The Redemptive Angle

Follow the Yellow Brick Road to the New Website

2010-05-25T13:49:00.002-06:00

Okay, so there's no yellow brick road. But as advertised yesterday, the Redemptive Angle has gone rogue, and rid itself of the google platform.

The link is here: The Redemptive Angle.

If you grab an RSS feed or any other type of feed from this old blogspot site, go ahead and follow the link and grab the new RSS feed. I think you will enjoy the new format.

Housekeeping

2010-05-24T13:07:00.002-06:00

Hey friendly blog readers (God bless you, btw),

I've been inactive for a few weeks as I work out launching a new version of this blog. I'll be leaving the google platform and entering into my own new world. But before that happens, I may post here and there. I just wanted to keep you updated as to that status. The new site is very close to ready.

I just want you to know that I hope you'll continue to read and share what you read here as well.

Grace and peace,
Dave

Refugees and Stolen Stuff: A Picture in Contrast

2010-04-21T06:06:00.001-06:00

So how much do luxuries really matter? Allow me to recount the ways it really doesn't.

Some friends of mine and I have been spending some time with a refugee family from Iraq, new to the U.S. for about 2 months now (I've spoken of this family before on this blog). on Sunday, they had 4 of us over to their house for lunch, and they wanted to take us on a picnic, Iraqi-food style. This family has a husband and wife plus 6 young and energetic daughters, so going anywhere isn't a simple task. As such, we decided we'd walk to the park a few blocks from their home.

But before we went to the park, we got to spend some time with the mom and eldest daughter. In all our communication problems (they don't speak much English), we were able to discern some of the horror stories they saw and heard while living in Baghdad. It was an eery and sobering experience to hear of the things they saw in Baghdad at the height of the war there. I never realized how international affairs really shape people on the ground. I never thought I'd create a friendship with those who knew those atrocities firsthand.

Once some other family members got ready, though, we headed off to the park. We spent hours there eating delicious food, kicking soccer balls, throwing frisbees, and watching the girls ride their bikes. These girls are so full of life one would have to be on death's doorstep not to be enlived along with them. It was a true joy and a delightful afternoon.

Eventually time came for parting as everyone grew tired. I said my goodbyes and walked off to my car. And when I got to my car, I realized my iPod was missing. I knew I had listened to music on the way to their house so I thought I had just misplaced it in a bag or it had fallen below a seat or something. But after ten solid minutes of searching my car, I came to the conclusion that my iPod was gone and likely stolen. I also remembered a very brief time when my car was unattended and I might not have locked it.

Though I was frustrated with myself for not being certain about the car being locked, I was never too angry. Do I think stealing is wrong? Absolutely. Your reading the words of a guy who gave lectures to his friends in high school about the wrongs of illegally downloaded music. But I never got angry. For some reason I couldn't.

My outgoing senior pastor (he's leaving for a new post and I wish him well) always commends to those he leads to read prayer requests of the persecuted Christian church worldwide (here or here). He suggests that American Christians practice this discipline first so that we can be mindful in prayer for Christians all over the world. Second, truly caring about persecuted Christians sometimes diminishes the petty difficulties in life.

And in that vein, that was the disposition of my heart yesterday. I did not consciously think, "I will not get angry." I just wasn't. I had just spent hours with a family who experienced unimaginable horrors (there are many stories I could share but choose not to for anonymity's sake; believe me, they are tough stories). My picture of suffering was incredibly limited when compared to theirs.

Perhaps this is why Jesus remarks:

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mt. 5:10

I'm certainly not suggesting that I am righteous, nor am I suggesting that my friend's were persecuted because of righteousness. What I am suggesting is that experiencing, knowing, and caring for those in real persecution allows one to be more receptive to the character of Jesus. And this is a worthy pursuit in life.

Andy Rooney and Desire

2010-04-19T17:27:00.004-06:00

One of my favorite TV personalities is Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, mainly because he always has an interesting take on an aspect of culture that befits his curmudgeonly personality. He develops a popular view of human desire this week that I thought was worth responding to.

Rooney misses the same point on desire that I referenced with Tiger Woods last week. Desire isn't bad. Bad desire is bad. Selfish desire is bad. Unquenchable desire is bad. And these are the things that Rooney is talking about. A world with no desire, or with a desire-reduction pill, is a sad world not worthy of the beauty and deep emotion this world offers through its Creator.

On the other hand, Rooney's words are an apt rebuke of our culture, and indeed human nature, which is constantly craving deeper lusts. The very nature of sin draws us all in to be addicts, never having enough of whatever fix we need: ambition, fame, power, sex, or food. We are indeed living in a dark world that cries out for a solution.

Just not Rooney's solution. We are in need of something worth desiring. We are in need of an object of our desire that won't ask for unfulfilled desires. We are in need of an object of our desire that actually fills our desires, and then some. We are in need of a person, the only person or thing that can, rightly change our desires and give us good ones.

We are in need of Jesus.

Current Reading

2010-04-14T16:47:00.003-06:00

Ideas run the world, and ideas are often found in books. You'll have to forgive me, but the following is another current list of book readings. Just trying to know the world's ideas.

Deep Church by Jim Belcher- This book is essentially a philosophy of Christian ministry for a local church that listens to the popular criticisms on current Church methodology but still seeks to maintain a deep orthodoxy. It's one of the best books I've read on the subject, and it articulates a view of my own profession that I align with most closely, more than any other book I've read.

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman- The main thesis of this classic of the last 40 years is that capitalism creates more contexts for freedom- religious, economic, political- than does any other form of economy. Friedman essentially argues that a full-on socialistic democracy is a contradiction in terms. While much of the 20th century proves that empirically, Friedman makes compelling economic arguments.

The Complete Stories of Flannery O'Conner- I'm a southerner. One of my favorite books is To Kill a Mockingbird, which without question is also my favorite movie. There's something about reading southern novelists of the early 20th century that resonates with the places I'm from and my own extended family, which also haunts a large part of who I am. Where others deal analytically with the content of O'Conner or Faulkner, I very much feel what they write in an existential way. I'm loving my journey through O'Conner.

The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson- If one accepts the historicity and infallibility of the Old and New Testaments as inspired Scripture of God, then the inevitable question of the unity of the Scripture arises. While many people have many different views on how the Scripture is unified, I'm entering a historic Christian tradition that accepts a view of the unity of Scripture called Covenant Theology. From what I've heard, Robertson's treatment on this subject is some of the best. I'm about halfway through and am soaking it up.

So happy reading to you. My exhortation is to always be reading something you love, something that challenges you, and something old. Read fiction and non-fiction. Plum the depths of your religious or spiritual tradition. Read books that encourage you. And read books that have influenced the intellectual greats through the ages. I'm still very much a learner in this process and have so much more to read in the years to come.

Tiger Woods, Buddhism, and Desire

2010-04-12T10:27:00.003-06:00

I am huge golf lover. I play it. I watch it. I read articles about it and follow it closely. I even got to go to the Masters in 2005 (the last time Tiger won) and almost got hit by Tiger's golf ball and made national tv (the proof is currently on a taped VHS). So naturally, I was glued to my television yesterday as I was watching the drama play out at the Masters. Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and a host of other great golfers vied for the win that Phil ultimately achieved.

Given Tiger's indiscretions and public scrutiny, much of the commentary focused on Tiger even though he never led the tournament yesterday or at any point (he finished tied for 4th). Tiger started horribly yesterday, bogeying three of the first five holes (for non-golf lovers- he lost three strokes to par= the standard score). Tiger wasn't throwing his usual tantrums or lighting up the curse words early on, which is typical of him when he plays poorly. Also, though, when Tiger turned it around and started playing great, he wasn't fist-pumping and revving up the crowd either.

Why? Well, Tiger has talked about returning to his family roots of Buddhism so he can "center" himself on the golf course: not get too high or too low. In Buddhism, emotion and desire are bad and ultimately things to gain higher enlightment over. But the commentators didn't like that. One of them remarked, "Tiger without emotion is like Superman with kryptonite. He can't feed off his own energy, which he's so used to." (That's a rough paraphrase).

And the commentator hit on a Christian truth without knowing it. The Buddha, in his quest for the alleviation of suffering, mistakenly linked good and bad desires together, thus trying to achieve nirvana over all desire (since desire is the source of much suffering). But in Christianity, good desire is good, and bad desire is bad. And there are oh so many good things in this world to desire and appreciate: the beauty of azaleas in the spring in Augusta, enrapturing music that leads you to truly experience beauty, and even excellence in one's craft.

Lying behind it all is One who gives the desire and grants the possibility that those desires can be fulfilled. He also works against all the evil desires of the world to ultimately bring justice to it all.

That's comforting to me, and I hope it will be to Tiger Woods someday too.

Home

2010-04-08T10:12:00.002-06:00

Do you love where you are from? I certainly know a lot of people who do. And I'm one of them.

When I was in graduate school a common question I got asked is if I'd return to Tennessee once I graduated. "Not necessarily. Don't know where the whims or plans of life will take me." I'm a planner, sure. But I wanted to be open to where I thought God wanted me. It seemed the reason that many people asked me this was because it was their own plan for their own life.

Mid-westerners wanted to go back to the corn fields and winds of the plain and farm states. Southerners wanted to go back to the hospitality and Bible-beltishness of the glorious South. Californians wanted to go back to the high-energy and diversity of the far west. Texans had their own weird Texas pride that I will never understand.

But then there were also tranplants- people that have always wanted to live and really live in Colorado. To them, the mountains would always be home no matter where they're from. And they wanted to stay here.

And lastly, there's those select transient few that are never really satisfied where they are because there are new and exciting adventures to be had. Colorado and mountains are great, but so are beaches and warm weather. Small towns offer a quaint charm but big cities also offer entertainment and non-stop excitement. There's always something new to experience that seems so elusive.

And no matter our disposition towards home we're still all seeking it. Home could be found in rest or excitement or both, but no matter who we are we are seeking home. We long for a nostalgia that's not entirely possible, or we long for an experience that cannot really be had. C.S Lewis, the classic Christian apologist, had this to say about our predicament:

"If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world."

Those longings for home are real and they really point to something. Real home is found in Jesus Christ and his ultimate home in a new heaven and new earth, where all evils and sorrows cease forever. Justice will be had and evil dealt with (Revelation 21-22). Only perfect good will remain. And our longing for nostalgia will be realized. Our thirst for ever-increasing excitement will finally be quenched.

We will be home. Finally.

Sensibility in Politics

2010-04-05T14:20:00.003-06:00

People love how their perceived by other people. We spend hours on facebook touching up our image. We posture around those we think influential in order to impress them by our social prowess. I'm no exception, though I'm trying everyday to ignore this human impulse to ever-increasing degrees. But one of the worst areas I see this is in politics. Apparently, we really care about how people perceive our political opinions (left-wingers and right-wingers who express their political opinions by multiple bumper stickers excluded). And the ultimate description of this temptation is one who thinks his or her political positions are sensible and moderate.

Perfect example: I have many friends who voted for Obama, even though they were conservative, because Obama postured towards moderates and they wanted to appear sensible, especially since the young adult trend was to view Republicans as non-centrist. Of course, the great irony in the 2008 election was that Obama was promoting a statist agenda openly (posturing be damned), and McCain had a 20 year voting record of centrism (which is why many Republicans didn't favor him).

Another example: Confused "conservatives" and "Republicans" favoring the healthcare bill that recently passed because "something had to be done." If they were true conservatives, however, they would have always favored less government control than more. And to a conservative, the status quo, while not a good option, is a better option than the bill just passed. So, news flash: if you agreed, by and large, with the bill that just passed, you are a liberal. And, by the terms laid out in the bill itself, it doesn't leave much room for you to be a moderate, either.

The wrong kind of sensibility, then, is to be on board with whatever any candidate says or promotes. I don't think it's ever wise to be overly enthusiastic about any one candidate (please see the entire history in 1 and 2 Kings- no ruler is perfect). The right kind of sensibility is to stand by your convictions.

It's much more sensible to know your political convictions, stand by them, and compromise on whom you have to vote for than to compromise your political convictions, and stand by an office-holder who is imperfect and promotes views that would not and could not align wholly with your own. Or, as a friend of mine put it: "Are you compromising principle to vote for the candidate or are you compromising the candidate to maintain (as much as possible) the principle? I suggest we do the latter.

Finally Weighing In on Governmental Healthcare

2010-04-02T16:20:00.002-06:00

I have avoided the contents of the healthcare debate for months now. The reason is because my biggest goal on this blog is to think through current events through the lens of a Christian worldview. But I muzzled myself because I couldn't adequately define my views on healthcare in religious or philosophic language without repeating conservative talking points. While what I am about to write will sound conservative, please note that I am attempting to avoid political and economic arguments in favor of a philosophical argument.

The core of that argument is this: when the government has a stake in the costs of any industry, it must seek to control the costs of that industry. When the government has a stake in the cost of healthcare, it has a role in reducing the amount of costs it incurs upon itself. And when it does this, it is performing an evil function by playing god with people's health.

Facts: Medicaid (government-run health insurance for the poor) will increase by 1/3, effectively adding 15 million new people to the government insurance entitlement tab. The federal government will fund 100% of the new recipients of Medicaid until 2016. Medicare (government-run health insurance for the elderly) spending cuts decrease by $500 billion over the next decade.

Because the government has a stake in the cost of healthcare, this bill entrenches the idea that the poor are more valuable than the elderly. Though the plan will cost the government billions of dollars over the next few years, the bill still attempted some accounting measures and cost-cutting manuevers to help the bill be more passable. And Medicare funding got cut. All these old people are a drain on the system, you see.

Now I'm not trying to make an argument about the pros and cons of Medicare or Medicaid, on the face of it. I'm merely trying to point out the evils of utilitarian philosophy, which is the core of American liberalism. The utilitarian idea is that we must maximize the good for the most amount of people, which sounds nice, but is off at its core. By trying to evaluate the collective good, we must acknowledge that somebody has to be the decision-maker on who the most amount of people are and what that arbitrary good is. This, undoubtedly, is a precarious situation.

On the other hand, if one's fundamental commitment was that every human individual was special in his or her own right and worth keeping alive, then the role of government would be vastly different. But because the government has a stake in the costs, they are currently rationing the elderly out of the system. Furthermore, they provide financing for the elimination of the unborn. These are not slippery slope arguments. They are actually happening.

As an example, don't believe the rhetoric you hear about the Hyde amendment and Obama's executive order last week. Federal money is already used at home and abroad for abortion. All that's required is a simple accounting measure. Unless the sole operation of an organization is abortion, they can qualify for federal money under any number of federal programs. Planned parenthood, for instance, received money from the stimilus package last year. But because PP does other things besides abortions, they can be funded under this technicality. How was funding Planned Parenthood a part of stimilus money? "It reduces costs," justified Nancy Pelosi (see here). Yes, when you have less people and make it available for them to be killed, it does cost the government less in healthcare. Evil thinking. Evil action by the government.

And while capitalism cannot and can never be an unqualified good, it has always created more contexts for religious and life-existence freedom than has socialistic-trending governments. My argument is not that capitalism is better because it works (though that is true). My argument is that command economies- or commanded sectors of the economy like the US increasingly has with healthcare- mean that less freedom is possible.

When the government has a stake in the cost of the health of its constituents, it has a stake in limiting the amount of service that different people get. This is not a power the government should have, and it makes the trend of American liberalism, and the trend of the government's scope into healthcare, a very evil trend. Yes, I said evil.

The beauty and depravity of Humanity

2010-03-17T09:13:00.002-06:00

I've recently made friends with an Iraqi refugee through various circumstances. He's lived in the United States for 22 days now. Naturally, he has many fears, cannot speak English yet, and earnestly wants to provide for his family. The second time we met, he told me of the unfortunate, scary, and life-threatening circumstances which caused him to leave Iraq.

On the third time I went to his house, I was there to teach him how to use the Denver bus system, which is ironic because I had to learn how to use the bus system first in order to do so. What does a white suburban with his own car have to learn about public transportation, after all? To learn, naturally, I went to the internet and read all about it. My Iraqi friend doesn't have a computer or the ability to speak English, so he was at a little disadvantage you might say in learning the bus system.

I showed up with pen and paper in hand, so as to progress in some kind of conversation since I know no other language than English. His wife had an Arabic-English dictionary, so between the two of us we got along fine. In the course of that conversation, I realized he already knew how to use the bus. He showed me his bus pass and knew where to get on and off the bus for various stops, including his English classes and the grocery store. My friend is incredibly smart and resilient, and so I have much to learn from him.

As we were talking, my friend, whom I had only met twice before, tried to say something very interesting. "Day-veed, I live you."

"Again?" I ask. "I live you," he says. I look at him with a confused face. He then proceeds to retreat into his mind, trying to recall what he is really trying to say. Then he hurries his hands back and forth in a waving manner, as if to say he is going to try to say it again. Then the lightbulb goes off on his face.

"I love you."

Then a lightbulb went off in my soul. And he shook my hand vigorously and hugged me from across the table. In that instant, my new friend was communicating his most powerful need.

For all the talk of social action in politics and non-profits - alleviating poverty, health care for all, housing for the homeless- my friend's greatest expressed need was for human affection and the longing for friendship in a strange land. My friend communicated something quite profound about human experience as well. Humans are capable of deep goodness and love and longing for pure things. Christianity explains this by saying that all of humanity is made in God's image (Gen. 1, Col. 3:10-11). And yet, something is also off about us.

My friend's greatest expressed need was for friendship, but his greatest actual need is for reconciliation and restoration in a relationship with the Creator God. And because all humans are off, because all of us are broken (Christians call this "sin"), we need God to breach the gap of our estranged relationship and give us his version of that restoration (Christians call this imputed "righteousness"). So humans are both beautiful and deprave. Blaise Pascal, Christian philosopher of generations ago, referred to the paradox of humanity as "deposed royalty."

