe.
What's the redemptive angle here? I'm not sure if any overarching statement or theme can be culled from this news about Presidential campaign politics. But I will say this: John McCain is classicly known as a former POW who was tortured for months, and he just met with the leader of some of the world's most repressed (dare I say persecuted?) people. To some extent in geopolitics, a candidate's experience does matter.
7/26/08
Eckhart Tolle's Misunderstandings
Whenever Oprah is attached to a movement or spiritual idea, beware.
Eckhart Tolle has a new book called A New Earth, which proffers much of the same New Age thought that his other book, The Power of Now, similarly did. It is expected that people in America adopt pantheistic monism as their personal worldview (of course many want to be a "god"), but what is deeply unsettling is the continued misuse of the nature, life, and work of Christ. James Kennedy succinctly demonstrates the problems in the article linked above.
However, Kennedy didn't challenge the contradictory nature of Tolle's claims on evil. Tolle lambastes human history and the evil that pervades it. But how can anything be evil at all if God, the self, and time are not ultimately real? These views are deeply contradictory.
Besides some excerpts and interviews I have read about Tolle's philosophy, I had one encounter with a gentleman a few years back that troubled me. This gentleman said he read The Power of Now over and over again. Each time when he finished, he started again so that he could understand more. He explained the contents of the book to me, and while I wasn't overly acquainted with the New Age view it propounded, the idea struck me as akin (but not the same) to the Christian spiritual disciplines but with no object in mind. Christians use the disciplines to experience the grace of God and to become more like Him. This person used these various disciplines, which sounded like mindless Eastern meditation, with either nothing in mind or his own deifying self as the object. This is the epitome of human sin- rejecting God and deifying self.
Overall, it is quite the trend to fit Christ, but not necessarily Christianity, into pantheistic monism. Even Deepak Chopra is doing it, and of course Oprah endorses him as well.
Eckhart Tolle has a new book called A New Earth, which proffers much of the same New Age thought that his other book, The Power of Now, similarly did. It is expected that people in America adopt pantheistic monism as their personal worldview (of course many want to be a "god"), but what is deeply unsettling is the continued misuse of the nature, life, and work of Christ. James Kennedy succinctly demonstrates the problems in the article linked above.
However, Kennedy didn't challenge the contradictory nature of Tolle's claims on evil. Tolle lambastes human history and the evil that pervades it. But how can anything be evil at all if God, the self, and time are not ultimately real? These views are deeply contradictory.
Besides some excerpts and interviews I have read about Tolle's philosophy, I had one encounter with a gentleman a few years back that troubled me. This gentleman said he read The Power of Now over and over again. Each time when he finished, he started again so that he could understand more. He explained the contents of the book to me, and while I wasn't overly acquainted with the New Age view it propounded, the idea struck me as akin (but not the same) to the Christian spiritual disciplines but with no object in mind. Christians use the disciplines to experience the grace of God and to become more like Him. This person used these various disciplines, which sounded like mindless Eastern meditation, with either nothing in mind or his own deifying self as the object. This is the epitome of human sin- rejecting God and deifying self.
Overall, it is quite the trend to fit Christ, but not necessarily Christianity, into pantheistic monism. Even Deepak Chopra is doing it, and of course Oprah endorses him as well.
7/25/08
Contentment
The secret to financial peace is not what you might think it is. It is not often that one hears a financial counselor tell people the truth of the matter. Most of the stuff we buy we don't need, and if we believe that we are content then we don't need all the excesses of capitalist/American life.
"The human spirit was not created to attain peace, contentment, or fulfillment by gathering more stuff." -Dave Ramsey
Americans are complaining about the economy (see earlier post), but we are our own problem (no intention of sounding like Barack Obama here). The average American household spends more than it makes. The secret is not that the economy is poor, but that most people feel the incessant need for a lifestyle they don't need. The secret to financial peace is contentment. And ultimately, contentment is found in a relationship with the God of the universe.
"The human spirit was not created to attain peace, contentment, or fulfillment by gathering more stuff." -Dave Ramsey
Americans are complaining about the economy (see earlier post), but we are our own problem (no intention of sounding like Barack Obama here). The average American household spends more than it makes. The secret is not that the economy is poor, but that most people feel the incessant need for a lifestyle they don't need. The secret to financial peace is contentment. And ultimately, contentment is found in a relationship with the God of the universe.
7/24/08
Hating Evil
"A Christian can fight what is wrong in the world with compassion and know that as he hates these things, God hates them too. God hates them to the high price of the death of Christ."
-Francis Schaeffer in The God Who Is There, pg. 136.
