Correction: Dr. Stackhouse, via the comments section below, noted that I misstated the name of his school. It is Regent "College" in Vancouver, not Regent University. I apologize for the inaccuracy. See Dr. Stackhouse's comment for more info.
I just found a new blog that I find interesting and well done. John Stackhouse of Regent University has a good way of thinking about worldview. See this recent blog about Eckhart Tolle.
The sad thing is that Tolle and his ilk- Chopra, Oprah, and other non-thinking new agers- are so convinced that they're right even though they don't believe in right and wrong. Logical fallacies abound!
For a post I did on the contradictory views of Eckhart Tolle about a year ago, see here.
10/27/09
10/26/09
Beyond Simplicity: My Christian View of the Role of Government
One of the most favorite professors I had in seminary recently posted on his blog some musings about the role of the church and the government. Dr. Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary does a nice job of laying out the historical positions of the church and how it related to the state. And while he's a scholar, and would probably publish a much more thorough view of government and church in an article (as opposed to his blog), I must take issue with his stance. It is as follows:
Quite frankly, it's just not that simple. The logical conclusions of Blomberg's view is that a thoroughly Christian view of the state would have the state involved in all life issues, whether quality of life or the very existence of it. To Blomberg (and to Ron Sider and to Jim Wallis), the state would be bigger, and not smaller. It is this sadly simplistic view of voting and a Christian's view of the state that a Christian uses to rationalize voting for a statist platform.
In fairness to this view, it's heading in the right direction. It is attempting to uncover biblical values amidst an entire canon of just law- the Old and New Testaments. But it does us no good to say that the theocracy or monarchy of ancient Israel or the small church during the time of the powerful Roman empire have directly translatable principles to our own day. Allow me to tease this out a bit.
God cares about foreigners and immigrants and refugees. I agree with that. But unless we deal with a philosophy of the state that addresses questions of legality and fairness, we cannot apply this principle. It does us no good to say, "God cares about immigrants and tells Israel to, so undocumented immigrants should be granted amnesty." If we say that, we've missed a step in there. Or the popular Sider argument, "God cares about babies and grownups equally, so we need a completely pro-life ethic, and the government should be involved with providing health care on some level, or at least making sure it's provided for." These are weak arguments. How are we at any level placing an adult's health with the very existence and right to live for a baby in the womb? They are not at all on the same moral level. God always shows more concern for the disenfranchised, even if he loves all equally. It does us no good to deal with the simplicities of Blomberg's or Sider's arguments.
Christianity ought to reject statism in all it's forms. Statism is the worldview that claims the state as the answer to all human problems: social, civil, economic, and even religious. A quick glance at the Voice of the Martyrs prayer page will show you that much persecution of Christians happens at the hands of statist governments. The more the government has control anywhere in the world, the more religious liberty is compromised. Let us be wary of Christians who advocate more state control.
But that would be a simplistic argument too. We need a biblical ethic that allows that state it's proper role to arbitrate justice (Romans 13), but not dispense it. We need a state to ensure a just playing field, but we don't need an active state within the playing field. The state should be a referee, but not the quarterback. The state should play the role of keeping babies alive and thereby outlawing and working against abortion. But it should not play economic or healthcare quarterback. The state should arbitrate justice, not dispense it. I will, of course, outline my own view of government more in the future. Stay tuned.
Unfortunately, within the last generation of evangelicalism and liberalism, each side has chosen to apply this strategy very selectively. So one group is eager to use government in support of its views concerning abortion and homosexual behavior but then abdicates its responsibility to use the same mechanisms for helping the poor or providing adequate health care. The other group excels at times with the latter but often fails with the former. Ron Sider’s long-standing vision of Christians seeking a “completely pro-life” platform inculcating biblical values on all of these (and other) issues seems more lacking today than ever.
Quite frankly, it's just not that simple. The logical conclusions of Blomberg's view is that a thoroughly Christian view of the state would have the state involved in all life issues, whether quality of life or the very existence of it. To Blomberg (and to Ron Sider and to Jim Wallis), the state would be bigger, and not smaller. It is this sadly simplistic view of voting and a Christian's view of the state that a Christian uses to rationalize voting for a statist platform.
In fairness to this view, it's heading in the right direction. It is attempting to uncover biblical values amidst an entire canon of just law- the Old and New Testaments. But it does us no good to say that the theocracy or monarchy of ancient Israel or the small church during the time of the powerful Roman empire have directly translatable principles to our own day. Allow me to tease this out a bit.