So while my friend demonstrated strong and meaningful emotions, he has a deeper need still. And for that matter, so do I.

Current Readings

2010-03-10T06:00:00.000-07:00

Generally I am reading about 5 books at a time. But I am on the cusp of finishing 4 of my current readings, which is quite an unusual occurence for me to do all at once. And occasionally, for the sake of good conversation and idea exchange, I like to share with others what I'm reading. Recently it has been:

Agatha Christie's famous novel, "Murder on the Orient Express." I'd never read a Christie novel before. But since I was such a fan of Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown, I thought it would serve me well to delve into Christie. It's rare when you've read as much mystery as I have to be stunned by any ending, but let's just say Christie shocked me at the end of this one.

J. Gresham Machen's classic work counters the bankrupt thought of liberal theology. If Jesus is merely an example, and the Bible is merely theology, why are liberal "Christians" still meeting in church? What would be the point? Machen handles the arguments as well in the 1920s as Christians ever have.

Continuing my Chesterton binge, I love that Chesterton has a book entitled Heretics and Orthodoxy. This book doesn't seem to have an overarching theme, with the exception that in short chapters Chesterton addresses a different contemporary of his and shows how the Christian worldview argues against their claims. This isn't one of his more popular works, but it's just as relevant. To ignore history and history's intellectual giants is to ignore how people continue to make the same intellectual mistakes today.

More in line with my profession, I thought I'd take up the reading from one in my theological tradition. I found D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones to be refreshing and a giant in the stream of preaching, which includes all the streams back to the Reformation. This book is more important than most of the recent works on Christian communication.

So, what books have you been reading? What suggestions would you have for me?

The Mask of Self-Worship

2010-03-09T08:25:00.003-07:00

It is often the man who hates ritual in his religion that is most ritualistic in his daily life. He wears the same clothes everyday, prefers the same food, and has the same morning routine. At its core, he is a person of ritual in the things that do not matter. But for the things that do, he shuns ritual and the wisdom passed down through the ages.

On the contrary, the man who prefers solemnity and seriousness in his religion is often the same man cheers loudly for his sports team on tv or in person. He is the man who jeers in adulation of others. He is the man the celebrates the simple things of life. And yet he has trouble being exuberant for the things most worth celebrating.

What these ironies reveal is not as much a comment on religion, but more a comment on self. We often lift ourselves most highly in our religion. Instead of worshipping the object of religion (in my view, Jesus is the source, means, and end of worship), we worship the trappings of religion. Instead of worshipping the Creator, we worship created things. And we worship the self and its desires most. Those seeds of pride are dangerous to the soul.

The danger to others comes when we make that self-worship mandatory for them. "How dare they celebrate during worship with loud guitars!" OR "They have such a stodgy form of worship that is outdated. I wish they'd get with the picture!" The very seeds of religion become judgmentalism. Religion becomes something ascetic and something we earn, instead of something given, received, celebrated, and appreciated.

Human Depravity and Government Part 2

2010-02-28T17:42:00.003-07:00

Upon reading my last post, I confess I was a bit dissatisfied with the connection I made between human depravity and the structure of the federal government. I made a good connection, but I didn't tease it out. So here's another take.

First, what if our government believed in and relied on the inherent goodness of people? If this were true, we'd have no reason for much of the laws we have. Why would we need to write more laws if everyone obeyed them without negative consequence? We wouldn't. Think of all the laws we wouldn't need: all criminal law, federal laws regarding immigration and gun control, and the government wouldn't tax people at all because out of their goodness they'd give to the big government cause. Of course this absurd.

Second, has there been any government in the modern era of the nation-state who exemplified the inherent goodness of humanity? Even communist governments founded upon the ideal of absolute equality always denigrated into totalitarian states bent on conforming people to the will of the state/party. It frankly, on top of being immoral, is impractial to structure a government based on human goodness.

Does this mean I believe humans don't have the capacity for good? No, it does not. Humans are also made in God's image (Gen. 1). But social and governmental standards are different than individual and personal ethics. I believe there are many decent, law-abiding citizens. But we must assume the depravity of humanity as a first principle in government.

So can the government be an instrument of that good? No it cannot. The government can only be an instrument of coercion. The government asks for taxes and goes to war. Even these modes of the government are established by the Christian thought (Romans 13). The government, by the very nature of its entity, cannot be an agent of compassion. Even in welfare, medicaid, or health insurance (seemingly compassionate acts of government), the government must get that money from somewhere and it must force its laws upon the populace. Note: the government can only be about force, then. Acts of compassion convolute the role of government and misconstrue the first principle of government: humans are deprave and therefore governments tend to abuse even attempted compassion.

So what's the good news? The good news is that we can be involved in a wonderful, albeit broken, democracy in this era of the United States. This means, from a Christian perspective, that we can and should be involved in the reform of government at every level. And should we decide to run for office, we should be very cautious about the role our own depravity can play as it hungers for power, fame, and success. They are universal human temptations after all.

In sum, be wary of any glowing or enlightened terms about the goodness of government. It's not a moral entity, it cannot be good or bad. It is only an agent of coercion, so let's make sure we give the coercion definite boundaries.

Human Depravity and the Role of Government

2010-02-25T15:56:00.002-07:00

"The depravity of man is one Christian doctrine that is empirically provable." G.K. Chesterton

"They love him now, but they're all gonna hate him in 4 years, or 8." The old guy who watched Obama's inauguration with me

The government doesn't work. Old people are skeptical and hardened. Young people, particularly those who voted for Obama, are disillusioned. No wonder voting in national elections is always low, so the refrain goes. Conservatives are excited, because they can stall Obama and the Democrat's legislative agenda. Liberals are disappointed, constantly noting the disfunction of government. A brief survey of the landscape:

From a Time article, the cover story on broken government:

This revulsion toward the nation's capital is understandable. But it makes the problem worse. From health care to energy to the deficit, addressing the U.S.'s big challenges requires vigorous government action. When government doesn't take that action, it loses people's faith. And without public faith, government action is harder still. Call it Washington's vicious circle. Breaking this circle of public mistrust and government failure requires progress on solving big problems, which requires more cooperation between the parties.

From the Weekly Standard, regarding Evan Bayh's resignation:

Tough Choosers [like Bayh] always insist that the problems of the present era are unprecedented. The past, in contrast to the fallen world we face now, was idyllic, and the golden age always ended the day before yesterday. Bayh fondly recollected the years when his father Birch Bayh worked as a senator, in the 1970s, a prelapsarian era when legislators “worked together” and “got things done.” The voters at the time saw it differently. At the end of Birch Bayh’s third term, they voted him and 11 of his colleagues out of office in a mass turnover that was truly unprecedented—a kind of electoral upchuck. If the Senate was getting things done in the 1970s, they were evidently the wrong things.

And from Charles Krauthammer with the Washington Post:

The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation... The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system. Yet, what's new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

So where does this landscape leave us? I confess that it leaves me satisfied. And not because the Obama agenda is being stalled. I am satisfied because I live in a country that demands citizen participation (unlike communist China). I am satisfied that I live in a country where minority views are heard (unlike utilitarian social democracies who only value the most, not the least). I am satisfied that I live in a country that respects the spirit of human enterprise, while also not trusting the human spirit too much.

And that's where I leave you. The Founding Fathers believed in human depravity, so they set up a government not absent of power, but one where power was necessarily shared and split. The separation of powers meant that each branch of government- executive, legislative, and judicial- had certain checks on the others to prohibit rampant abuse of power and waste.

Thus, the problem isn't that the government can't get anything done. That's actually good, and it was designed that way on purpose. The problem is when one branch of the government assumes too much power and expects it. And that's exactly what the executive branch of the US Federal government is. Disillusionment with the goodness of humanity and the charisma of leaders is good for the soul.

More Chesterton

2010-02-24T16:22:00.002-07:00

I haven't lacked inspiration for new posts lately, I've just lacked time. But in either instance, one must still keep the mind going. So I just found this, courtesy of the American Chesterton Society. It pretty much sums up why you should read G.K. Chesterton. The highlight:

This absent-minded, overgrown elf of a man, who laughed at his own jokes and amused children at birthday parties by catching buns in his mouth, this was the man who wrote a book called The Everlasting Man, which led a young atheist named C.S. Lewis to become a Christian. This was the man who wrote a novel called The Napoleon of Notting Hill, which inspired Michael Collins to lead a movement for Irish Independence. This was the man who wrote an essay in the Illustrated London News that inspired Mohandas Gandhi to lead a movement to end British colonial rule in India...

Chesterton debated many of the celebrated intellectuals of his time:
George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow. According to contemporary accounts, Chesterton usually emerged as the winner of these contests, however, the world has immortalized his opponents and forgotten Chesterton, and now we hear only one side of the argument, and we are enduring the legacies of socialism, relativism, materialism, and skepticism. Ironically,
all of his opponents regarded Chesterton with the greatest affection. And George Bernard Shaw said: "The world is not thankful enough for Chesterton."

Lloyd-Jones on Church History

2010-02-04T14:29:00.004-07:00

"The modern man is very ignorant of history; he does not know that the hospitals originally came through the Church. It was Christian people who first, out of a sense of compassion for suffering and illness, began to do something about even physical diseases and illnesses. The first hospitals were founded by Christian people. The same thing is true of education; it was the Church that first saw this need and proceeded to do something about it. The same is true of Poor Law Relief and the mitigation of the sufferings of people who were enduring poverty. I argue that it is the Church that has really done this. Your trades unions and other such movements, you will find, if you go back to their beginnings, have almost invariably had Christian origins."

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 1969

I found it interesting in this book on preaching by a Welshman that he comments on two major issues that we now consider to be the role of the government. Almost unthinkingly many Americans consider healthcare and education to be the role of the government. And not just any government: the federal government. I then began to wonder where most U.S. Senators got their degrees: from public universities or private ones? I then began to wonder about the U.S. Senate's healthcare plan, and how Americans pay for it. I haven't done this research, so someone could enlighten me here.

My point is that, implicitly, we all recognize that institutions with an investment in their own success do in fact do a better job fulfilling their purpose than institutions protected by government, which has no vested interest in its success.

Furthermore, Christian institutions have always done a better job at healthcare and education when removed from the influence of federal government. Let us not forget that the Establishment and Free Exercise (I refuse to say "separation of church and state" because the term has lost all meaning and has no Constitutional significance anyhow) of the 1st Amendment was written so that the government would stay out of influence in religious affairs.

That includes all areas of religious affairs, such as education and healthcare. Currently, states such as California have tried to outlaw homeschooling while the U.S. Senate plan will mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance.

So I've cloaked my argument in religious terms. I believe that these actions by the State are breaches of the first amendment, and thus my free exercise of religious belief. In short, these attempts by the government are unconstitutional. Besides, the Church, when unconstrained by the largesse of the Federal Government, does it better anyways.

Entralled by Beauty

2010-02-03T16:44:00.002-07:00

Beauty itself is one of the few things that truly lasts. As humans are created in God's image, we cannot help but be creators ourselves. And we are at our finest when we are making something beautiful.

Furthermore, Christians have the strongest and best explanation of why some things are beautiful and others are not. To experience beauty is a unique human experience, and other worldviews have a hard time explaining why something is beautiful.

Beauty in science was born out of a Christian worldview: the idea that the world was created by an organized Creator who is rational and put things in their place. Because of this view, Christians believed the world was orderly, testable, rational, and that science could thus flourish in repeatable experiments. Naturalism, which results in chaos, and pantheim, which results in an impersonal uncertainty, could not have started the beauty of science.

Beauty in art was also, to some extent, born out of a Christian worldview. But in this vein humans have always created art, since our very beginnings. But the best art, the most beautiful art, is born out of a Christian worldview. Painting, dance, sculpture, music, and architecture are all at their finest when considering a Creator God. But the only reason I wrote all that was not so that you could disagree or agree, really. Normally that's what this blog is about.

Sometimes it's better just to enter in to the beauty. So I give you Bach: one of my favorite composers.

Why Conviction is Better than Blah

2010-01-29T06:00:00.000-07:00

Check out this video poem by Taylor Mali.

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

His articulation of the inarticulation of the masses is why I find myself increasingly drawn towards conviction as opposed to trendiness. It's why I grew out of Donald Miller and grew towards G.K. Chesterton (despite the fact that he regularly lambastes my own theological- Calvinist- views). It's why I have little room for Rob Bell and all of his "likes" on his Nooma videos, but I have all the room in the world for Tim Keller. It's why I have little tolerance for postmodernism and post-partisanship and pragmatism.

We all believe something. So let's stop lying to ourselves.

Book Standards

2010-01-28T14:19:00.003-07:00

Let's face it, there are a lot of bad books out there. So many books vie for our attention, and so many books are written in so many fields of human knowledge. How is one to decide what kind of books he or she should read? I have a few thoughts.

Does it add to the field of human knowledge? Far too many books are recapitulations or hack reproductions of better works. If it doesn't enlarge the field of human knowledge, then it probably isn't worth reading. Generally, if an older book is still around, then it's probably worth reading because time is a good judge. It isn't a perfect judge, though.

Does some other writer say it better or represent a certain viewpoint better? While this is related to the last one, it is slightly different in it's application. To read Nietzche is a better pursuit than a current postmodernist. To read C.S. Lewis is better than reading almost all current books on Christian living (I'm looking at you, Brian McLaren and Donald Miller).

Does a book represent its worldview well? A book might proffer a worldview with which I disagree, but I won't waste my time on any book that doesn't represent some of the best that worldview has to offer.

Is the writing beautiful? Beauty is always a standard. Don't let postmodernism fool you into thinking that all art or writing is equally beautiful. The Brothers Karamazov is still considered one of the best novels ever. Go into Barnes and Noble today and you won't find any Dostoyevskys. I'm reminded of the scene from the first National Treasure when Nicolas Cage's character reads the Declaration of Independence in the National Archives. He reads an elegant section (but isn't all of it elegant?) and proclaims, "Nobody talks like that anymore."

Is it trite, meaningless, or reduced to pop psychology? If it is, don't read it. I'd put most political tomes in this category. In general, stay away from Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Al Franken, or most modern political tomes. They are narcissistic and not serious. Want to deal with serious political philosophy? Read John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, John Rawls, Alexis De Toqueville, William F. Buckley, and many others. Also, most leadership and self-help books fall into the category of pop psychology. Avoid these at all costs.

Is it narcissistic and overly (auto)-biographical? If it is, don't read it. This category relates to my last question as well as to the question on a book's worldview. Too much focus on the self is more a matter of pride than worldview. Biography is important, but it does not have to be narcissistic.

So, would you add anything else to this list? Would you disagree with anything I wrote? I'm curious to hear from you.

Misled by Moderation in Politics

2010-01-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

I've recounted this exchange on this blog before, but it bears repeating.

Upon Obama's historic election in November 2008, a brilliant and earnest colleague asked a group of fellow pastors and me, "Do you think Obama's election proves a rush to liberalism for generations to come?" I spoke up first, "No, Obama got elected by appearing as a moderate, despite his statist views, and the country is largely reacting to the incompetence of the Bush years. This country is still, by and large, a conservative one."

I realize that I painted with a broad brush there, and conservatism must be qualified. Perhaps I was a little right and wrong.

I think I was right about the reaction to Bush. Obama's measurables- the ones that matter- are significantly down after a torrid start in Presidential politics. Furthermore, his "likability" is always higher than his "what do you really think about his policies?" category. On a side note, why does the first question even matter? (see my post on Neil Postman's book for the answer). In short, Obama's ideas are just not popular, which means that liberalism isn't popular.

But I think I was wrong about the influence of conservatism. After a year of Obama's governance followed by recent reactionary elections, I think I am convinced that much of America is in the uninformed mushy middle of nothingness in American politics. Christie's election to the New Jersey governorship, Brown's election of Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts (?!), and other "conservative" victories across the country in the past few months are evidence.

How could the American public elect one of the most liberal Presidents ever (liberals would likely dispute this claim) and then a year later the more liberal parts of the country are electing Republicans? What can account for such inconsistencies in the American public?

First suggestion: Americans don't read. They had plenty of opportunities to read Obama's plan. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do on the economy, healthcare, Palestine, and so many other issues. How can you be displeased with someone you voted for when that information was known beforehand?

Second suggestion: Americans don't have real commitments and values. We follow what is in vogue. One minute large government liberalism looks appealing because people don't have jobs, homes, or healthcare. "Wouldn't that be awesome if someone else paid for it?" Another minute we realize our civil liberties are at stake. "I don't want the government to force my hand in the commerce of health insurance."

Third suggestion: We idolize people instead of values because the television. When was the last time the more ugly candidate won in a Presidential election? Also, Scott Brown is certainly more telegenic than Martha Coakley. In sum, we are attracted to charisma, but we don't wrestle with the substance until someone starts governing.

Our inconsististies in voting is probably a result of all of the above. Political commentators would call this American voting ethic "pragmatism," and pundits on each side rush to claim the word. I even heard Dennis Prager say yesterday on his radio show that Americans vote for what works, and "we clearly know that this Administration isn't working." Obama has rushed to have the word placed upon him as well and Time Magazine couldn't be happier to oblige.

But I could not disagree more with whatever we call pragmatism. While I do think unregulated markets create more wealth than regulated markets do, that should not be our determinant in casting a vote. What we need is principle and ideals in social and economic policy, and there are too many unprincipled people out there. For instance:

Do you believe that a human life is really at stake in the womb? If you do, then you should create protections in government for human life. If you do not, then kill at will, by all means.