Does any other prevailing worldview- naturalism/atheism, postmodernism, Eastern religions, New Age- possess the integrity to hate evil as much as the Christian worldview does? I don't think so, especially considering the words "hate" and "evil" are not popular words in this culture.
-Francis Schaeffer in The God Who Is There, pg. 136.
Does any other prevailing worldview- naturalism/atheism, postmodernism, Eastern religions, New Age- possess the integrity to hate evil as much as the Christian worldview does? I don't think so, especially considering the words "hate" and "evil" are not popular words in this culture.
7/23/08
Movies and God
Every movie has a worldview. For that matter, all media has a worldview.
This article on Relevant magazine's website covers an interview with Craig Detwiler, author of Into the Dark, which is a philosophical/theological analysis of some of the 21st century's most prevalent films. Detwiler probably overstates his case about the question of explicit content in movies (potential viewers are "missing the point" of the Bible if they don't see these movies), but overall his message of awareness is well-stated.
Movies and television are inherently mediums that don't allow for thoughtful reflection. A viewer must maintain consistent attentiveness to the rapidly changing visual presentation so much so that he or she cannot stop and think about it. Thus, it is important to reflect and think even more about movies and television. After all, every movie has a worldview.
This article on Relevant magazine's website covers an interview with Craig Detwiler, author of Into the Dark, which is a philosophical/theological analysis of some of the 21st century's most prevalent films. Detwiler probably overstates his case about the question of explicit content in movies (potential viewers are "missing the point" of the Bible if they don't see these movies), but overall his message of awareness is well-stated.
Movies and television are inherently mediums that don't allow for thoughtful reflection. A viewer must maintain consistent attentiveness to the rapidly changing visual presentation so much so that he or she cannot stop and think about it. Thus, it is important to reflect and think even more about movies and television. After all, every movie has a worldview.
7/22/08
Country Dissatisfied with Itself
Apparently 85% of the country think America is on the wrong track. There are certainly external economic pressures; many feel the weight of rising gas prices, rent prices, and mortgage prices. But the assumptions of this article are rather intriguing:
1) It assumes Americans know what is best for themselves. If Americans knew what was best for themselves, we wouldn't have had thousands of people in mortgages they could never afford in the first place.
2) It assumes that the country is in deeply unsettling circumstances. It might be high-time for the merits of a discussion on relative versus absolute poverty. Walked into a supermarket lately? The fact that America even has this is a statement of enormous wealth.
3) It assumes that the federal government can actually do something about it. This may be possible, and one's political ideology often determines what they think about this, but I am at the very least skeptical.
4) It assumes that money buys happiness. Despite most people's rejection of this idea in word, most people do believe it in actuality.
While economic pressures do affect many Americans, it is important to note the significance of big media. Big media exists to make money, and scare-tactics sell. A long view of suffering, money, and wisdom are in order, but that doesn't seem to sell as well.
1) It assumes Americans know what is best for themselves. If Americans knew what was best for themselves, we wouldn't have had thousands of people in mortgages they could never afford in the first place.
2) It assumes that the country is in deeply unsettling circumstances. It might be high-time for the merits of a discussion on relative versus absolute poverty. Walked into a supermarket lately? The fact that America even has this is a statement of enormous wealth.
3) It assumes that the federal government can actually do something about it. This may be possible, and one's political ideology often determines what they think about this, but I am at the very least skeptical.
4) It assumes that money buys happiness. Despite most people's rejection of this idea in word, most people do believe it in actuality.
While economic pressures do affect many Americans, it is important to note the significance of big media. Big media exists to make money, and scare-tactics sell. A long view of suffering, money, and wisdom are in order, but that doesn't seem to sell as well.
7/21/08
Religion: good, bad, or just useful
Roger Scruton writes about "The Return of Religion." In the article, he criticises the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) for their vigilance against organized religion, particularly Christianity. He even attempts to attack philosophical naturalism- the philosophy underlying Darwinian evolution.
Yet, he seems to fall prey to the modernist dichotomy of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as the upper and lower stories in his book, "The God who is There." Due to the influence of the Enlightenment, beginning with Kant, Hegel, and moving to Kirkegaard, people began to divorce true facts from religious experience. The upper story proposes a "leap of faith" where religion is meant to be believed but not verified against facts, and the only meaning in life exists here. The lower story has no meaning, because only rationalism resides here- cold hard facts of history and science. Thus, historic Christianity must undergo the modernist split, and must be considered unfounded in how it attains meaning. The division persists today, as Scruton advocates that religion is indeed people searching for this meaning even if they know facts don't support it. But people still need meaning, and so the mysterious search for it must press on. And religion can foot this bill in Scruton's mind.