God cares about foreigners and immigrants and refugees. I agree with that. But unless we deal with a philosophy of the state that addresses questions of legality and fairness, we cannot apply this principle. It does us no good to say, "God cares about immigrants and tells Israel to, so undocumented immigrants should be granted amnesty." If we say that, we've missed a step in there. Or the popular Sider argument, "God cares about babies and grownups equally, so we need a completely pro-life ethic, and the government should be involved with providing health care on some level, or at least making sure it's provided for." These are weak arguments. How are we at any level placing an adult's health with the very existence and right to live for a baby in the womb? They are not at all on the same moral level. God always shows more concern for the disenfranchised, even if he loves all equally. It does us no good to deal with the simplicities of Blomberg's or Sider's arguments.
Christianity ought to reject statism in all it's forms. Statism is the worldview that claims the state as the answer to all human problems: social, civil, economic, and even religious. A quick glance at the Voice of the Martyrs prayer page will show you that much persecution of Christians happens at the hands of statist governments. The more the government has control anywhere in the world, the more religious liberty is compromised. Let us be wary of Christians who advocate more state control.
But that would be a simplistic argument too. We need a biblical ethic that allows that state it's proper role to arbitrate justice (Romans 13), but not dispense it. We need a state to ensure a just playing field, but we don't need an active state within the playing field. The state should be a referee, but not the quarterback. The state should play the role of keeping babies alive and thereby outlawing and working against abortion. But it should not play economic or healthcare quarterback. The state should arbitrate justice, not dispense it. I will, of course, outline my own view of government more in the future. Stay tuned.
10/19/09
Idols for Destruction
I just finished the most insightful book I have ever read on contemporary Western culture. I wholeheartedly recommend Idols for Destruction by Herbert Schlossberg written in 1990. No book review I do could do it justice. So the following is some the best quotations from the book.
"The pragmatist, as Hilaire Belloc said, suffers from 'an inability to define his own first principles and an inability to follow the consequences proceedings from his own action.' He cannot define his first principles because he is not interested in first principles; that is what makes him a pragmatist. The ultimate consequences of what he does escape him because he focuses his attention on the immediate ones." pg. 81.
"The [Christian] doctrine of creation meant that there was nothing of the divine in a rock, a plant, or a human body, permitting them to be studied rather than feared or worshiped. Clearing the world of spooks made it possible for us to learn about it. Now the spooks are back..." pg. 169.
"This concern with the poor, which could have the healthy effect of sending the churches back to rediscover the biblical meaning of service and wealth, has instead all too often thrown them into the arms of the state." pg. 243.
"It should be clear from all this that what is widely regarded as a struggle between the religious and the secular is really a struggle between religions. The current strife over such issues as abortion is perfectly in order, because it is an attempt by both sides to establish a rule of order in accordance with basic religious precepts. Man is the autonomous ruler of himself, able to define right and wrong and frame statutes according to whatever he defines as just. Or else man is created and sustained by a holy and just God who declares matters of right and wrong in the form of law. Both are religious views held in faith." pg. 275.
This one struck me in relation to current conversations on healthcare and the perceived evil of profits: "The mistaken assumption of zero-sum economies is self-fulfilling. If people believe that their gain must come from someone else's loss, they seize what they are able; and if they can do it under cover of the law, they do it with impunity. A society imbued with this vision of economic life finds taking what others have to be more rational than producing what others need in return for fair payment." pg. 282.
"As the famous report to the Club of Rome explained it, the world's situation will worsen progressively with the rising population and will find relief only when the death rate increases. Death, then, is the answer to our economic problems. The elderly will be called selfish if they insist on living, and it will be a humanitarian deed and moral duty to see that they do not continue to lvie and so deprive others of the quality of life to which they aspire." pg. 289. We've already heard Nancy Pelosi make this argument earlier this year.
I could quote much more, but you may have surmised that the book, in a scholarly fashion, outlines our culture's idols. What do we worship? Schlossberg analyzes that and shows how it will ultimately bring our culture's demise, if we do not repent and follow the God of the Bible.
10/13/09
Greetings from Nepal
My life changed Saturday.
Normally when people use that phrase they mean to say that they experienced a dramatic life shift, a turnaround of sorts. Well, my life didn't do that, but it did change. It was impacted for the better. And that's because of Siba and Yeadu.
But allow me to backtrack for a moment. I was with some friends, and we were shopping at an Asian supermarket here in Denver about 10 minutes from my church. One of my friends teaches English as a Second Language to refugee families from other countries. Because she does that, she knows many people in non-Anglo environments around Denver. So the story is set- we're at an Asian market with someone who knows many refugees. But hold that thought for just another minute.