Do you really believe a smaller government (governments by their nature cannot be efficient, so let's stop using that word) is better to create individual and civil liberties or not? If you do, then you'll always be suspicious of a government's claims that it can do more than it really can. If you don't, then create utopia already.

Do you really believe that wealth can be built and not merely shared or re-distributed?

Do you believe that government can protect some things that are inherent rights to exist, such as the Bill of Rights? Does the Bill of Rights assume that both the Draft and abortion should be illegal?

Do you belief that luxuries and quality-of-life issues should truly be handled by the government? Is healthcare really a right?

While public policy is always nuanced, the answers to these simple questions really moves us in one of two directions. Moderation is not a virtue, then. It simply is a substitute for an uninformed or unprincipled electorate.

I say we have that debate from the core of our convictions. Let's have that debate between the utilitarian views of liberalism and the life and individual liberty ethic of conservatism. Let's have that debate between free-market capitalism and socialism. Maybe then we'll be able to answer, from a philosophical standpoint, the role of the government in commerce. Maybe then we'll see the virtue in some political positions and the evil in others.

All you people in the middle stay out of the way.

Ascent Denver

2010-01-21T10:02:00.003-07:00

I hear that the new economy will resemble more of a long tail (as on a graph) than a tall skyscraper. As people's interest become more varied, there won't be mass interest in anything anymore. The decline of newspapers and broadcast television are pronounced examples of this phenomenon.

If anything, church worship is mirroring this decline, and Protestant churches struggle to find the right balance, mix, or philosophical commitment to musical form. Mainline churches (United Methodist, many Lutheran denominations, Prebyterian Church USA, etc.) seem to stay stuck in stodgy worship forms that don't give life to the people. But many evangelical churches seem dead (and I mean dead) set on mimicking only what comes across Christian radio. Perhaps there is a better way forward?

I'm not advocating that churches have the ability to be all things to all people, especially in preferred styles of music. But I do think a church service should be intelligible to all people (the appropriate word is "intelligible"- IE a non-Christian may still think praying to an invisible God is weird and uncomfortable, but at least they'll understand it) and challenging and encouraging to Christians, in particular.

I'm thankful to be a part of a church that has this vision for church services, and also a church that has the ability, talent, and willingness to pull off various forms of worship. Our first service is historically Presbyterian and liturgical- offering vibrant worship in the form of traditional (in the post-Reformation, Western European sense) instrumentation: organ, choir, and sometimes brass and strings. Our second service we call "convergent," and not contemporary, because it contains modern instrumentation but it still contains new melodic styles to old hymn texts that are combined with liturgical elements. I have, as a musician, particpated in both services before: trombone in the first service, guitar and keyboard in the second service.

And even in this liturgical bent, we can still rock out. And we will rock out this Sunday evening, January 24, at 6:30pm. If you live in Denver, please consider coming. You might even see yours truly on stage, playing the keyboard.

Movie Review: The Book of Eli

2010-01-19T15:27:00.003-07:00

Disclaimer and Explanation: For those who have not seen the movie and wish to do so, I recommend that you do not read this post as many details of the plot including its resolution will be revealed. This post is written with the substantial input and co-authorship of Eric Emeott.

Is the Bible the most important book in world history? Do its truth claims mean more to human existence than anything ever written? Even more, could God have possibly revealed himself truly through the occurrences of history and the resulting record of the Bible?

These are the questions that the movie The Book of Eli addresses with intriguing results. The story is set in Western America in a post-apocalyptic world where we see a man (played by Denzel Washington-we don’t know his name is Eli until the end of the film) on a journey of survival. He is rummaging for food and water as he goes about killing smaller animals. It is not until a little later that we realize this man is on a mission, a mission to the West, where some unknown salvation awaits.

On his journey Eli encounters many obstacles. Naturally, he runs into bandits and looters, but his biggest enemy is a man named Carnegie who knows the power of his mission. That mission is not just that Eli will get to the West, but that he will get this book to the West. Carnegie knows that power of this book: “It’s not just a ___ book, it’s a weapon aimed straight at the hearts and the minds of the weak and desperate.” Carnegie and Eli are thus set at odds for the remainder of the movie.

What is in this book that is so important? The careful observer will know 10-15 minutes into the film. That’s because Eli recites the book’s contents often, and as the movie goes along his references go from more obscure to more overt. By the middle of the film, Eli recites the 23rd Psalm to his companion. It is at that point we realize that Eli is carrying the world’s last known Bible, as all the world’s Bibles had been destroyed in the war that wrought the apocalypse. People blamed the war on the Bible and its followers, and so they were destroyed (Does that mean this is the first insidious message from Hollywood that the Bible and Christianity aren’t responsible for all the world’s known atrocities?).

Without giving away the end of the movie or it’s more nuanced conflict, I do want to note how much this movie is bathed in Christian symbolism. Eli has apparently been traveling for 30 years or so, and much of it in the American West desert, which harkens Moses and Israel. By the end of the movie, Eli finally gets to leave that desert and get to the West, where he has to cross the Bay and get to Alcatraz where salvation awaits. This moment harkens Joshua and Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land by crossing of the Jordan River. Eli eventually is accompanied by a girl named Solara as they shepherd the Bible to the West, which harkens Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem with the Christ-child in womb. And without giving away too much of the plot, a major motif is how we walk by faith and not by sight.

Furthermore, the movie is bathed in Scriptural references. Eli quotes Genesis before a major bar fight. Eli quotes the Sermon on the Mount to explain his giving away of the book. And on top of Scripture, Eli also prays throughout the movie.

The movie also plays on a profound light and dark motif, but you’ll have to wait until the end to really discover why. Let’s just say it relates to faith and sight. Of the 3 nights we are with Eli, we only physically see him wake up twice. However, both of these times he is sleeping in shadows/darkness and it is beams of sunlight that actually move into the darkness that are the actual things that wake him up for him to continue on his journey. In addition to this, we often see him look up into the sky, directly at the sun as if he is looking for direction. The sun always sets in the west and that is where he followed it, to the west. I think the sun is somewhat a representation of God. It led him on his journey, it woke him up constantly, and people were always wearing sunglasses if they were in the presence of the sunlight.

But by the end of the movie, Eli makes it to the Promised Land, Alcatraz. Alcatraz is essentially a haven for world culture and civilization. It includes a major library and a printing press. And it was God who told Eli to go there so that the Bible could be preserved.

Some of the negatives of the movie include explicit violence, although violence is not glorified by the film. Eli only and ever fights out of self-defense. There’s also some strong language and some minor sexual themes. The biggest negative is that once the Bible is re-printed, its lasting image is placed on a bookshelf by the Quran, which seems to devalue the Bible to some degree by comparison. But the Bible is in the center of that shot, and much bigger than the Quran. Perhaps the writer is making a comparative statement of importance and worth in world history?

But these negatives aside, every person who wants to deal with the seriousness of religious claims should see this movie. While the movie never explicitly mentions the chief and central point about Christian truth-claims (namely that of Jesus’ death and resurrection and atonement in the place of all humanity), it piques the mind enough to find out for oneself. But I do not want to devalue this message. It’s why the book was written in the first place.

So is the Bible the most important book in world history? Do its truth claims mean more to human existence than anything ever written? Even more, could God have possibly revealed himself truly through the occurrences of history and its record in Christian Scriptures?

To those questions, The Book of Eli gives a resounding “yes.”

Pluralism Means that Ignorance Wins

2010-01-18T15:09:00.002-07:00

If you remember from my blog post commenting on Britt Hume and the Tiger recommendation, you know that I prefer a rigorous, open, and honest dialogue with people of other faiths and political dispositions. Too often, though, we substitute true dialogue for cliches and empty pluralism. Consider this quote from G.K. Chesterton. He's dealing with a traditional argument against the Catholic Age of Europe (usually referred to as Christendom), and notes that modernism fails us more.

The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it.

G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905

How often are Christians or Atheists or Buddhists unnecessarily offended by the mere mention of someone else's worldview? How often do we hear of the need for "pluralism" when so often that becomes a euphemism for elimating the Christian view in any conversation? How often must Americans be subjected to a secular and naturalist worldview in the television media and the public schools?

Remember that no one can escape their own worldview. Everyone has one. Insititutions have them too. So let's not pretend there's no such thing so that we can just go on having a conversation removed from religious or philosophical influences.

We have beliefs. All of us. Let's discuss them. For pete's sake, let's use our liberty to debate ideas in the public sphere.

Prayer Not For the Self Alone

2010-01-12T10:54:00.004-07:00

Update: Upon reading this blog post again, I realize that I did not clearly state my own view on prayer labyrinths. They indeed can be used for good, but I take opposition to the way their use was described in this article.

If prayer at its very base is a conversation, one would not get the clue at all in this article, from my hometown Denver Post. The article is about the small but significant resurgence of the ancient practice of prayer labyrinths. It's really a fascinating article, so if you don't read the article here's some extended quotations:

"The labyrinth reflects back to you whatever you need to discover," said psychotherapist and Episcopal priest Lauren Artress, who will anchor a conference on following sacred paths in Arvada on Jan. 15-16.

As a member of two professions dedicated to changing people, Artress considers the labyrinth to be one of the most powerful tools of transformation she has encountered.

"We're always told what to believe, what to do. We're told. We're told. We're told," she said. "The labyrinth evokes our own deep intuitive wisdom about ourselves. "...

Every sacred tradition uses the metaphor of walking a path to find one's spiritual center and to experience the divine, Artress said. To be human is to invoke symbols and metaphors. "You have a meaningful life when you live a symbolic life," Artress said.

One of two things seems to be happening here. Either Artress is misrepresented and under-quoted, or she's a pantheist. Her language certainly arouses suspicion.

A labyrinth helps you discover "whatever you need to discover." Also, Atress places a strongly negative connotation on the suggestion that we're always told what to believe. Those tellers must be ignorant or liars or both. After all, and this one's the kicker which makes me question her Christian conviction, the individual self knows what to believe. Some reactions:

Jesus told us what to believe about himself. Namely, that he was fully God in human form and that he came to die as a substitionary sacrifice for humanity. Is he a liar?

There's concrete truth in Christianity. God is creator and redeemer. He is three persons in one essence. Jesus was and is God, and is the second person of that divine Trinity. Shouldn't prayer be directed towards Him? And not to the self?

Furthermore, the notion that we ourselves are our own leader towards divine truth is outright idolatrous (Romans 3, Ephesians 2, John 6, and John 10). Even more, the idea that we are encouraged to "experience the divine" is imprecise and misleading. Quite frankly, it sounds too much like pantheism.

My purpose is not to embitter other seeming Christians against myself. My purpose is to point out a lack of truth and bring truth to it. The more fuzzy we are with our religious language, the less we actually believe in anything. Jesus and salvation ultimately will not matter if we don't actually know concretely what they mean. An experience with the person of Jesus still matters, but let's not elevate experience over knowledge in our quest for truth and understanding of God.

After all, what God has already revealed about Himself is sufficient.

Tele-Presidents

2010-01-06T11:44:00.002-07:00

Neil Postman, writing in 1985, has this to say about television's affect on our political discourse:

"As I write, the President of the United States is a former Hollywood movie actor...Although the Constitution makes no mention of it, it would appear that fat people are now effectively excluded from running for high political office. Probably bald people as well...Indeed, we have reached the point where cosmetics has replaced ideology as the field of expertise over which a politician must have competent control."
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, 1985

I hear conservatives rail against Obama for being an empty suit, a stylized persona mediated through a teleprompter. And sadly, in many ways, they'd be right. But I also hear liberals rail against Sarah Palin for being a pretty face. All style, no substance. And sadly, I think they'd also be right.

Campaigns don't provide a clash of ideals, where good ideas and rigorous ideology are debated. The only proof you need is that soon after Obama's inauguration, most of the country disagreed with his politics but approved of the job he was doing. In short, they liked his face, but not his positions. But for what other reason should we elect a President than for his positions or ideology?

The implications of television are deep embedded in our culture. Democrats, who own the numbers in the House and the Senate, still can't pass the healthcare legislation they want because they want to be re-elected (by conservative districts). But why would the public elect folks to office with whom the sincerely disagree with over major issues?

The answer to these mystifying questions is that the television decides who is more telegenic. And the more telegenic person wins. After a Presidential debate, the commentary is rarely on the policies and ideas, but always on how someone "looked" or "sounded." Image is more important than ideas.

Postman accused this decadence in American politics even of the great conservative hope, Reagan. And he was right. Reagan was guilty of all kinds of poor logic and incomplete public discourse. And Obama is worse. He'll actually say one thing in a speech and do quite the opposite (see most of his decisions on foreign policy). For centuries, this phenomenon was called lying.

Television hasn't just underminded our public debate, it has made us susceptible to believe outright lies.

There's very little solutions to stem the tide of this cultural wave. Even our newspapers are more enamored with horse races than the actual ideas of a campaign. The only seeming solution is to turn off the tv and read more. Don't watch internet video, but read a politician's actual platform on their website.

And care about the truth, not about what you like or dislike.

Lions and Tiger and Hume, Oh My!

2010-01-05T12:44:00.003-07:00

On Sunday, Brit Hume, Fox News commentator, suggested that Tiger Woods become a Christian because the Christian faith offers a better path to forgiveness and restoration (the implications were both for now and eternity, it seems). Here's Brit Hume, explaining himself to Bill O'Reilly:

I can already hear the postmodernists up in arms. And it doesn't really matter what kind of postmodernist you are, either. Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, or others who subscribe more to relativism than to the rigors of their own professed worldview would be and are offended by Hume. "How dare he promote his own faith on television!? You wouldn't want an atheist or a Muslim doing the same thing, would you?"

Well, yes, I would. If we actually had an honest dialogue about truth claims and what different worldviews said about God, humanity, and human liberation/salvation, we'd actually be discussing something real. By perpetually avoiding the religion topic or pretending that all world religions or worldviews are the same, we've watered down religion and public discourse in the process. And for that matter, if all we're suggesting is that Tiger Woods go to counseling and take some pills, then we've already fallen prey to a more naturalistic worldview anyways. Why should naturalism always win?

Imagine if we actually had an honest evaluation of worldviews on television. Let's take the Tiger Woods example. How does each faith respond to his circumstance? (If I misrepresent anyone's view, please let me know. While having a cursory knowledge of many worldviews, I cannot claim to be an expert in most of them).

Christianity: Tiger Woods has offended both God and his fellow humans. He should seek forgiveness from both of those places. And no matter how much he tries to be a better person, he cannot by his own will. He simply must admit his weakness and trust in Christ for his ultimate redemption.

Buddhism: Both pleasure and pain are illusions. Tiger should seek a higher plane of consciousness and remove himself from all desire. It was his desire for erotic pleasure that has brought him so much pain in the first place.

Islam: The Holy Book does not forbid polygamy. In many cases, it is encouraged. Tiger's only mistake was to not make these women his spouse before having an affair with him. But as it was an adulterous affair, Tiger must be put to death according to the laws of the Qu'ran. At least that's what occurs where Shar'ia law is practiced.

Atheism: Big deal. Marriage is a process constructed by humans. It is simply a construct of our own sociological patterns. What Tiger did was wrong, sure. But let's not crucify him for his mistake or suggest that his answer is spiritual. This is all there is.

I admit that this is a simple list. But it remains true nonetheless. Let's have that panel. Let's debate the truth-claims of world religions. For my money, Christianity will always have the most appropriate theological and philsophical response to the human condition. You go, Brit Hume!

The Year of Chesterton

2010-01-04T12:44:00.003-07:00

Suppose I said (as I do say) that every government ought to be checked by an opposition; suppose I said (as I do not say) that free international exchange is demonstrably better than all this economic nationalism. Suppose I said that recognised majority rule is better than random minority rule; suppose I said that Democracy as a failure is better than Dictatorship as a success. I could say all this, and much more, and remain a quite ordinary and orthodox member of the ancient Church. But I could not say it, over a great part of the modern world, without being punished by the modern State. Rome with its religious authority would not silence me. But Fascism with its secular authority would silence me. Bolshevism with its secular authority would silence me. Hitlerism with its secular authority would silence me. When I began to live and (alas) to write, all the other Liberals had inherited a huge legend that all persecution had come from the Church... I appeal to all my fellow-Liberals to admit that the facts have flatly contradicted this idea.

G.K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows, 1935

Chesterton wrote this before WWII and the Cold War. He was more right than he knew. It's quite amusing that these tired and incorrect arguments still get used by new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They posit that religion in world history is responsible for the most horrible atrocities.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also note that more evil has been done by admittedly secular, atheist governments than religious ones. Besides, a government will usually act on behalf of its worldview.

Secular, atheistic governments that don't value human life will not hesitate to destroy life (see: USSR or Nazi Germany). Radical Islamic governments (who read the Qu'ran accurately, I presume) who really view non-Muslims as infidels, are encouraged to spread Islam by the sword as supported by their holy scriptures. But when a supposedly Christian government does such atrocities, it is acting contra to it's worldview. It possesses a worldview that is in contradiction with unjust war, for instance. The core of the worldview is the concern, and Chesterton is right to point the inconsistencies of this old argument. He's right about a great many things.

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you probably have noticed that I am fond of reading G.K. Chesterton. What you might not realize is that I didn't read a single paragraph of his until 2009. April of 2009 to be more precise. Since then, I've read several of his works, both fiction and non-fiction. That list includes: Orthodoxy, (many of) The Father Brown stories, The Man Who Was Thursday, The Napolean of Notting Hill, Manalive, The Everlasting Man, and The Well and the Shallows.

I love his prose, his use of logic, his wit, and grand themes. Not many write or think like he does anymore. As such, I commit myself to more reading of Chesterton as a tonic against much of the shallow Christian literature of the day. Already purchased and waiting for reading: Heretics, The Flying Inn, biographies of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis, The Ball and the Cross, and many more I can't think of right now.