On the other hand, historic Christianity doesn't settle for this dichotomy. It grounds its truth in verifiable history- God did enter it and become a human 2000 years ago. God did die on a cross, come to life again, see his followers, and offer the possibility of reconciliation with himself to any who would repent. It is important to note that some of Christianity's founders also thought this way:
Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised (from the dead), your faith is futile...we are to be pitied more than all men." 1 Corinthians 15: 17-19
Peter said in his preaching in Jerusalem, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact" (emphasis mine). Acts 2:32
Yet, he seems to fall prey to the modernist dichotomy of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as the upper and lower stories in his book, "The God who is There." Due to the influence of the Enlightenment, beginning with Kant, Hegel, and moving to Kirkegaard, people began to divorce true facts from religious experience. The upper story proposes a "leap of faith" where religion is meant to be believed but not verified against facts, and the only meaning in life exists here. The lower story has no meaning, because only rationalism resides here- cold hard facts of history and science. Thus, historic Christianity must undergo the modernist split, and must be considered unfounded in how it attains meaning. The division persists today, as Scruton advocates that religion is indeed people searching for this meaning even if they know facts don't support it. But people still need meaning, and so the mysterious search for it must press on. And religion can foot this bill in Scruton's mind.
On the other hand, historic Christianity doesn't settle for this dichotomy. It grounds its truth in verifiable history- God did enter it and become a human 2000 years ago. God did die on a cross, come to life again, see his followers, and offer the possibility of reconciliation with himself to any who would repent. It is important to note that some of Christianity's founders also thought this way:
Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised (from the dead), your faith is futile...we are to be pitied more than all men." 1 Corinthians 15: 17-19
Peter said in his preaching in Jerusalem, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact" (emphasis mine). Acts 2:32
Much Ado About Energy
A surprising editorial from the Denver Post embraces a comprehensive energy policy that includes offshore drilling (ANWR still pending?).
Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" offers completely differing thoughts than the DP, especially about nuclear energy. The arguments posited in this column consist only of quotes from someone else with little evidential claim.
And just for kicks, Al Gore yesterday on Meet the Press.
The need for more energy is certainly a tall-task. Population growth is reason enough to need more energy, but increasing consumption may be increasing the drive to more energy- whether oil, clean coal, nuclear energy, or renewable energy. Yet, one will rarely hear a call from Washington to actually decrease one's personal consumption. The Lausanne Occasional Papers, an evangelical Christian document, produced A Commitment to Simple Life-Style that may bear on this issue. A pertinent quote from it: "We therefore denounce environmental destruction, wastefulness and hoarding. We deplore the misery of the poor who suffer as a result of these evils. We also disagree with the drabness of the ascetic. For all these deny the Creator's goodness and reflect the tragedy of the fall. We recognise our own involvement in them and we repent."
Could we go without tv, internet, air conditioning, or most electronics? How much of what we have is a necessity versus a luxury?
Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" offers completely differing thoughts than the DP, especially about nuclear energy. The arguments posited in this column consist only of quotes from someone else with little evidential claim.
And just for kicks, Al Gore yesterday on Meet the Press.
The need for more energy is certainly a tall-task. Population growth is reason enough to need more energy, but increasing consumption may be increasing the drive to more energy- whether oil, clean coal, nuclear energy, or renewable energy. Yet, one will rarely hear a call from Washington to actually decrease one's personal consumption. The Lausanne Occasional Papers, an evangelical Christian document, produced A Commitment to Simple Life-Style that may bear on this issue. A pertinent quote from it: "We therefore denounce environmental destruction, wastefulness and hoarding. We deplore the misery of the poor who suffer as a result of these evils. We also disagree with the drabness of the ascetic. For all these deny the Creator's goodness and reflect the tragedy of the fall. We recognise our own involvement in them and we repent."
Could we go without tv, internet, air conditioning, or most electronics? How much of what we have is a necessity versus a luxury?
Sermon on Romans 6
Here is a link to a sermon I gave on Romans 6 titled, "Freedom from sin: how the Gospel still affects us all."
It was a tough task to widdle down the theological depth of Romans 6 to 27 minutes, so I tackled the broad issue of sanctification. I largely untouched the rich significance of a Christian's union with Christ that is foundational to sanctification.
It was a tough task to widdle down the theological depth of Romans 6 to 27 minutes, so I tackled the broad issue of sanctification. I largely untouched the rich significance of a Christian's union with Christ that is foundational to sanctification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