On a fact-finding mission of sorts, I had asked many of the "free-sample" people about their food, their background, and what they do here in America. I talked with a potsticker lady, a dessert lady, a stock-boy, and a few others. After being by myself for a little while, I decided to go and find the others that I was with: Donna, Eric, and Wenzel. I found Donna first. As soon as I saw her, she said, "You need to meet some of my friends!" Evidently, she had found some people she knew. Right done the isle were 4 small people of Asian decent- 2 men and 2 women.
Donna yelled down the aisle, "Siba, I want you to meet my friend." From down the aisle, Siba opens up his arms in an outstretched Y-form. He says, "Your friend!" in what sounds to me like a strong Indian accent. He immediately comes down and shakes my hand up and down in rapid motion, hardly containing his excitement. I then met in quick succession the other 3 he was with: his brother and their wives.
Siba and Yeadu (I have no idea if I'm spelling their names correctly) are elder brothers in a family of 8: 6 brothers and 2 sisters. 5 of them are here in the States. They cannot stand more than 5'4", either one of them. It turns out that they are of Nepalese descent, from Bhutan, and had lived in a refugee camp on the Nepal-Indian border for 17 years. 17 years!
At the very moment I have finished meeting all of them, my friend Eric comes up and then they collectively and lovingly maul him as well. And I find myself speaking with Yeadu while Eric was speaking with Siba. We were in long conversations at that point, asking them all kinds of background and family questions. It was the delight of my week to get to know them.
Then, I look over my shoulder and Eric is exchanging telephone numbers with Siba. Yeadu asks me if Eric and I are relation. I respond, "No, we're just friends from our church." He looks at me rather quizzically. I have said something that confused him. In a response that only makes sense in retrospect, he claims boldly and proudly, "You and I are friends too!"
And then he hugged me.
I had known him for probably 7 minutes. We talked further. And I recognized that family was the most important thing in his life. And then I think he forgot, or was confused about Eric and I and what we were doing. It might have been cultural shock or something, but he didn't quite understand why we were at a store together and were not family. So, he says, "You two are not brothers?" "Nope, I said, just friends." I don't think that "just" computed in his world.
"You and I are friends." And then he hugged me again.
After several more hugs of goodbyes, we went on our merry way. A few minutes later, we found our friend Wenzel and told him of our encounter with the happiest and friendliest people we had ever met. "They were from Bhutan," we explained. Wenzel, disappointed, said, "I had a really good friend in college from Bhutan. I wish I could have met them." "Well let's go find them again!" I exclaimed.
So we did. We walked briskly down the aisle and said, "Siba, we want you to meet our friend Wenzel!" In outstretched and excited arms, as if welcoming a hug, Siba gleams, "Wenzel!" More happy conversations ensued. But our day had to end, and so we left.
Humans are amazing creatures, really. We are capable of such joy, love, friendship, reason, and beauty. Siba and Yeadu were such brief pictures of that. They had endured unimaginable pain and hardship, but yet their capacity for friendship and love knew no bounds, even for tall American strangers. I hope I get to see them again. Eric got Siba's number, so that may indeed happen.
Atheism or naturalism says that we are meat machines, only responding to stimuli in the universe and really not determining being at all. Chesterton remarks in The Everlasting Man that even primitive humans drew pictures of monkeys, but never ever can we imagine the opposite being true. It doesn't seem to me that humans are different from animals only in degree, then.
Furthermore, pantheism (in versions of New Age, Hinduism, and Buddhism) says that humans are a mere illusion, that personality is generally bad, and that we need to devolve into the impersonal oneness of nature ("Atman is Brahman").
But Christianity says that humans are made in the image of God, fallen by their sinful nature, but still capable of love, joy, reason, and friendship. Siba and Yeadu, racked by 17 years of not having a home, and finding themselves in a foreign place, looking for some normalcy in an Asian supermarket, are living examples of true humanity.
The worldviews of naturalism and pantheism do not account for the beauty found in Siba and Yeadu. Common sense, indeed life experiences themselves, prove Christianity true over and over again. And my life was changed for having known more of God's illustrious creatures.
Normally when people use that phrase they mean to say that they experienced a dramatic life shift, a turnaround of sorts. Well, my life didn't do that, but it did change. It was impacted for the better. And that's because of Siba and Yeadu.
But allow me to backtrack for a moment. I was with some friends, and we were shopping at an Asian supermarket here in Denver about 10 minutes from my church. One of my friends teaches English as a Second Language to refugee families from other countries. Because she does that, she knows many people in non-Anglo environments around Denver. So the story is set- we're at an Asian market with someone who knows many refugees. But hold that thought for just another minute.