I encourage you to join me in this adventure. Even if you vehemently disagree, you will be entertained. My first suggestion for non-fiction: Orthodoxy- a compelling approach to the beauty and truth of Christianity. My first suggestion for fiction: The Man Who Was Thursday- a weird but quick and fun read sure to whet the appetite.

Political Correctness is Stupid and Obama is Wrong

2009-12-23T07:08:00.003-07:00

Sometimes I just write exactly what comes to mind, so I hope you don't mind the subject title. I think I will prove my point in a second.

President Obama went to a boys and girls club to talk about the meaning of Christmas. But watch this video or read the transcript (from the White House's website). Kids are much smarter than we think. Highlights:

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the most important thing is just to remember why we celebrate Christmas.

CHILD: I know!

THE PRESIDENT: Do you know?

CHILD: The birth of baby Jesus.

THE PRESIDENT: The birth of baby Jesus, and what he symbolizes for people all around the world is the possibility of peace and people treating each other with respect. And so I just hope that spirit of giving that's so important at Christmas, I hope all of you guys remember that as well. You know, it's not just about getting gifts but it's also doing something for other people. So being nice to your mom and dad and grandma and aunties and showing respect to people -- that's really important too, that's part of the Christmas spirit, don't you think? Do you agree with me?

No, Mr. President, I don't agree with you. Instead of listening to you, I've chosen to read. And I've chosen to read the words Jesus himself said. Jesus, when he became an adult, told us why he came. He told us the meaning of Christmas. And it wasn't your answer. I don't even need my own, because Jesus' answer is so good.

"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." Luke 19:10

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45

Jesus didn't come to give us an example of niceness (that's the essence of liberal theology). Jesus came to die on a cross and to save lost people who don't know him. Even he said so.

That's not politically correct at all.

Interpreting Copenhagen

2009-12-19T12:01:00.002-07:00

They don't like our worldview, but they like our religious language.

Please read Don Sweeting's take on Copenhagen.

One Recipe for Social Change on Abortion

2009-12-17T14:40:00.002-07:00

Read John Piper's treatment of the 3rd wave in the fight against abortion in our culture.

More Bad Arguments on Moral Lawmaking

2009-12-15T11:44:00.003-07:00

"You can't legislate what's in a person's heart. Making it a law won't change minds and hearts."

This phrase is one of the most prominent arguments I hear from pro-choice Christians and conservative libertarians. And the argument is absolute garbage on an experiential and intellectual level. For instance, if we believed this, then we'd be consistent in our applications. Consider the following:

1) We would never demand behavior of children on any level. We wouldn't teach them manners. We wouldn't teach them to be polite. We wouldn't teach them the difference between right and wrong. We would just allow them to act on whatever their heart tells them. Why would we give them laws (ie rules) to follow when their heart is not in it?

Of course we would never dream of doing this. It's a recipe for societal disaster, because we all know implicitly the depravity of the human heart. Teaching morals and manners is good on a social level and not just an individual level.

2) We would never have demanded civil rights legislation. We would never have enacted legislation that wasn't in people's hearts. Overt racism still existed and we would not have been so foolish as to "impose" the legislation of people's hearts.

Keep in mind that this legislation was quintessentially moral and appealed to absolute moral values (ie racism and segregation are wrong on the face of it). Sometimes it's imperative, indeed an act of collective moral conscious, to legislate right and wrong despite what popular opinion is.

Those are just two examples that counteract even the most far-off person's flippant argument about legislating the heart.

As always, it is absolutely imperative that the US Federal Government make abortion illegal except in rare circumstances. Children are dying. Millions of them. And so I will continue my constant analysis of bad arguments on abortion that I hear in the effort to change those very hearts and minds to make this politically tenable.

The Advent Conspiracy

2009-12-15T11:02:00.002-07:00

It's rather odd to call something a conspiracy that's been around for 2000 years, but so it is.

The Advent Conspiracy is an attempted grassroots return to the true meaning of Christmas: the fact that Jesus came into the world as a Jew to save his people and the rest of the world from their sins and restore them to fellowship with God. As a result, the movement shuns consumerism and welcomes giving to the poor.

Time magazine has taken notice, and even takes a few side shots at cultural conservatism in the process.

A movement like Advent Conspiracy is countercultural on two fronts - fighting the secular idea that Christmas is a monthlong shopping and decorating ritual and also the powerful conservative notion that the holiday requires acknowledgement from the nation's retailers to be truly meaningful.

I suppose that's fine. Christmas, and more accurately "Advent," is about what the Advent Conspiracy says it's about. I suppose I just get a little tired when we make such a strong split between individual and cultural values. The legacy of the West is born out of the Christian view of Christmas. I'm just as interested in Christianity in the marketplace of ideas as I am with it's meaning in the life of an individual. These are not opposing ideals.

The Gospel According to Tiger Woods

2009-12-09T10:53:00.002-07:00

I have a confession to make: I love Tiger Woods. I was in 7th grade when he broke onto the scene at the Masters and dominated the field in 1997. I was young, but the appreciation and admiration I held for Tiger Woods was strong and lasted well into my adult life now. In terms of athletes I loved to watch play, he is second only to Peyton Manning. If you know me, this is a big deal.

I don't wish to detail Tiger's "transgressions," because I do think he deserves a fair amount of privacy. I also don't want to speculate on how much I will or will not like him as a golfer in the future. I just can't say right now. What I want to call attention to is Tiger's incredible need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Excerpts from his widely read transcript are below:

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family... I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.

I don't think Tiger's apology to his wife or fans should go unnoticed. I sincerely believe this is a guy who senses profound guilt for his wrongdoing, and not just because he got caught. His penitential spirit is admirable. It's his response, though, that makes me sad: "I will strive to be a better person..."

A writer, about 2000 years ago, describes this predicament, and Tiger's solution doesn't seem to fix the problem.

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God...no one does good, not even one...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." Romans 3:10, 11, 12, 23 (ESV)

Not a one of us does good? In our hearts, we must acknowledge that not even our good actions are born out of completely pure, good, and God-honoring motives. Paul is right. Not one of us does good. That includes Tiger.

Our response to Tiger shouldn't be one of condemnation, lest we write our own tombstone engravings. There's only one solution to this problem, and it isn't to do better, because apparently we are incapable of doing so. Allow me to proceed with Paul's argument.

"[F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus...[F]or we hold that one is justified by faith..." Romans 3:23-24, 28

Doing better just won't do. We need a savior. All of us. Not just Tiger.

Timeless Wisdom

2009-12-08T10:25:00.003-07:00

"Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people.

A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days...

By justice a king builds up the land but he who exacts gifts tears it down."

Proverbs 28:15-16 and 29:4

To whom could this advice be applied to today?

A treatise for Christmas

2009-12-07T10:24:00.002-07:00

My new favorite author, G.K. Chesterton, has some interesting comments about Christmas. At this time of year, Christians remember that God entered the human story. He became a human, and we call him Jesus. It is truly a historical truth and doctrine unlike any other.

Without Christmas, we wouldn't even celebrate a Holiday season. But my point here isn't to incite the culture wars. It is to cite the enormity of Christmas in our culture. Chesterton notes:

"Any agnostic or atheist whose childhood has known a real Christmas has ever afterwards, whether he likes it or not, an association in his mind between two ideas that most of mankind must regard as remote from each other; the idea of a baby and the idea of the unknown strength that sustains the stars. His instincts and imagination can still connect them, when his reason can no longer see the need of the connection; for him there will always be some savour of religion about the mere picture of a mother and a baby; some hint of mercy and softening about the mere mention of the dreadful name of God. But the two ideas are not naturally or necessarily combined. They would not be necessarily combined for an ancient Greek or a Chinaman, ever for Aristotle or Confucius. It is no more inevitable to connect God with an infant that to connect gravitation with a kitten."

G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

In a paraphrase of the nephew in Dickens' classic work A Christmas Carol, though Christmas has never put a penny in my pocket, I say God bless it! And God bless it for its affects on our culture. Gift giving, and indeed the clamor for peace on earth, are with us because God became a baby.

Advent Means the Coming of Jesus

2009-12-04T06:00:00.002-07:00

During the Advent season (note that I didn't say "holiday" or even "Christmas"), we wait for the coming of Jesus. Because of the church calendar, we celebrate the beginning of the year by recognizing the significance of when God became a man. Of course, Jesus will come again, and his second coming (his second "advent") we also anticipate.

So the entire season is about anticipation of God's presence in and amongst us. We Americans have messed that up significantly. We overload on debt, busyness, stress, and insignificance while God wants to choose to reside in our midst. But like the smallness of a little baby born in a cave in Bethlehem, we miss Him. We dont' see God.

Don't miss God this Advent season. If you live in Denver, one way you can catch a glimpse of God is to join my church, Cherry Creek Presbyterian, in our journey back to 1st century Bethlehem. There are plenty of activities associated with our Journey to Bethlehem: fair trade practices, a Christmas concert, and a re-creation of 1st century Bethlehem.

For more details, please visit here.

More Thoughts on Mammograms

2009-12-02T10:53:00.002-07:00

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (ESV)" Genesis 9:6

The above quotation from Genesis is not used to incite or even reference murder. This verse is important in the literary context of Genesis, because God created humanity in His own image in Genesis chapter 1. But in chapter 3, humanity fell by sinning for the first time. Yet in chapter 9 we see that the image of God is still retained in humanity even after the fall. In fact, it's a reason not to murder. The point? Each and every human life has value. This is a fundamental doctrine in the Christian worldview. It is not a fundamental doctrine of utilitarianism. And these doctrines are at opposite ends of the mammogram debate.

Time Magazine has an article analyzing the debate in more detail this week. Note the worldviews at work in the article. Essentially, here's the essence of the Christian worldview:

By and large, American patients (not to mention politicians and cancer advocacy groups) still subscribe to the view that every life is worth saving, no matter the cost, and that when it comes to prevention, screening is always good and more is always better.

And now the utilitarian worldview:

But such personal calculations do not apply in the same way to an entire population, where the benefit to some must be weighed against the harm to others.

Besides the fact that this article (and every other article I've read on the matter) doesn't really discuss individual harms besides the bogus factor of "stress", this article is relying on the fact that somebody has to worry on a societal level what care people receive. Why is such population calculation necessary? Well, it would be necessary if the government were heavily invested in the costs of healthcare. And our government is heavily invested in healthcare, and it is trying to be more than it already is. Please advise that the government's increased role in healthcare is thus a looming spector of problems.

The utilitarian argument is essentially that society must do what is greatest for the most amount of people. If we decide that society can spend less money and not that many people are affected by having less mammogram screening, then society benefits by having more resources (read: money). The most amount of people are served by the greatest good. But if society (read: government) is making these decisions instead of individuals, then individuals are screwed. Each and every human life does not matter in that scenario.

The Christian worldview is morally good. Utilitarianism is morally evil. There is not enough time or space on a blog to show you how utilitarian the U.S. government is becoming. Thankfully, cancer groups and women's groups (that are traditionally liberal) are fighting off these government recommendations regarding mammograms. And whether they know it or not, or whether they acknowledge it or not, they are influenced by the Christian worldview.

Now if only we could apply this logic from the women's groups to the debate on abortion.

Sadness

2009-12-01T16:35:00.002-07:00

"My tears have been my food day and night, while men say to me all day long, 'Where is your God?'... Why are you so downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me?" Psalm 42:3,5

I just had a meaningful conversation with a friend who had a family member pass away recently. He was honest with me, saying he was capable of mood swings as he felt anger and deep sadness and contentment all within a period of minutes. I think he just needed someone to tell him that it was okay to feel sadness, and it was okay to be angry.

God is perfectly capable of handling our emotions after all. In fact, it seems that due to the Psalmist's language, God actually welcomes our honest frustrations and yearnings. Locating our deep sadness in Him is much more satisfying than any elixir we conjur for ourselves: drink, tv, or sex.

Perhaps a big myth, often perpetuated by Christians (which is why much of the world labels us "hypocrites"), is that Christians are consistently happy and perfect in every way. Of course, quite the opposite is the reality. Our worldview is really the only one where the answer to the human problem (ie sin/brokenness/corruption of our hearts) is accomplished by God alone and not by mere human effort. When someone, especially a non-Christian, remarks to me that Christians are imperfect and hypocritical, I respond, "Well, that's kind of the point. That's why we need God."

And I think, by extension, this applies to our sadness. Christians can be sad, even depressed. Read Psalm 42: that guy struggled. Or 1 Kings 19: Elijah seemed quite depressed there as well.

The beauty of Christianity is that we lay all of our brokenness and deep sorrow on Christ at the cross, for he redeems it all. And one day, one fateful day, "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Why Instructions for Mammograms is Statism

2009-11-20T10:00:00.000-07:00

Would an individual woman decide differently than a group of insurers or the federal government as it pertains to screening for breast cancer?

That indeed is the question. Read this Washington Post article or NY Times editorial to get up to speed. The issue at it's core involves the fact that women in their 40's shouldn't get every year mammograms because the risks outweigh the benefits.

It is a "recommendation by United States Preventive Services Task Force, a government-appointed group of 16 outside experts created 25 years ago to advise the Department of Health and Human Services... That recommendation was based on an analysis showing that every-other-year screenings could provide 80 percent of the benefits of annual screening while cutting the risks almost in half." From NY Times.

A quote from the Post article has a different angle:

"The only conclusion I can come to is it's economically motivated," said Carol H. Lee, who chairs the American College of Radiology's breast-imaging commission. "In this climate, when we are all paying attention to how we can decrease the cost of health care, in my opinion that's the primary motivation." From Washington Post.

The NY Times editorial claims that this issue has nothing to do with healthcare and thus should stay out of the debate. And yet, no matter how much anybody scours any article on this issue, the only risks discussed are unnecessary biopsies, radiation and stress. Now the first one isn't a risk for the patient, really. Exposure to radiation only happens if somebody actually finds real cancer (Admittedly, some of the articles parse the different between more harmless cancers and more dangerous cancers. Even still, this doesn't seem like an important distinction as it relates to radiation exposure. If somebody has cancer, they want it gone). So the only real risk is stress. And so the real question becomes: why does the government care about our levels of stress?

The answer is because the government doesn't care about our stress. Insurers care about reducing costs, and so does the government. But if you were a women in your 40's, do the risks outweigh the benefits? Of course not. You're getting that mammogram done.

And herein lies the danger. When the government starts to tell its people what to do on a collective level regarding our health (or our right to exist, or what role religion is supposed to play- just to name a few examples), we run the dangerous risk of statism: the idea that the state is the answer to all human problems. And the state isn't. It's run by imperfect people in an imperfect system and cannot answer deep questions on human existence.

The further we continue to go down this road, beware. While this issue isn't directly related to the healthcare bill currently in the Senate, they both have the same statist aims in common. The more the government runs things, the more it will have a stake in wanting to reduce costs, and thus have a significant say in the role of a human life, and ultimately whether we live or die. Death will be couched (and often already is) in compassionate terms, either for the unborn infant or the elderly. Beware, and fight back with the power of ideas.

Drawing the Line

2009-11-20T09:24:00.003-07:00

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know that I strongly and sincerely believe that Christians should care about certain issues in our political climate. And you'll also have come to know that Christians should care more about some issues than others. Please read this article from the NY Times that highlights important Christians who agree with me.

Life issues- war and abortion- will always be more important than other issues, no matter the political climate and no matter the trends in the air. A highlight in the article:

“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues.”

Right on, Chuck, keep it coming. The environment isn't as important as our stance on abortion. Healthcare isn't as important as our stance on abortion. Somebody please remind Ron Sider and Jim Wallis. (For a defense and further arguments of my views, among other blogs you can read these recent ones here and here.)

Evil vs. Insanity

2009-11-16T15:19:00.002-07:00

Time Magazine's cover story this week is on Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood killer. Minor kudos goes to Time for being one of the first major media (read: liberal) outlets to actually discuss the fact that this was motivated by Islam. Well, at least they suggest it more than the other options. They are still weak on the issue, as they try and feign neutrality, though. At one point in this story, they suggest that Hasan said, "God is great" in "another language."

To be more precise, and thus to be a better journalist, he said "Allah uh ahkbar" (forgive my transliteration here). He said the Islamic war cry of an Islamic martyr/terrorist in Arabic. Time sidesteps that reality. While Time opens the door of admitting religious motivation, it doesn't go through it.

The truth is that so many media outlets have rushed to call this act of Hasan insanity. Perhaps that's easier. If people are crazy, what they did is not as bad, or so it would seem. But calling this act "insanity" is to confuse terms. Allow me to help most of the country with a term we've long lost (and only briefly used for a time after 9/11). What Hasan did was and is and always will be "evil." And make no mistake, his act was motivated by his worldview. It was perfectly sane, with respect to the fact that it was reasoned.

Hasan was motivated by Islam. Note that I'm not using the term "radical Islam." The more I read the Koran and become familiar with Islamic history, I'm more inclined to think that "radical Islam" is the norm, and the most true reading of the Muslim holy Scriptures (also note that most Muslims worldwide are sympathetic to radical Islam even if they won't take the last leap and kill themselves).

And to the extent that Hasan believed in the Koran and Allah, that is the extent to which his actions are extremely rational. If one thinks that any person who is not a Muslim is an infidel and detestable in God's sight, then one will not hesitate to kill them. If one thinks that they will receive a reward in heaven for killing an infidel, then what is stopping them? Hasan was rational, but was he moral? If we think his actions were immoral, we have to seriously consider the logical conclusion: that Islam is not moral. Consider another example.

Many revisionist historians like to note that Hitler may have been insane. He could not have been further from it. As evolution and naturalist philosophy flourished in the early 20th century, we got introduced to 2 ideas: 1) that humans evolved and are not different in kind than any other creature and 2) species survive through the survival of the fittest. So guess what Hitler practiced? The naturalist worldview as a grand experiment on humankind.

It was extremely rational, but was it moral? And if it wasn't, then we have to seriously consider the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for lack of morality in naturalist philosophy. If Hitler's actions were immoral, then we have to consider the fact that naturalism is not moral.

And how do we consider something moral? How does a liberal Muslim call Hasan's actions wrong? How does an atheist call them wrong, then? I have two responses.

First, the true God sets on the hearts of all humans a deep and inner sense of right and wrong (Rom. 2:14-15). Second, the influence and scope of worldwide Christianity is so vast that many people borrow our worldview. And if we like what we see in Christian ethics, then perhaps we might reconsider what it means for the church to be separate from the state.

The church shouldn't be the state, and vice versa, but it can and should influence it. And no matter how hard the state tries to divorce itself from religious influence, it will always have a worldview. The U.S. government, besides our founding documents (it's early worldview accepted and acknowledged a personal God and eternal law), is now largely a secular institution. And in the case of Hasan, this secular worldview, without analysis of other's worldviews, cost the lives of many people.

NY Times Majoring in Obfuscation

2009-11-10T22:55:00.003-07:00

Update: David Harsanyi of the Denver Post says the same thing today, and says it better (except he doesn't acknowledge the philosophical implications of abortion- that it's murder- as much as I do).

The NY Times Editorial staff is misleading and wrong to a great degree in this editorial about paying for abortion.

Apparently, "women's reproductive rights" (to kill babies) were hampered by the pro-life Democrats stance on the new health care bill. To read this article is to think abortion ceased to be legal (would that it were so!). That did not happen. The language in the bill that passed the house prevents any tax subsidy whatsoever of any insurance plan that covers abortion.

The Times would have you believe that this is a restriction on "rights." After all, the taxpayers wouldn't really be paying for the abortions anyways because individual taxpayers would have premiums and co-pays that would cover the real cost. If this were really true, my question becomes: "then why do you need the government at all to pass any meaningful legislation? Why can't private insurance policies cover these kinds of things?"

The fact is that taxpayers would be on the hook for paying for other people's choice in murder. There's no way around the logic here; those people need the government and its taxpayers on the hook for the money. Thus, pro-life democrats were wise to take the abortion provision out of the bill (brief aside: some republicans have argued that better political tactics would have kept the pro-abortion provision in the bill so it would be easily beat in the Senate. I can't speak to the benefits of political tactics here as I'm not well-versed in Congressional political tactics).

And even if the government won't pay for other people's choice in murder via insurance plans, that does not restrict anyone's ability to do it of their own accord. To use the Time's logic, if they're paying for it anyways, why don't they just pay for it without the use of the any insurance at all. Nobody's rights or even wrongful liberties were restricted at all by this bill's passage.

And to cap it off, I do hope the bill is still defeated in the end.

More Chesterton

2009-11-10T08:54:00.003-07:00

I've quoted a fair amount of G.K. Chesterton on this blog recently. That's because I just started reading him this year and am into my 7th book of his. I find his fiction and non-fiction fascinating. Like C.S. Lewis, he's very quotable and pithy. Like this:

"Indeed, [H.G. Wells] defends the only sort of war I thoroughly despise, the bullying of small states for their oil or gold; and he despises the only sort of war I really defend, a war of civilizations and religions to determine the moral destiny of mankind."

I suppose if humankind will always be at war- mostly deeply because of our sin nature- then we ought to fight for more eternal reasons than for strictly material ones. Islamic Fundamentalists certainly get this, but Americans don't. We will continue to lack the fortitude to fight terrorism until we recognize that it is primarily a religious fight. The television media, the mainstream print media, and the federal state department largely ignore this.

Capitalism on Trial?

2009-11-08T21:16:00.002-07:00

In a poll I'd expect the BBC to report on (it is, after all, government run), apparently most of the world is dissatisfied with free market capitalism.

In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that it was working well.

First of all, don't tell that to the thousands of entrepreneurs in third world countries (see www.kiva.org for more evidence). Second, that is indeed a low number. The interesting aspect about those 27 countries is that most of those countries likely do not practice mostly unregulated free markets. With the amount of government interference in the US with the previous two Presidential administrations, not even the US can be called a mostly unregulated free market anymore. After all, there were very effective arguments last fall that the depth of our recession was due in large part to too much government regulation with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. News from the poll, though, gets jucier.

And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries.

What?! Apparently people polled in these 27 countries have the shortest-possible-term memory when it comes to authoritarian regimes. The only way for the government to assume control of wealth distribution is for it to be bigger and communist. Do I need to remind most of the world that Marxist and soviet communism is a reprehensible and moral evil? It's infiltrated with a low view of the nature of humans, utilitarian philosophy, and a need to worship the state and thus squash religious freedom (See: Communist USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and many many more).

In communism, humans are means to the state's industrial end and thus are not crafted in the image of God. Because those regimes are utilitarian, the most disenfranchised are sacrificed in the society "for the greater good." Human beings are mercilessly killed in industrial plans and restricted resources because their individual lives do not matter as much. And because the state must assume so much control, any threat to it's absolute allegiance must go- and religious freedom most of all.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it assures the greatest amount of liberty on this earth that is possible. Socialism hasn't saved Africa, but microfinance might. Communism didn't make Asia more wealthy, but the effects of capitalism are having a small effect on human rights in China.

It is my sincere belief that most people's dissatisfaction with capitalism is actually a dissatisfaction with something people think is capitalism, but actually falters for too much government interference.

TV News: A double-edged sword

2009-11-02T09:26:00.002-07:00

Time is running an interesting article on a Pew poll of the public's views of TV news networks. The highlights: people think Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is liberal, and most people are okay with their choice in programming. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't, I suppose.

The poll is okay. It kind of told me what I already knew. "Ideology" has become a bad word in our attempted "post-partisan" era (hint: we're not in a post-partisan era. If we were, healthcare would have passed 4 months ago. It didn't.). Apparently, Fox News is the most ideological of all the news networks, so it must be bad. At least, that's the tone the Time article insinuates. But there's a different issue that often gets left out of this ideological mess.

Fox News makes more money than any other news network. They regularly have the highest ratings. So, many Americans must also have ideologies and beliefs that align with Fox News. To be conservative on TV news is to make money in a crowded liberal market. I'm sure that many commentators on Fox News are honest in their own conservative opinions, but it is convenient that it happens to be a money-making proposition.

And that gets to my main point: Americans generally know what they feed themselves with. We know when we hear a conservative on the radio, or a liberal on the TV. I know what I'm going to get with Keith Olberman, and I know what I'm going to get with Glenn Beck (and neither of them do I like). The real issue in the media is one the media never talks about: gatekeeping.

By and large, liberals and conservatives on the radio or the television disagree, but they disagree about the same things. Remember that media is a money-making proposition, and they discuss the issues that bring the ratings. They debate the issues that the Americans want to hear but not what they need to hear. The media won't really convince Americans what to think, but it will tell them what to think about. It can't tell us where to go once we're in the gate, but it can tell us what gate to enter.

So let's not pretend that conservatives or liberals are above the fray here. Media is big business, and like many big business ventures, we always run the danger of a monopoly- not in the ideologies, but in the gatekeeping. Our ultimate concern should always be for truth, fairness, and significant issues. I really don't care if that comes in a certain political stripe. That's why even as a conservative I watch 60 Minutes and PBS, because they generally introduce me to issues the broader TV media doesn't cover. And reading from a broad range of sources is the best option of all. After all, I could really care less about what so-and-so wore to whatever political engagement.

New Blog Plug

2009-10-27T10:27:00.004-06:00

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.

Beyond Simplicity: My Christian View of the Role of Government

2009-10-26T10:13:00.002-06:00

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:

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.

Idols for Destruction

2009-10-19T10:12:00.004-06:00

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.

Greetings from Nepal

2009-10-13T10:00:00.004-06:00

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.

More Abortion Polls

2009-10-09T06:00:00.001-06:00

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:

"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.

Moses and the American Experiment

2009-10-08T06:00:00.000-06:00

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.

Humans Matter More

2009-10-07T10:47:00.002-06:00

George Will has a recent article challenging the claims of Global Warming Alarmists. Some important excerpts:

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.

Ignorance in our Public Discourse

2009-09-30T08:59:00.003-06:00

Almost all TV is sensationalistic.

I grow so tired of ultra-conservatives always calling the media, "the liberal media." But I also grow so tired of liberals making cracks at radio and Fox news as "those people" with an air of indifference and elitism. Both understandings are stupid, and neither is redeeming our culture.

Take Glenn Beck for example. Time did a cover story on him recently, asking, "Is Glenn Beck bad for America?" From what I can tell, his televised rants are largely populist, incoherent, and fear-mongering. He's also got a new book, and from what I can tell, it also lacks civil and intellectual discourse. It does no one any good to stoke irrational or overblown fears and it does no one any good to disseminate half-truths just to prove one's point. If you have to resort to logical fallacies like ad-hominem to prove your point, then your argument is weak. And it doesn't serve the public any good just to make people mad without knowing why. We have a real healthcare problem in this country, and it does need some kind of federal solution. So let's talk about the merits or demerits of those solutions without getting people in a big heap of irrationality. Yes, Time, Glenn Beck is bad for America.

But let's go to the other side as well. Barack Obama doesn't get a pass. He frequently makes insinuations about "those radio shows" and "those cable TV news shows" such as Beck's to make his point. This is just more ad hominem. No one is dealing with anyone's arguments (well, some are, but it's a rarity), but alluding your political opponent doesn't make your argument stronger, Mr. President. It makes you look like you're stooping low to slam a hack, which just makes you another hack. It also makes me think that you're too obsessed with your press clippings and your public image.

Furthermore, reader, the White House has a website called "Reality Check" where they, among other things, put talking heads on TV again to convince you that they're right, and the other side is wrong. This proliferates more ignorance, and not honest dialogue. Convince me in writing, please. Don't do another press conference, or Joint Session of Congress, or put your administration on video. Besides that, the White House is posing their solutions as facts, when many honest evaluators of the healthcare debate would disagree with these "facts." This is a heavy-handed form of ignorance disbursement.

Almost all TV is sensationalistic and resistant to honest truth searching. So stop talking to me over the airwaves and start convincing me with good arguments, while you consider (among other things in a strong worldview) the value of human life with the understanding of human depravity. That includes you, Glenn Beck and President Obama.

The American Myth of Self-Reliance

2009-09-23T11:06:00.003-06:00

I have several good friends without jobs. They are trying hard to get jobs, though. They are well-educated- all have bachelor's degrees, some have master's degrees, and one is a Jurisdoctor. They are smart, they are hard workers, and they rightly place some dignity in their work. While I do not believe work gives each person his or her inherent value, I do believe it is a source of satisfaction and an exercise of calling. These people are doing everything in their power to get a job. Thankfully, none of these folks are homeless. But many in Denver, where I live, are. Some things you need to know from this linked news story:

There are 11,061 homeless people in the seven-county metro region, and about half of them say they are homeless for the first time, according to the results of a 24-hour survey conducted Jan. 27 by the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative...

During this year's point-in- time survey, nearly 5,000 people, or 45
percent, said they were homeless for the first time.

The most common cause was losing a job, according to 35 percent of
the homeless. The second-most-common cause, affecting 31 percent, was being unable to afford their rent or mortgage. Sixty families blamed their homelessness on foreclosures.

These people, like my friends, are reliant upon a system of economy for jobs, security, for their housing, and yes, their very health. But we don't think like that, do we? We as Americans (generally of the suburban variety) think that production is based solely on the individual, don't we? We think that homeless people are "lazy" and "worthless." Our Puritanical roots and our Romantic transcendentalism fool us into thinking that what we get is simply and solely what we have worked for. But it isn't true.

I'm reminded of this every summer living here in Colorado. That's because there's often the spector of draught looming over the Rocky Mountain region. If we don't get enough snow, then the resevoirs aren't as full, then people don't get to water their lawns, and we are forced to ration whatever water we have. We haven't had to deal with this in a few years, but the discussion is always at hand.

And that discussion is a potent reminder that we as Americans truly aren't self-reliant. We need an interstate system to move around and to see family. We need an infrastructure to heat our homes and water our lawns. And we need an economy to produce jobs for enough Americans so that they're not homeless. To a generation of people that are taught the American work-ethic, this is a painfully true reality when one cannot find a job.

We Americans have so bought into the lie of self-reliance that these words of Jesus are almost rendered meaningless. But hear them, and believe them.

"Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of
these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown in the fire, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith!" -Luke 12:27-28

Relying on God doesn't discount hard work- in our jobs or in our faith. It is a simple reminder that we aren't in control. It is the reminder that self-reliance is a myth. We all rely on something, we just need to choose to rely on the one, true Person.

The Glad Sound

2009-09-15T09:14:00.005-06:00

My good friend, and church theologian and pastor Zac Hicks with the help of 30 in our church, releases The Glad Sound, out today on his website. This CD is a reworking of old hymn texts into modern, rock-style music.

Many of the hymn texts would be unrecognizable in the church today, even to those who love hymns and sing them often. Zac has poured over many old hymn texts, including many that aren't in your hymnal, and has found ways to revive beautiful, old texts that contain rich theology. This is a remarkably well-produced album and the songs are fun, serious, and deep (plus, yours truly finds himself whistling and clapping on track 7!). Do yourself a favor and head over to Zac Hicks website right now and get it!

Reflections on the Death of the World's Oldest Person

2009-09-14T11:26:00.003-06:00

Gertrude Baines, at the ripe old age of 115, passed away last week.

What a long life to live! This is a person who was born 1894, was an adult by the time WWI hit, was in her 40s during the Great Depression, and lived to see a world of internet and mass media and mass electricity. The fact that a person can see the world change multiples times over in her lifetime fascinates me.

And something else fascinates me. It's quite an obvious observation: everybody dies. While the human body is a remarkably resillient organism and a biological wonder and it can endure and live through such lengths, it still meets its end. Baines was living proof of that.

Every person dies. All of the optimism of modern technology and health care and all of the immediacy of the glory of the present moment cannot escape this truth. But even though every person dies, it isn't the end of every person's life. And it isn't the end of their material existence either.

Christians have this curious belief, you see. Many Christian traditions recite the Apostles Creed (and pretty much all true Christians accept it as orthodoxy), and there's this phrase in there that is cause for hope (a phrase that is admittedly straight out of Scripture). It says: "We believe in the immortality of the soul."

Oh wait, no it doesn't. It doesn't say that. It really says: "We believe in the resurrection of the body." That's right, our bodies get resurrected. They get redeemed and used all over again for eternity. Material existence matters to God. To hope in heaven is to hope in earth. But to hope just in modern progress is to hope in nothing. You get just death in the end. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, aim for heaven and get earth too but aim just for earth and you get nothing. Revelation 21 and 22, the most hopeful passages in all of Scripture, depict a New Heaven and a New Earth: redeemed and glorified souls united with new bodies.

Baines death has cause to give us hope. Everybody dies, but those who believe in Jesus receive a resurrection of their body.

And I believe in the resurrection of the body.

Being Right vs. Being Righteous

2009-09-10T10:57:00.002-06:00

We need to eat apples, and not oranges. We need to read the newspaper, and not magazines. We need to wear a watch, not carry a pocket watch.

These previous three sentences all have something in common. Aside from the fact that they are things I generally do, the sentences present a problem. Each action seems to be set up as the opposite action of what follows, and thus the need for the other intensifies. But it is a mistake to do such a thing. It is, in fact, a logical fallacy to such a thing.

To be more specific, these sentences present false dichotomies. For instance, why not both? Or why not neither? This kind of bad thinking often creeps into the way we do church as well. I've heard a specific false dichotomy running wild in Christian circles recently. It's the idea that to present a winsome picture of Christianity to those not in the faith, we need to worry more about being righteous than about being right. We need to be good people, we don't need to be concerned with telling other people they're wrong.

Well it's a nice sentiment, but it's garbage. Why not both? It's like this crowd denigrates a reasonable method to share the faith just to buttress their case for their own. This act is intellectually lazy and morally weak.

Being right about certain theological truths is absolutely essential. Paul demonstrates this when he gets raving mad about the abuse of the gospel that Galatians are prepetrating. "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" (Gal. 3:1). His pain and anger proceeds later on, "How I wish I could change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!" (Gal. 4:20). Paul cared about the message. Paul cared about being right, and he cared about people even in his anger. And he wasn't nice about the message being distorted.

The sentiment about exclusively being righteous is wrong because it assumes that if Christians are just a bunch of nice people to a bunch of people that are not Christians, then people will magically accept the truth-claims of Christianity. This might happen, and I hope it does. But it's a bit delusional to think that we shouldn't worry about getting the message right, especially if it contradicts someone else's worldview.

Newsflash for Christians: you have a vastly different worldview than secularists, naturalists, postmodernists, New Agers, and other eastern worldviews. You'd be foolish to think that merely being nice is going to influence people to believe in Jesus. Paul opened his mouth when others developed a different worldview. We shouldn't be any different.

My consistent question then becomes, why not both? Why can't we be both right and righteous? Why is there a false dichtomy? What is wrong with winsomely explaining one's own view of the world, God, and human liberation? Christians can love people too and have them over to dinner. I don't think most people will mind either. Let's do both.

And for you other Christians (the false dichotomy crowd) that are worried about all us Christians telling other people about the Gospel, stop hijacking Christianity.