On a fact-finding mission of sorts, I had asked many of the "free-sample" people about their food, their background, and what they do here in America. I talked with a potsticker lady, a dessert lady, a stock-boy, and a few others. After being by myself for a little while, I decided to go and find the others that I was with: Donna, Eric, and Wenzel. I found Donna first. As soon as I saw her, she said, "You need to meet some of my friends!" Evidently, she had found some people she knew. Right done the isle were 4 small people of Asian decent- 2 men and 2 women.
Donna yelled down the aisle, "Siba, I want you to meet my friend." From down the aisle, Siba opens up his arms in an outstretched Y-form. He says, "Your friend!" in what sounds to me like a strong Indian accent. He immediately comes down and shakes my hand up and down in rapid motion, hardly containing his excitement. I then met in quick succession the other 3 he was with: his brother and their wives.
Siba and Yeadu (I have no idea if I'm spelling their names correctly) are elder brothers in a family of 8: 6 brothers and 2 sisters. 5 of them are here in the States. They cannot stand more than 5'4", either one of them. It turns out that they are of Nepalese descent, from Bhutan, and had lived in a refugee camp on the Nepal-Indian border for 17 years. 17 years!
At the very moment I have finished meeting all of them, my friend Eric comes up and then they collectively and lovingly maul him as well. And I find myself speaking with Yeadu while Eric was speaking with Siba. We were in long conversations at that point, asking them all kinds of background and family questions. It was the delight of my week to get to know them.
Then, I look over my shoulder and Eric is exchanging telephone numbers with Siba. Yeadu asks me if Eric and I are relation. I respond, "No, we're just friends from our church." He looks at me rather quizzically. I have said something that confused him. In a response that only makes sense in retrospect, he claims boldly and proudly, "You and I are friends too!"
And then he hugged me.
I had known him for probably 7 minutes. We talked further. And I recognized that family was the most important thing in his life. And then I think he forgot, or was confused about Eric and I and what we were doing. It might have been cultural shock or something, but he didn't quite understand why we were at a store together and were not family. So, he says, "You two are not brothers?" "Nope, I said, just friends." I don't think that "just" computed in his world.
"You and I are friends." And then he hugged me again.
After several more hugs of goodbyes, we went on our merry way. A few minutes later, we found our friend Wenzel and told him of our encounter with the happiest and friendliest people we had ever met. "They were from Bhutan," we explained. Wenzel, disappointed, said, "I had a really good friend in college from Bhutan. I wish I could have met them." "Well let's go find them again!" I exclaimed.
So we did. We walked briskly down the aisle and said, "Siba, we want you to meet our friend Wenzel!" In outstretched and excited arms, as if welcoming a hug, Siba gleams, "Wenzel!" More happy conversations ensued. But our day had to end, and so we left.
Humans are amazing creatures, really. We are capable of such joy, love, friendship, reason, and beauty. Siba and Yeadu were such brief pictures of that. They had endured unimaginable pain and hardship, but yet their capacity for friendship and love knew no bounds, even for tall American strangers. I hope I get to see them again. Eric got Siba's number, so that may indeed happen.
Atheism or naturalism says that we are meat machines, only responding to stimuli in the universe and really not determining being at all. Chesterton remarks in The Everlasting Man that even primitive humans drew pictures of monkeys, but never ever can we imagine the opposite being true. It doesn't seem to me that humans are different from animals only in degree, then.
Furthermore, pantheism (in versions of New Age, Hinduism, and Buddhism) says that humans are a mere illusion, that personality is generally bad, and that we need to devolve into the impersonal oneness of nature ("Atman is Brahman").
But Christianity says that humans are made in the image of God, fallen by their sinful nature, but still capable of love, joy, reason, and friendship. Siba and Yeadu, racked by 17 years of not having a home, and finding themselves in a foreign place, looking for some normalcy in an Asian supermarket, are living examples of true humanity.
The worldviews of naturalism and pantheism do not account for the beauty found in Siba and Yeadu. Common sense, indeed life experiences themselves, prove Christianity true over and over again. And my life was changed for having known more of God's illustrious creatures.
10/9/09
More Abortion Polls
Earlier in the year I analyzed a Gallup poll, this is a Pew research poll you need to look at now.
Polls don't determine the truth of the matter, but the more this issue polls more favorably for the pro-lifers then the more Democrats will have a harder time passing health care. Consider the following quote, in reference to Republicans restricting new healthcare reform dollars for abortion:
DeGette is plain wrong here. A woman's right to choose isn't in jeopardy (although it should be). What is in jeopardy? The federal government paying for them, which is currently against domestic federal policy anyhow (we give money for other countries to kill children, though). DeGette is flourishing in vain political rhetoric and is obfuscating at the highest degree (seriously, "vast expansion of restrictions"? It will neither be vast not expansive or even a restriction).