Dan Brown Strikes Again

2009-09-08T11:47:00.002-06:00

I like a good yarn just as much as the next guy. A good plot with good characters told in an interesting way can go along way to winning my consumer dollars. And Dan Brown is admittedly good at winning many other people's dollars. But Dan Brown is also a historical revisionist and has an insidious plan to reconstruct his own religion on the American masses. Don't believe me? Believe the New York Times:

Brown is explicit about this mission. He isn’t a serious novelist, but he’s a deadly serious writer: His thrilling plots, he’s said, are there to make the books’ didacticism go down easy, so that readers don’t realize till the end “how much they are learning along the way.” He’s working in the same genre as Harlan Coben and James Patterson, but his real competitors are ideologues like Ayn Rand, and spiritual gurus like Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra. He’s writing thrillers, but he’s selling a theology.

There you have it: Brown is writing a theology he wants and trying to make you like it. And he's doing it again. The Lost Symbol is out next week. What's the problem with this? Well, what Brown does just isn't true. Don't believe me? Read the New York Times:

But the success of this message — which also shows up in the work of Brown’s any thriller-writing imitators — can’t be separated from its dishonesty. The “secret” history of Christendom that unspools in “The Da Vinci Code” is false from start to finish. The lost gospels are real enough, but they neither confirm the portrait of Christ that Brown is peddling — they’re far, far weirder than that — nor provide a persuasive alternative to the New Testament account. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — jealous, demanding, apocalyptic — may not be congenial to contemporary sensibilities, but he’s the only historically-plausible Jesus there is.

I must be honest and say I didn't think it possible to read such a thing in the New York Times, but an honest intellectual pursuit will often get you honest answers. What liberal theologians such as Bart Ehrman have been doing for decades now continues to get beaten back by good historical research and archeology. The Ehrman and Brown arguments are tired and false. The New York Times sees this, but does America?

And it also seems like the Times is actually reading the Bible. Jesus is "jealous, demanding, and apocalyptic." Darn right. Is this the Jesus you're following? Or are you following your own version of Jesus, one constructed by Brown or yourself, to make yourself feel better?

Ted Kennedy

2009-09-01T09:03:00.002-06:00

I fashion myself as a political junkie, but not a political expert. And so my knowledge of Ted Kennedy is really limited to what liberals hail about him and what conservatives derail about him in the regular press. So I wanted to share my observations of how the media is digesting his death and funeral.

First of all, there seems to be a fascination with his religious views. Kennedy was seemingly a staunch Catholic, despite his pro-choice views. Even Time is fascinated by his correspondance with the conservative Pope Benedict. While I do believe Kennedy's views on abortion (and anyone who says that abortion is wrong but should be legal, just in case) are wrong and completely illogical and incoherent, this does not disqualify him from the eternal splendour of enjoying Jesus Christ.

I don't know what he said to the Pope in his last days, and I don't know what the Pope said back to him, and I don't know either of them personally so I can't speak to Ted Kennedy's salvation (I have prayed for it, though), but he did say one thing in one of Time's articles about him (they had at least 6 online) that gives some clues. The story is recounted in one of his last days:

The sound spilled out past the porch, into a night made lighter by a full moon whose bright glare bounced off the dark waters of Nantucket Sound, beyond
the old house where Teddy — and he was always "Teddy" here — mouthed the lyrics to every song, sitting, smiling, happy to be surrounded by family and friends in a place where he could hear and remember it all. And as he sang, his blue eyes
sparkled with life, and for the moment it seemed as if one of his deeply felt
beliefs — "that we will all meet again, don't know where, don't know when" — was nothing other than true. "I love living here," Ted Kennedy once said. "And I believe in the Resurrection."

It's hard to imagine someone saying a more Christian thing than "I believe in the Resurrection." My excitement about that is tempered a little bit by the postmodern uncertainty mixed in right before- "don't know where...(or) when." Maybe Kennedy was just saying he didn't know what heaven would be like. Maybe he thought that everybody goes to heaven. But generally when postmoderns steal Christian terminology, they use different phraseology: love, God, or salvation all change meanings. I have yet to hear anyone change the meaning of "Resurrection." The meaning of Jesus' resurrection and our union with him spiritually and in our bodily resurrection is central to Christianity. While I cannot know for certain, Kennedy hopefully followed this path.

Second, the media establishment loved him. He even, apparently, merited Time's "Commemorative Issue," given when strongly influential people die. Sure he does have moral failings in his past, and I don't wish to rehash those. Sure he had political views that I strongly disagree with. But neither of those reasons are why I think he shouldn't be hailed. Ted Kennedy is just not worthy of a Commemorative Issue.

These kinds of cultural honors should go to people who really did influence world events. I know many will argue disagree, citing Ted Kennedy's legislative legacy and his role in South Africa's overturning of Apartheid, but if Ted Kennedy gets this honor then why not many other powerful legislators of time's past? There are many more influential American and world leaders that haven't gotten this cultural honor. Why Ted Kennedy, then? The answer is because Time has an older editorial staff that thinks the Kennedys are more significant than they are. Baby boomers and older just don't understand that the Kennedy's have been irrelevant for at least 28 years now.

Time magazine is a cultural gatekeeper. While they don't sway or influence public opinion, they do tell the public what is important. They don't tell people which way to go once they're in the gate, but they do determine what issues come in. That's why I subscribe to them. While other magazines such as the Economist are more well-done on world events, Time holds more cultural influence. As such, I strongly disagree with their stance on making Ted Kennedy "Commemorative Issue" worthy.

For My Postmodern and Skeptical Friends

2009-08-26T17:15:00.003-06:00

Generally when I lack creativity I go for quotes. There's this old saying that good writers borrow from great writers, but the great writers steal outright. I don't claim to be either good or great, but I have really been enjoying the non-fiction and fiction of G.K. Chesteron as of late and so wish to quote him. I'm into my 5th book of his this year and have found him highly refreshing to my stage of life.

The following quotation occurs in his novel, Man Alive, which describes a seemingly insane person as the only truly sane person (a common motif of Chesterton), because he is so full of life. In the context of one of these exhuberant episodes, Chesterton writes:

It is the fashion to talk of institutions as cold and cramping things.
The truth is that when people are in exceptionally high spirits, really wild
with freedom and invention, they always must, and they always do, create
institutions. When men are weary they fall into anarchy; but while they
are gay and vigorous they invariably make rules. This, which is true of
all the churches and republics of history, is also true of the most trivial
parlour game or the most unsophisticated meadow romp. We are never free
until some institution frees us; and liberty cannot exist till it is declared by
authority.

Leave it to Chesterton to frame things in a way that totally spins our contemporary sensibilities. Prescient even to our time, Chesterton exhorts us to accept and love our organizations and institutions, not distrust them. This exhortation is something I try to live by daily in the context of church ministry, despite the postmodern skepticism of institutions.

Michael Vick and Moral Priorities

2009-08-17T10:08:00.002-06:00

"Going on from that place, [Jesus] went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, 'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?' He said to them, 'If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! [emphasis mine] Therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.'" -Matthew 12:9-12 (NIV)

I grew up with pets and both my sisters are veterinarians, so I can speak with some moral authority on the following subject.

Humans are more important than animals, but our culture mixes this up. Michael Vick kills dogs and gets a 2 year jail sentence. Donte Stallworth kills a human and gets a 30 day jail sentence.

We protest the return of Michael Vick to the NFL. Donte Stallworth won't get an interview on 60 minutes if he returns.

Michael Vick is regularly chastised by PETA and the humane society. Donte Stallworth was the more inhumane by driving drunk and killing someone.

Perhaps the retort from an outraged citizen goes like this, "But Vick's actions were deliberate, ongoing, and intentionally cruel. Stallworth's action was unintentional." That's a fair argument, but the results should matter to, not just what's in a person's head. Stallworth was negligent and should hold full culpability for his moral failings.

Furthermore, a person's sense of moral outrage against Vick is fine if it is morally consistent and prioritized correctly. A pro-choice person cannot be outraged at Vick, though. One of the most consistent arguments for the pro-choice movement is that human life isn't really destroyed during an abortion. Well it must also be true, then, that human life is also not destroyed by electrocuting dogs because dogs aren't humans. [Some may argue that dogs are alive but babies not so much, but science is universal that whomever is in the womb is "alive" by scientific standards] What, then, is the problem with Vick if you are pro-choice? And, if you think that abortion isn't as gruesome, what facts are you looking at?

Our culture has screwed up our priorities. We practially deify animals and impersonal forces of New Age spirituality, but we don't value human life. The Christian religion values all of life and prioritizes life properly. Creation matters, animals more, and humans most of all.

We go wrong when we mix up this priority list.

Pro-Life Polls Revisited

2009-08-14T05:00:00.000-06:00

Back in May, I blogged on the significant news of the Gallup poll asking people's questions on abortion (read here). Now, there's a follow-up poll and Amy Sullivan from Time magazine is gloating a little bit from the more settled numbers:

My skeptical interpretation of the poll didn't turn out to be terribly popular. The idea that just a few months after the election of a pro-choice president, Americans were racing to embrace the pro-life cause was too tempting a storyline. The poll made headlines everywhere, and we ran an essay on it anyway.

Now along comes a follow-up poll from Gallup and whaddya know, the much ballyhooed pro-life majority seems to have disappeared. The percentages of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are essentially the same (47% for pro-life; 46% for pro-choice). Meanwhile, the positions they hold--a more useful indicator than the labels people choose for themselves--haven't budged. A solid 78% think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances.

Besides the fact that a journalist shouldn't use the non-word "whaddya," Sullivan's point to undermine the numbers are meaningless. Saying that abortion should be legal in "some" circumstances is very different from "all" circumstances. Heck, "some" is very different from "most" circumstances. Consider:

-"Some" can include cases of rape, incest, and the risk of the life of the mother (which all-told constitute a small number- in most cases less than 5%- of all abortions). See Francis Beckwith (Defending Life) on this- he allows abortion only when the life of the mother is at risk. He falls in the "some" camp, I suppose, but he has written an impressive and compelling treatise on the illogical nature of the pro-choice movement.

-"Most" can include other unwanted pregnancies like teenage pregnancy, women in poverty, etc.

-"All" is morally egregious (as is "most") but I do not wish to think of the mere fancy that a baby can be killed merely because someone doesn't want the baby.

Morally speaking, there is a vast difference from "some" to "most" here, and Sullivan shouldn't be so giddy as to presume the moral sensibilities of Americans. The "enligtened" course of action would be to make murder illegal. Apparently there's still a significant number of Americans who agree with this.

Caesar and Healthcare

2009-08-13T10:51:00.003-06:00

Don't be deceived by any talk of, "let's do whatever works as it regards healthcare." No mere survey of the facts will tell us what the "right" thing to do is on a national scale as it regards healthcare. There are only two camps: both are informed by idealogy. There is the camp that says the government could possibly do a better job than the private healthcare industry and there is the camp that says the government could not possibly do better than the private healthcare industry. I am of the latter opinion.

You can get the information at a different source more capably, I'm sure, but let me outline the basics. Many democrats insist that a public option can be revenue neutral with premiums. The public option really just provides competition to the insurance industries. But the essence of a public option is that it's financed by the public. Okay, so I can keep my insurance if I like my insurance, but my tax dollars, whether I like it or not, will contribute towards the public system. Note: this isn't competition, it is coercion and an unfair advantage in the market place. Hospitals, doctors, and yes, even insurance companies don't get to receive tax dollars in this fashion, and so competition isn't really provided (and Amtrak, the US Postal System, and the DMV all make me think that the government doesn't run things well anyways).

Why does this matter? Why tow the conservative line on this when this blog is supposed to be about the Christian worldview? Because Christianity in all its forms rejects statism.

I can understand the compassionate impulse of many Christians. More people are cared for under universal (or almost universal) healthcare. This is a Christian good, right? Well, perhaps, but it's misguided.

It's misguided because a public option, or whatever nod we give in the direction of increased government-run healthcare, is coercion and not compassion. I can still hear the doubting, though. Even if it's coercion, how is this a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because Christianity rejects statism in all it's forms: the Roman empire, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fascism, and Communism. Whether we call these regimes conservative or liberal, they have the same characteristic in common- their belief that the government is the solution to all individual, social, economic, and political ills.

N.T. Wright has a saying about the book of Romans. You see, Paul was insidious in his subversive rhetoric against the Roman Empire. In the letter written to Christians in Rome- the center of the empire- Paul continually notes that Jesus is Lord. Why does that matter? N.T. Wright says because if Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not.

Now the Roman Empire was much more down the line of statism than the US is (Caesar thought he was god, after all). But the idea that it's the state's responsibility to provide healthcare and that it's a citizen's right to receive it is a scary crawl in the direction of statism.

That is why we should be wary of any increased power of the federal government, even if it's healthcare. Bush did it his way. Obama's doing it a different way. We should always be wary.

Confusing Categories and Common Sense

2009-08-12T15:43:00.002-06:00

"How can you hate something that doesn't exist?"

These words were spoken by a friend of mine to someone he knows. My friend doesn't pride himself on his education or his intelligence: he doesn't have reason to be prideful in these regards. He isn't pompous, but very humble. He doesn't really consider himself an authority on anything. But he has common sense.

Many lack common sense, though. You see, my friend was in a conversation with a self-proclaimed atheist who at times would say he doesn't believe in God and other times would say he hates God. My friend's question is a logical question to ask the confused atheist. Hating something and not believing in something are two different things.

And so it is with many people. A tragic event strikes someone's life. "How could God let this happen to me. He must not be good at all." I suppose that sentiment, while misguided, doesn't contain any logical fallacies. But the logical fallacy isn't far behind for most people asking that question. "God isn't good, so he must not be there." And here this person has confused the categories again. It doesn't follow that God must not exist because tragic things happen. Tragic things may happen for a number of reasons (and some people doubt the goodness of God as a reason), but a person cannot doubt the existence of God because of those tragic things. It is two different categories. I would rephrase my friend's question in a lot of different ways, then:

How can you be upset at a God who's not there?

How can you expect goodness from a God who you don't think is good?

How can you expect goodness from a God who you don't think is there?

Simply based on our empirical knowledge, then, we have three conclusions. Either 1) There is no God and everything is a vast wasteland of meaninglessness or 2) God is there but he isn't good or 3) God is there and he is good. (Of course: other options exist for those in a different worldview, but for those who generally take to assume monotheism, these are the only conclusions).

Given the amount of goodness in the world, I opt for number 3.

Debt Matters: A Brief Manifesto against Obamanomics

2009-08-11T10:07:00.003-06:00

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender."

Proverbs 22:7

The title of this post is a little facetious, to be sure. Our massive government debt isn't the fault of just Obama, he's just the latest champion of obese government spending. I'm opposed to most of it really. I was opposed to the stimulus measures back last fall (see here and here), and so I'm no johnny-come-lately to the criticism of government spending. That 700 billion was spent in a jiffy and no one knows where it went. Then Obama passed another "stimulus" measure that hasn't really stimulated (because it hasn't been spent yet), and yet the economy is beginning to recover on its own anyhow.

I'm no economist. I have an amatuer's interest, but I can't understand the complexities like an expert. And yet regulating money, in the end, is very simple. People should spend less than they make. And yes, governments should spend less than they make. The proverb above applies to every person and organization. The borrower is always servant to the lender.

While Lord Keynes may have taught, to some degree, that government spending can jolt an economy, the entire decade of the 30's should teach us otherwise. Most economists roundly agree that FDR's policies didn't bring us out of a depression, but rather that WWII did. And yet we're currently re-living the bogus thinking that a government can spend it's way out of an economic downturn. Two thoughts: we'll always have economic downturns, and the borrower is always servant to the lender. The money the government is spending is costing us dearly in much more important capital. Don't believe me? Listen to the words of Cokie Roberts, no friend to Libertarians or Conservatives, from Sunday on This Week with George Stephanapoulos:

"We can't put the type of pressure on China that we would like to put on China to cooperate with us in terms of North Korea or Darfur or other types of places because they own so much of our debt, and we are not in a position to pressure them because ...we are beholden to them as long as we are driving up this kind of debt."

I know economics are complex, but this simple truth is at work on a geopolitical scale. We can't exercise what little moral authority we have because we are in debt. We want new cars w/ "cash for clunkers," yet we're compromising our ability to weild international influence. Just because we want stuff and we want people to have jobs that will sell stuff. Debt is a more insidious, but more long term destructive power to our national strength. But it's even more destructive to our national consciousness and our national morality. The borrower is servant to the lender.

The Modern Myth of Size

2009-07-28T10:33:00.002-06:00

"When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the
stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the
son of man that you care for him?" -Psalm 8:3-4

It is an odd and prideful occurence that the more humans know about the universe the less they tend to believe in God. To the depths of knowing our human anatomy to the intricacies of learning the earth's biology to the vastness of knowing the dark recesses of space, it seems that the more we know of these things the more we're confident in our own knowledge.

Darwin postulates the evolution of nothing into a cell, because a cell after all is a simple organism fit with just a lot of blobbing mass. Except that it's not. The more we learn about a cell, the more we learn how mindnumbingly complex it is, fit with thousands of interchangeable parts without which only one of those parts the whole thing falls to shambles. And yet, no one seems to challenge the notion that Darwin could have been wrong. That, indeed, it seems rather unlikely that nothing could have become a complex organism like the cell, no matter how long it took. And still, the more we humans learn, the less we believe in God. One would think that the more we know we'd realize the more we do not know. It's really a matter of disposition more than it is a matter of facts.

And so I came to this article. It's a book review of The Age of Wonder about the rapid scientific discoveries during the Enlightenment. In it, we find another curious oddity of scientific hubris that is one of the most classic logical fallacies of all time: the myth of size.

Herschel went on to pioneer the idea of a vast and unimaginably old
universe. After looking through Herschel's telescope, Byron wrote, "It was the
comparative insignificance of ourselves and our world, when placed in
competition with the mighty whole, of which it is an atom, that first led me to
imagine that our pretensions to eternity might be ... over-rated."

Notice what Byron did there? The emotions that are sparked because of the vastness of space lead him to an illogical conclusion: that eternal life and the human existence must be irrelevant. But as I type I'm writing by way of a small yet immeasurably important object: the computer chip. Right beside my computer is a big stack of folders, bigger than the computer chip, yet much less significant to my work. Size doesn't matter. It doesn't not matter either. Size and significance are two separate categories. The bigness of space doesn't lead to a logical conclusion that humans and their planet are irrelevant.

The Psalmist knew this. He didn't need a telescope to tell him of the vastness of space or the likely smallness of human existence. He knew it to be true, even before the enlightenment. And yet that's what makes his psalm so beautiful. Despite the smallness of the seeming irrelevance of humans, God still cares for them. They are still important to him.

It's not a matter of fact, it's really a matter of disposition.

Sunday: Even a Dreamer's Biggest Dream

2009-07-21T18:09:00.002-06:00

You probably don't like golf. Well, you might like it okay, but you definately don't like to watch it on tv. It's boring, I hear many people say. It's not a sport, I hear often. But I love sports, and I really love to watch college football and golf (not really compatable, I know). I also recognize that sports don't really fit the general tenor of this blog. Yet, if you weren't paying attention, one of the most remarkable victories in sports history (if not the most) almost transpired on Sunday.

Back story: like tennis, golf has 4 premier events in a year called "majors": the Masters, the US Open, the British Open, and the PGA Championship. This last weekend the British Open was played in Scotland. The person who's won the most all-time majors is Jack Nicklaus. Number 2 you've probably heard of too: Tiger Woods. Number 6? That's right, Tom Watson.

While Tiger was finding (and sometimes not finding) his ball in thick, grisly grass on Friday on his way to not making the "cut" and so missing his chance to play the final 2 rounds, Tom Watson was keeping his name on the top of the leaderboard. So what's the big deal of a really good golfer being on top of the leaderboard through a few rounds? Tom Watson is 2 months away from being 60, that's what. Big deal, right? Golf isn't a sport.

Yeah, except that nothing remotely close to this has ever happened. The oldest guy to win a major was 48; only 3 guys over 46 have ever done it (one of whom was Jack Nicklaus). Michael Jordan at 38 was a virtual has-been. Yet, there have been other old-people phenoms. We marveled at Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds dominance into their 40's until steroid allegations came to the fore. We marveled all the more when Dara Torres, 41 year old swimmer, won a gold medal at the Beijing Olympics. Lance Armstrong is even giving it a go at this year's Tour de France as a relative oldie.

But Tom Watson was in a different stratosphere this weekend. Even golf requires a powerful repetitive motion that befits a young man and a large swing. It requires the finesse and feel of someone who can have the touch in their hands around the green (which many older golfers admit goes away over time). Power and touch are young man's qualities, and Tom Watson was no young man.

And so the remarkable events transpired. He walked to the last hole of the tournament with a one-shot lead. A par and he wins. His drive: flush down the fairway. His approach shot to the green: executed flawlessly. Except for the club selection. You see, on a windy day it was sometimes hard to determine what club to hit and Watson hit one club too many. His ball sailed to the back of the green where he had a long putt. But still, 2 putts and he wins. And sadly, to the dismay of the entire golf world, he 3-putted. He then went into a 4-hole playoff where he lost to Stewart Cink (he himself an all-around good golfer and good guy). But Tom almost did it. Indeed, no one his age had ever even come close. And Tom was in the playoff. And now we get to the point: why am I typing this when you could read it on any sports website?

Because we all wanted to believe Tom could win. We, in the golf world, got so wrapped up in the improbable that we became obsessed with a story larger than ourselves. We forgot about our own lives and pulled so strongly for a guy that's a really old person by pop-American standards.

You see, because whether you are in the golf world or any other sphere of life, you want to believe in the improbable and wrap yourself in a story larger than yourself. We are all dreamers, and Tom Watson gave us the chance to dream that something improbable could actually happen. It is a universal human impulse.

2000 years ago, something improbable did happen. God became a man. He died and came back to life 3 days later to prove his victory over darkness and death so that all humans might have real, true life. That is a huge story larger than ourselves and, indeed, the whole universe. Tom Watson was just pointing us to that gaping impulse inside us all.

Up to Speed on Hate Crimes

2009-07-20T08:55:00.002-06:00

Since the country is always expanding it's definition of civil rights, the federal government senses its responsibility to act on behalf of some group that needs a boost. Of course, gay rights are the new frontier of civil rights, and the natural corrolary under democratic leadership is to expand hate crimes to include "offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." Injuring someone is almost always subject to penalty under law, but in this legislation you can punish somebody also for what he/she was thinking while she committed the crime. Section 6 of HR 1913 states that a hate crime is committed if it is done "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person." This bill, HR 1913, passed the house a little over 2 months ago and is pending in the Senate.

It seems ironic to me that the very same party who, by and large, supports a women's right to choose for privacy reasons with respect to abortion will violate that very privacy when it comes to this type of legislation. What is more private than a person's thoughts, after all? Aren't the democrats supposed to be 1st amendment people?

No, the logic of the pro-choice movement has never really been logical. Neither is the logic for hate crimes legislation, but for different reasons. The taking of innocent human life without just cause is always wrong. Therefore, abortion is wrong. Therefore, killing a gay person unjustly is wrong. Killing anyone unjustly is wrong (qualifier words such as "unjustly" are needed to presume the rare instances when killing is just, such as combatants in a just war). We don't need extra legislation to punish more extremely those who hate a certain type of person. We do need legislation that makes it illegal to kill someone in the womb.

But if this bill passes in the Senate and is signed by the President, I'd be curious to see if we can begin to prosecute abortion doctors for killing babies. After all, I think all babies in the womb constitute a disabled person (unable to defend themselves, can't walk, talk, or feed themselves), and the fetus is unwanted (and therefore hated). That's right, almost all abortion is a hate crime. This is the real frontier in civil rights- the right to exist.

Somehow I don't think the illogical Senators on the Hill will agree with me.

Week of Quotes Part 5

2009-07-17T06:00:00.000-06:00

The Christian worldview is likely the only worldview that shows God initiating and solving the human problem Himself. If the human problem is fundamental brokenness and sin and a resulting separation from God, and the answer to overcome that isn't a rigorous human following of laws or rules, then the answer must lie in God overcoming that sin barrier. This concept is called justification: where God declares a sinful person righteous despite their guilt. The guilt is still paid for, and a human response is still required. The guilt is paid for on the cross of Jesus, and the human response is faith. Justification by faith in the grace of God is a distinctly Christian idea. With that in mind, consider Dietrich Bonhoeffer's quote below:

It is the struggle of the natural man for self-justification. He finds it only in comparing himself with others, in condemning and judging others. Self-justification and judging others go together, as justification by grace and serving others go together.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

Week of Quotes Part 4

2009-07-16T10:23:00.002-06:00

Today begins the official national debate over the healthcare system and whether to nationalize much of the industry. One may hear a certain refrain about many political issues, but this particular refrain is used often in our healthcare discussions. It goes like this: "Look at Europe! They've got it figured out. Let's socialize our medicine because it works for them. And they are so much more refined than we are, anyhow." While I find the comment mildly amusing for many reasons (Europe's population is declining, they have little international relevance anymore, and their economy is worse off than ours), I think an appropriate historical response should come from the book Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville. De Tocqueville was a Frenchmen who visited America in the 1830s, and much of the book describes how the American form of civil government far surpasses that of Europe. The following quote is relatively unrelated to socialized medicine, but consider it anyhow. Do these truths remains almost 200 years later?

The partisans of centralization in Europe are wont to maintain that the
government can administer the affairs of each locality better than the citizens
could do it for themselves: this may be true, when the central power is
enlightened, and the local authorities are ignorant; when it is alert, and they
are slow; when it is accustomed to act, and they to obey. Indeed, it is
evident that this double tendency must augment with the increase of
centralization, and that the readiness of the one and incapacity of the others
must become more and more prominent. But I deny that it is so, when the
peolpe are as enlightenened, as awake to their interests, and as accustomed to
reflect on them, as the Americans are. I am persuaded, on the contrary,
that, in this case, the collective strength of the citizens will always conduce
more efficaciously to the public welfare than the authority of the
government.

De Tocqueville, Democracy in America

So, those for centralization distrust the people to adjudicate problems for themselves. Those for centralization of power today are liberals. Liberals thus distrust the populace. According to De Tocqueville, the enlightened public should get to decide for itself.

Isn't it ironic, then, that those who want the government to stay out of people's private lives (read: abortion) when it comes to issues of life and death, completely reverse their opinion when it comes to issues about life quality. Those same people actually want the government to intrude egregiously into our lives (read: socialized medicine).

Week of Quotes Part 3

2009-07-16T10:11:00.002-06:00

Ideas are powerful. Even old ideas can remain influential for years. While Obama would like to say his ideas are new and that his government spending necessary and revolutionary, he's really just practicing old economic ideas, namely Keynesian economics and LBJ-type government spending. It's yet to be seen whether Obama will outspend and out-liberal FDR and LBJ, but BHO is giving them a run for our money.

In that vein, then, I give you Lord John Maynard Keynes. It is the liberal establishment that's always appreciated Keynes, but Obama's consistent insistence that he's bringing a new era of governing to Washington has always been misleading. Keynes responds decades ago:

The ideas of economists and political philospohers, both when they are right
and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood.
Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe
themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the
slave of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in
the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years
back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated
compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.
From The Worldy Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner

Week of Quotes Part 2

2009-07-14T12:17:00.006-06:00

In the spirit of yesterday's post, I provide you today with G.K. Chesterton. With simple and logical thought, Chesterton challenges the philosophy of naturalism. Ultimately, naturalism is a philosophy more than it is a science. No one has proven how life began or evolved across species, they have only postulated it's likelihood (or lack thereof). And with that lack of proof, Darwinism is buttressed more by philosophical presuppositions than proof. Chesterton takes aim at those presuppositions:

"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under the sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species."
G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

Week of Quotes Part 1

2009-07-13T10:18:00.002-06:00

Being done with school for the foreseeable future, I finally get to read what I choose. My desires have outrun me, as I've started so many books that will take me a while to finish. As a result of the varied readings I'm doing, I've come across many good thoughts I'd like to pass along. Without further adieu, I give you Aristotle.

...[T]hings that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in.

Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book 1 Chapter 1

Saying So Doesn't Make it So

2009-07-10T13:08:00.003-06:00

Somehow in our postmodern epoch it has lurked into the collective conscious that it's okay to think whatever one wants about God or ultimate reality. Any kind of thoughts and worldviews are permissible, or so many would have us think. But this is a ridiculous assertion. Consider the following statement I encountered in a recent online discussion:

"I believe an absolute truth exists that is beyond our ability to understand."

Huh? How is thought suicide like this allowed to be thought at all? There are many problems with this statement. One: if there is an absolute truth that is unknowable, then how did the person saying this know that it's unknowable? Two: this very statement is a claim of absolute certainty. Third: this statement is also an assertion of absolute truth.

The person in this conversation told me that "to know something truly" is a rather vague concept. Pardon the pun, but nothing could be further from the truth. I am sitting in a chair right now. I am typing on a computer. My wife's name is Laura. All of these are true, absolutely. I know that.

Allow me to expand: if I didn't call this thing I was sitting on a chair, it would still be a chair. If I didn't recognize it's chairlike properties, it would still be a chair. If I refused to acknowledge the fact that something like a chair exists and that one could interact with it, I would still be sitting in a chair. But as it is, I am sitting in a chair, and I know this truly. How is that, even in the slightest, a vague notion?

No, what is vague is the previous phrase: "I believe an absolute truth exists that is beyond our ability to understand." This is obfuscation at the highest level of thought, because it doesn't distinguish between 2 unrelated ideas. I can know that this chair is comfortable and it adjusts to my level of height. But I do not know how this chair was engineered. I do not know how this chair uses its hydraulic functions. I don't even really know if it uses hydraulics- it just sounds right. What's the difference in my level of knowledge? I know the chair truly, but I do not know it exhaustively. This is a necessary distinction. The chair is comfortable, but I do not know everything about it's engineering. The same can be said of anything, especially matters of truth.

Saying that anything is "beyong our ability to understand," then, confuses the distinction. God is beyond our ability to understand exhaustively, but he is not beyond our ability to understand truly. Indeed, the very fact that I said the word "beyond" is even a little misleading as it relates to truth.

God evidences himself everywhere. He reveals himself in nature, in Jesus Christ's own person, in history, in visions, in dreams, and a myriad of other ways. To refuse this type of revelation is to refuse the knowledge of absolute truth. I do not think that one can, with any sense of internal consistency, believe the obfuscating phrase above and still have a relationship with God. And yet, many in our epoch are trying to their own self-misery.

Pragmatism is an Idealogy

2009-07-01T07:54:00.003-06:00

Obama, the mass media, and many others are perpetuating this asinine idea that one can be a pragmatist, but not an idealogue. The implications are that it's bad to have a guiding philosophy of how the world works (an "ideology"), but it's very good to do whatever it takes to "get it right." Nevermind that "getting it right" is a value statement, and hence rigorously ideological. As a subscriber to Time Magazine, I must acknowledge that their writers fall prey to this fallacy of logic on a weekly basis. Time's cover suggests the subtitle: "What Barack Obama can learn from FDR." In that vein, consider the following example:

Roosevelt promised Americans a New Deal, though he was vague about what it
would look like. At heart, he was a pragmatist, not an ideologue. During the
campaign, he vowed to respond to the Depression with "bold, persistent
experimentation." He was open to any ideas that might work.

While not explicit here, the implications are that pragmatism was and is good, and ideology is bad. Some may argue that that isn't what the author is saying, but when you have read as much by this author and Time's political commentators as I have, you would know that they are most definately saying this. Bush is bad, Obama is good. Bush was an ideologue, so Obama must be a "pragmatist." This sort of verbal parrying is useless, though. Pragmatism is an ideology.

Let's just take FDR for example. I quote, "he was open to any ideas that might work." Did that include non-governmental, free-market actions? Does the author mean that FDR would have considered doing very little as an option? To these last two questions, of course not. FDR exemplified the pinnacle of activist government. He wasn't a "pragmatist," he was a statist. FDR believed that the state could remedy most or all social ills, economic ills, foreign aggression, and many other problems. FDR acted as if the state were the final arbiter between humans and their culture.

Now I am not a historian, and so I will not argue whether his policies were right or wrong in light of his day. And truly, FDR may not have really believed that the state was the final arbiter. His policies, however, do reflect that bent. In any case, I am merely arguing that FDR, whatever he was, was not a pragmatist, insofar as we understand the word. Essentially, no one is a pragmatist. We all allow our worldview to shape how we view facts. For instance, two very different men could help someone they love in poverty: one man could directly give the man a hand up in the world and the other could take him to social services so that the government could bail him out. Both are pragmatic in the sense that they expect something to "get done," but they have very different worldviews.

So, beware, reader. "Pragmatism" is now a euphemism for overly-activist government. It's a euphemism for statism (the idea that the state can solve all human problems- which is, at its core, violently opposed to Christianity. For proof: see communist China, communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia under Pot, Uganda under Amin, and North Korea). And finally, pragmatism is a euphemism for plain, old liberalism. Ultimately, there's no overturning politics as usual. And veiling as pragmatism isn't new. Obama is just a charismatic face on very old ideas. There's nothing new or pragmatic about Obama.

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, 'Look! This is something new'? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time." Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

My Two Cents on Michael Jackson

2009-06-29T11:55:00.002-06:00

Humans are creators of culture, and I think Christians should create the best kinds of culture. Sadly, too much contemporary Christian writing and music is poor quality. In our attempts to create an alternative culture to the popular masses, we have sacrificed too greatly in quality. In trying to create overtly "Christian" art, we sometimes fall prey to the cheesy, trite, and meaningless. Yet, Christians can produce art with Christian themes without something being overtly "Christian." And Christians should do this in literature, music, painting, dance, cinema, etc.

What I have just articulated is the difference between content and quality. Christian art should be of the highest quality, even if the content is not overtly Christian. The distinction must remain though: content and quality are two separate categories of art. In the world of art, one may approve of the content even if the quality is poor (see: most "Christian" music). On the other hand, one may acknowledge poor content but respect the level of quality. On a smaller (and yet still relatively huge) scale, this latter category is the category of Tupac, the Beatles, or Dave Matthews. These are heroes of quality even where content suffers. And, in my opinion, the biggest world icon and hero of quality must be Michael Jackson.

Now I must define "quality" again. Quality does not mean agreeable. You don't have to like pop music to respect it. As a matter of fact, I don't much care for Dave Matthews or Tupac, but their musical artistry is undeniable. And in this regard, Michael Jackson truly is the originator and king of Pop music. Now is Pop a form of music as high as Baroque? Probably not, but in Michael Jackson's large worldwide arena of Pop, he's the king. Was the king. Michael could dance, sing, and make visual/audible art like the best of them. His life may have been sad, but his art was beautiful (I can't believe I just typed that, but I believe it). Michael did, however, have some songs with quality content- I'm a particular fan of "Black or White" and "I'll Be There" (Jackson 5) myself.

In sum, we should lament the loss of culture makers of any stripe, regardless of content (or, almost regardless of content), and Michael's life and death should make us mourn for the figure he was.

To TV or not to TV?