Don't allow morally bankrupt politicians to steal this debate away from the issues. Healthcare does have problems in this country, but let's not add to our moral culpability by paying for abortions. If the government decides to let people choose, it isn't a restriction to force other Americans to pay for it. It's actually a restriction on my values in that instance.
Polls don't determine the truth of the matter, but the more this issue polls more favorably for the pro-lifers then the more Democrats will have a harder time passing health care. Consider the following quote, in reference to Republicans restricting new healthcare reform dollars for abortion:
"That's a vast expansion of restrictions on choice, and I don't think that's right," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the Pro Choice caucus co-chair. "We are not going to vote for a final bill that further restricts a woman's right to choose, period."
DeGette is plain wrong here. A woman's right to choose isn't in jeopardy (although it should be). What is in jeopardy? The federal government paying for them, which is currently against domestic federal policy anyhow (we give money for other countries to kill children, though). DeGette is flourishing in vain political rhetoric and is obfuscating at the highest degree (seriously, "vast expansion of restrictions"? It will neither be vast not expansive or even a restriction).
Don't allow morally bankrupt politicians to steal this debate away from the issues. Healthcare does have problems in this country, but let's not add to our moral culpability by paying for abortions. If the government decides to let people choose, it isn't a restriction to force other Americans to pay for it. It's actually a restriction on my values in that instance.
10/8/09
Moses and the American Experiment
Bruce Feiler, in Time magazine this week, has a fascinating article on how Moses' biblical story has been used to shape American leaders and events.
Of course, I disagree strongly with how Moses has been co-opted to support any ends of liberation, a la liberation theology. Liberation theology, in its too-close-of-a-union with Marxist ideology, devalues the human at the expense of a downtrodden collective.
But read the article. You'll find it interesting.
Of course, I disagree strongly with how Moses has been co-opted to support any ends of liberation, a la liberation theology. Liberation theology, in its too-close-of-a-union with Marxist ideology, devalues the human at the expense of a downtrodden collective.
But read the article. You'll find it interesting.
10/7/09
Humans Matter More
George Will has a recent article challenging the claims of Global Warming Alarmists. Some important excerpts:
I don't pretend to be an expert on climate change- whether it is happening or not. I do know that Will is right to say that most mainstream media claim a consensus when there is not one simply because I've read scientific research in scientific journals that question the establishment's position. I'm also skeptical that carbon is a pollutant- kind of weird since plants need carbon dioxide and all.
But I want to challenge a different assumption: the idea that the creation is more important than humanity. You can see this subtle hint in Prince Charles' statement. To alarmists and climate change folks, humans are a parasite on the earth. We consume resources and we pollute, according to them. Their worldview contains a deficient view of humanity, which means they are only a step away from endorsing human control population, steriliy treatments, and the inhibition of our free exercise of economy. Obama is in the same camp if he thinks the world should act "together" and "boldly" (read: forcefully by the state).
Humanity is the pinnacle of creation and is created in the image of God (Gen. 1). Let us be wary of any view that inhibits our free exercise and propagation within creation.
So [President Obama] announced last week at the U.N. climate change summit, where he said the threat is so "serious" and "urgent" that unless all nations act "boldly, swiftly and together" -- "time . . . is running out" -- we risk "irreversible catastrophe." Prince Charles agrees. In March, seven months ago, he said humanity had 100 months -- until July 2017 -- to prevent "catastrophic climate change and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring." Evidently humanity will prevent this. Charles Moore of the Spectator notes that in July, the prince said that by 2050 the planet will be imperiled by the existence of 9 billion people, a large portion of them consuming as much as Western people now do.
I don't pretend to be an expert on climate change- whether it is happening or not. I do know that Will is right to say that most mainstream media claim a consensus when there is not one simply because I've read scientific research in scientific journals that question the establishment's position. I'm also skeptical that carbon is a pollutant- kind of weird since plants need carbon dioxide and all.
But I want to challenge a different assumption: the idea that the creation is more important than humanity. You can see this subtle hint in Prince Charles' statement. To alarmists and climate change folks, humans are a parasite on the earth. We consume resources and we pollute, according to them. Their worldview contains a deficient view of humanity, which means they are only a step away from endorsing human control population, steriliy treatments, and the inhibition of our free exercise of economy. Obama is in the same camp if he thinks the world should act "together" and "boldly" (read: forcefully by the state).
Humanity is the pinnacle of creation and is created in the image of God (Gen. 1). Let us be wary of any view that inhibits our free exercise and propagation within creation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