2009-06-26T17:07:00.002-06:00

I want to advise anyone reading this that I am going to have a relatively big argument in a small sphere. Here's what I mean: I'm talking about the nature and role of television (big argument) and how Christians conceive of using it (small sphere). This post is not about the secular vs. religious arguments for or against television. This post is about Christian vs. Christian arguments for and against television. Allow me to proceed:

Christian Arguments For:
We need to be relevant and current with culture. We must know the news. We must be in step with the 24-7 news cycle. We must be a watcher and commentator on the culture. We must know music and movies and popular tv shows so that we can reach younger audiences. On top of all that, sometimes television is just a good, mindless activity that allows one to unwind.

Proponents: Mark Driscoll, Nick Pollard and Steve Couch (ironic, I know) who wrote the book Get More Like Jesus by Watching TV

Christian Arguments Against:
The medium is the message: television not only presents us with info, it shapes how we receive that info. As a by-product, we become too image-oriented, and not word-oriented. We become too sensational, and not logical. We become too entertainment-obsessed, and not kingdom-obsessed. Furthermore, it's just a huge time waster when one could be much more involved in reading, pursuing face-to-face relationships, or any other worthwhile cause.

Proponents: John Piper (read his blog here), Douglas Groothuis (read his rejection of Pollard and Couch here), and Neil Postman (who I'm not sure is a Christian, but Amusing Ourselves to Death is a must-read).

It seems to me that there is a spectrum here, but by and large the arguments against are much stronger. Piper elaborates:

If you want to be relevant, say, for prostitutes, don’t watch a movie with a lot of tumbles in a brothel. Immerse yourself in the gospel, which is tailor-made for prostitutes; then watch Jesus deal with them in the Bible; then go find a prostitute and talk to her. Listen to her, not the movie. Being entertained by sin does not increase compassion for sinners....

I have a high tolerance for violence, high tolerance for bad language, and zero tolerance for nudity. There is a reason for these differences. The violence is make-believe. They don’t really mean those bad words. But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching.

Groothuis, of course, is excellent on the philosophy of TV (as is Postman for that matter). See the addendum to his book, Truth Decay, about the effects of television on our minds and our concepts of truth.

An Interesting Play on the Word "Liberal"

2009-06-23T15:47:00.002-06:00

"For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more
liberal to disbelieve in miracles than to believe in them. Why, I cannot
imagine, nor can anybody tell me. For some inconceivable cause a "broad"
or "liberal" clergyman always means a man who wishes at least to diminish the
number of miracles; it never means a man who wishes to increase that
number. It always means a man who is free to disbelieve that Christ came
out of His grave; it never means a man who is free to disbelieve that Christ
came out of His grave."

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908

A true free thinker is one who can imagine miracles, not one who disbelieves them. A true free thinker is one who questions the irrationality of restrictive naturalism. A true free thinker rejects determinism and accepts a first cause (that being God). All the University elites and political liberals that pride themselves in being free thinkers ought to look in the mirror and really ask themselves whether the denunciation of the supernatural and the elevation of the State is really a path to true freedom. That would be a scary exercise in free thinking for them.

Part 3 of "Is God Out There?": Can we even know?

2009-06-12T08:00:00.003-06:00

This is part 3 in a 3-part series that analyzes three aspects of our culture's view of the presence of God. Part 1 covered Twitter, and how humans universally desire to heard, acknowledged, understood, and known deeply. Part 2 went beyond technology to discuss how music communicates about meaning and the presence of God. Part 3 provides a little more of an answer to the philosophical questions raised in the first 2 parts.

I was talking with a very sharp college student recently. We were discussing the nature of truth, and being a naturally inquisitive person he asked, "Can we even know 100% what truth is? I believe in Christianity, sure, but what makes Christianity more true than any other religion that claims to be the true path to human freedom or salvation?" My friend was much more tentative than me to hold on to truth. Instead, he opted for the most absurd conclusion of our postmodern era, "Well, Christianity is true for me and that's why it's true. But another religion may be true for someone else."

This sentiment is shared by many in our epoch. Furthermore, the sheer magnitude of the task of surveying all the world religions and worldviews leaves many people in a state of spiritual apathy; a "so what" attitude towards the deepest questions of human existence. Can we even know God? Is God even personal? How can we even know that He's there if he is there?

A caveat: a blog is no place to survey the dozens of excellent philosophical proofs for the existence of a personal God. But many proofs do exist. Let us not be intellectually lazy in our pursuits of the most important questions. What follows is a brief survey on the many proofs for the existence of a personal God.

Anselm's Ontological Argument (from wikipedia):

Anselm desired to have one short demonstration, presented in Proslogion, his
famous proof of the existence of God. It is referred to as the ontological
argument... Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase
"that than which nothing greater can be conceived". He reasoned that, if "that
than which nothing greater can be conceived" existed only in the intellect, it
would not be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", since it can be
thought to exist in reality, which is greater. It follows, according to Anselm,
that "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist in
reality.

Moral Argument: this argument might have been made most famous (or popular) by C.S. Lewis in his first "book" in Mere Christianity and his lesser-read but equally good book The Abolition of Man. In this argument, if right and wrong objectively exist (and they do- every human has a sense of right and wrong even if we disagree where those lines are) and exist universally, then it follows that someone has set those moral and invisible laws in the will of humanity.

Cosmological Argument (from Wikipedia): there are many forms of this argument, and J.P. Moreland states it well in his book Scaling the Secular City (uses the Kalam Cosmological Argument). I'll list both arguments from wikipedia below because they are good.

The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an
explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally
assumed to be God, is that explanation.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Many other proofs exist. And ultimately, the postmodern effects against truth are ridiculous. To say, "there is no over-arching meta-narrative" is ridiculous because this statement is attempting to be a meta-narrative. To say, "there is no absolute truth," is equally ridiculous because that statement is attempting to be absolute. Therefore, these philosophical argumentsfor the existence of God have to be reckoned with in our minds and souls. They should cause us to be moved deeply.

There is a God. He is out there. He is knowable. I rest my case. For now.

Part 2 of "Is God Out There?": The Worldview of David Gray

2009-06-12T08:00:00.001-06:00

This is part 2 in a 3-part series that analyzes three aspects of our culture's view of the presence of God. Part 1 covered Twitter, and how humans universally desire to heard, acknowledged, understood, and known deeply. Part 2 goes beyond technology to discuss music, and in particular, David Gray.

The best artists are culture-makers. And a good culture maker is one who expounds a worldview that connects with the mileau he or she resides in. David Gray is one such artist. He writes with a musical beauty and lyrical profundity that can inspire the depths of a person's soul. Yet despite such beauty, his worldview has depressing and ultimately empty conclusions. One might even wonder if Gray believes that people have souls. Now I recognize that one song does not reveal the entire worldview of a person, but his message in "Ain't No Love Guiding Me" is powerful and it attempts to be comprehensive nonetheless. What follows is a run through of Gray's lyrics and some of my thoughts in response:

Maybe that it would do me good
If I believed there were a God
Out in the starry firmament
As it is that’s just a lie
And I'm here eating up the boredom
On an island of cement
Give me your ecstasy I'll feel it
Open window and I'll steal it
Baby like it’s heaven sent

This ain’t no love that’s guiding me

Gray clearly states that to believe in God is following a lie. That is a statement of absolute truth- God does not exist. At first though, one cannot tell if Gray is flaunting this truth or lamenting it. But Gray makes a crucial point that many Westerners miss: belief in God and moral behavior or intimately linked. The fact that there is no God is a basis for the whole song, and thus for his whole worldview: love cannot guide David Gray. On the other hand, the music is so melodious and intimate and Gray's voice so earnest that makes the listener feel Gray's pain. Perhaps its both then. Gray flaunts the fact that God doesn't exist and laments it simultaneously. The next verse:

Some days i'm bursting at the seams
With all my half remembered dreams
And then it shoots me down again
I feel the dampness as it creeps
I hear you coughing in your sleep
Beneath a broken window pane
Tomorrow girl I'll buy you chips
A lollipop to stain your lips
And it’ll all be right as rain

This ain’t no love that’s guiding me
This ain’t no love that’s guiding me

Then Gray turns to human relationships. He thinks that relationships bring deep joy but then reminds himself of the brokenness that occurs even in human relationships. He presents many unpleasant images to point out that fact, and again concludes: "this ain't no love that's guiding me." As Gray seeks to repeat this line, one cannot help but feel Gray's despair at his atheistic worldview. He is trying to maintain some kind of irrational existentialism, as if life can still have meaning even if God or love cannot guide him, but his search continues to prove fruitless as he presses on.

No it ain’t no love guiding me
No it ain’t no love guiding me
No it ain’t no love guiding me

This ain’t no love that’s guiding me
This ain’t no love that’s guiding me

This is where the music takes over. Where Gray had been repeating "this ain't no love..." in low and quick tones, he turns to this chorus here where he soars a high and drawn out melody. The music is incredibly beautiful at this point, but it proves misguided. In Gray's pursuit of existential beauty without meaning, even musical beauty lacks meaning no matter how beautiful it is. And make no mistake, Gray's music is beautiful. But Gray isn't done searching for meaning just yet. He goes to nature next:

On winter trees the fruit of rain
Is hanging trembling in the branches
Like a thousand diamond buds
Waiting there in every pause
That old familiar fear that claws you
Tells you nothing ain’t no good
Pulling back you see it all
Down here so laughable and small
Hardly a quiver in the dirt

This ain’t no love that’s guiding me

He points out a descriptive and beautiful scene from nature and then reminds himself that "nothing ain't no good." His search for meaning is over. Even the rapturous chorus isn't worth repeating. There is simply no love guiding Gray. Despite the incredible sadness and atheism in the song, Gray is a brilliant artist. He depicts his worldview lyrically, melodically, and dynamically. Gray realizes that his quest for meaning and search for truth has the most profound affects on his life- the biggest effects of all, really. If only apathetic Westerners would realize this fact. It's just that Gray came to the wrong conclusions.

There is a God who is there. He is personal and all-knowing. He knows each person and loves them deeply, despite their deepest wrongs and brokenness. He is there. He is not silent. He still speaks, and he still wants to know those he has created in the most personal way.

For the most profound writings on this subject (and indeed even some language that I borrowed in the preceding paragraph), see Francis Schaeffer's writings, and particularly The God Who is There. You will not be disappointed with Schaeffer.

Part 1 of "Is God Out there?": How Twitter is Like Prayer

2009-06-11T12:20:00.010-06:00

This is part 1 in a 3-part series that analyzes three aspects of our culture's view of the presence of God. Part 1 covers Twitter and how humans universally desire to be heard, understand, accepted, and known deeply.

So I caved to the Twitter craze. I love the "connection" it brings to other people. I love the fact that I can sync it with my cell phone and with Facebook, and thus kill many birds with the one stone.

But Twitter can bring a false connection. If I spent all of my time on Twitter telling people what I'm doing, well then I wouldn't be doing anything, would I? And, if I spent all of my time on the internet, I wouldn't really have friends, would I? That's the irony of social networking: sometimes the more we're networked electronically, the less we are networked in real life. Real friendships suffer. But with that said, since being on Twitter for 2 days, I had an epiphany: Twitter is like prayer.

Think about it: I constantly hope for more people to follow me. Maybe they'll think I'm important. Maybe they'll actually care what I'm doing. I must admit that in the last few days I have tweeted in the hopes that somebody out there was seeing it. Maybe somebody out there cares. And that's the essence of Twitter, human beings want to be known. And not just known, but known deeply. We want to know that there is a place for us to be accepted, loved, and wanted. That's why we crave for relationship. And it's even why we crave for followers on Twitter and friends on Facebook.

That universal desire is a lot like prayer. Gallup and other poll organizations regularly report that around 90% of Americans pray. Forget that many of those people are not Christians and do not claim to believe in a personal God. People still pray.

Neither atheism, nor new age, nor Islam, nor many other religions believe in a personal God. People who subscribe to those worldviews may still maintain prayer in some fashion, but ultimately prayer cannot be interactive in those worldviews in the sense that a personal God will not interact back with the person who prays. And even still, peoply pray.

To be known deeply, to offer a picture into our lives, to have someone else listen in our despair-- these are universal human desires. The personal God that establishes Christianity does know, does pay attention, and does listen to us. Twitter is imperfect, but Jesus is perfect. Thank God!

Following the President to Buchenwald

2009-06-05T22:31:00.003-06:00

Today the President was in Germany touring a former concentration camp in Buchenwald, Germany. It was a somber moment as the President, Germany's chancellor, and Elie Wiesel spoke to commemorate the atrocities there. (Transcripts of their speeches on the White House blog).

Elie Wiesel had some poignant words that left me questioning some things. (A brief video here). Excerpts:

"I was so hopeful. Paradoxically, I was so hopeful then. Many of us were,
although we had the right to give up on humanity, to give up on culture, to give
up on education, to give up on the possibility of living one's life with dignity
in a world that has no place for dignity. We rejected that possibility and we
said, no, we must continue believing in a future, because the world has learned.
But again, the world hasn't. Had the world learned, there would have been no
Cambodia and no Rwanda and no Darfur and no Bosnia. Will the world ever
learn?..."

Wiesel's words reminded me of something I read in Chesterton's Orthodoxy where Chesterton notes that the only obviously provable doctrine in Christianity is the depravity of humanity. Sure, there are proofs for the existence of a deity and Christianity definitely presents a rational, historical account of God entering the human scene. The depravity of humanity, however, is immediately provable simply by watching the news or driving in a car alone. Humanity is deprave despite ever present arguments for the goodness of humanity.

I don't think that means Wiesel doesn't have the right to be hopeful, but its just that his hope is in the wrong place. Neither presidents, nor the desires to avoid war, nor the modern mirage of progress via technology or health will ever deliver humankind from its greatest problem.

War will always threaten. Genocide always a potential. The destruction of life seemingly infinite. All of this unless humankind places its hope in the right place. The object of hope must be in a good God who saves the people from our own depravity.

Theological Defense of Church Music and Worship

2009-05-28T14:51:00.002-06:00

I've come upon a new blog that I would recommend to anyone who wants to think rightly about the Church- its music, its purpose,its sacraments, etc. The blog is done by a good friend and pastor, Zac Hicks.

Check it out here!

The Most Troubling Quote of All

2009-05-26T21:06:00.002-06:00

A supreme court nominee in this day and age has very little shot of keeping secrets. The hyper-information age yields quotes and makes it easy for even the casual blogger to do research. Consequently, less than 24 hours after President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, her many troubling quotes have surfaced and two in particular are getting a lot of airtime. They are as follows (the New York Times has a good article that covers most of the initial vetting):

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

A “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds:
“And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we
don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating
it. I’m — you know.”

The media has already over-commented on these quotes. Sure, these quotes have their obvious issues: racism and judicial activism to name a few. But the most troubling quote of all reveals Sotomayor's foundation for all other views of law. The following quote should disturb all Americans most deeply (from NY Times):

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an
exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of
perspectives.”

This philosophy is blatant postmodern relativism and should be rejected on all fronts. This philosophy is not exclusive to liberals as many conservatives hold it as well, so my criticism is equal-opportunity (something Sotomayor should appreciate). If there is no objectivity, why is there even law? What's to make a sociopath's morality just as valid as a normal citizen? This is an outlandish example to be sure, but I am pointing out that Sotomayor's foundational perspective is morally egregious.

It is sadly disappointing that someone who is supposed to uphold the pinnacle of law (the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights) sees those documents as an act of judicial power and not eternal moral truths. Freedom of speech? Nope, that one's a constructed truth according to Sotomayor and not a foundational moral principle that all government should abide by.

If there are only a series of perspectives and no eternal moral truth, then law is a fruitless exercise. What makes Sotomayor's perspective better than a white person's? She makes a self-refuting argument (as all relativistic thinking ultimately is). Furthermore, if all law is only a series of perspectives competing for power, then we have the foundation for totalitarianism.

True moral reformers believe in absolute truth and eternal moral principles (ie "all men are created equal). But in Sotomayor's perspective, there isn't even room for Martin Luther King Jr. because his perspective was just one of many competing for the law. His perspective, in its foundation, really can't be better than anyone else's in Sotomayor's views. That's why she can never be as great as King Jr. and why her nomination and probable confirmation is troubling.

From President to President

2009-05-25T15:06:00.003-06:00

Moral views are very telling about a person, that's because people act and think most deeply from their moral conclusions. President's are no different. Obama, in his speech a few weeks ago to Notre Dame, addresses the topic of abortion again, rhetorically placing himself in the middle but not differentiating himself at all from extreme pro-choice positions in actuality. Some excerpts:
The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with
wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege
in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and
scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence
and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient
times. (strong words that I wish he would actually believe as it respects
abortion, because in that case the strong always dominate the weak).

[A doctor] wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose
abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote
back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying
position (emphasis mine), but I did tell my staff to change the words
on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same
presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because
when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not
think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when
we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when
we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that
this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both
moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce
the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies.
(Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care
and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's
honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible
conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are
grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect
for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Yet, these things he is not doing nor does he wish to do because he'd lose his democratic base. Obama overturned the Mexico City Policy which now makes it legal to fund abortion overseas. He wanted to put money for "family planning" services in the stimulus bill because that would reduce healthcare costs. Obama sees most issues through the lens of politics, expediency, and pragmatics. It seems to Obama, that common ground is where ethics comes from, instead of eternal, moral truth. He speaks nice sounding words, but in the end his rhetoric is empty. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan's words in Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, a book written in his 3rd year in office. Some excerpts:

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the
Constitution. No serious scholar... has argued that the framers of the
Constitution intended to create such a right.

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life-the unborn-
without diminishing the value of all human life.

Over the first two years of my administration I have closely followed
and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion- efforts of
congressmen, senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral
crisis.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose
heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a
Supreme Court decision [Roe] that denied the value of certain human lives.
The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in one day, or a year, or
even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and
deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our
black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and
finally prevailed.

I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of
human life. It is not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is
not.

I have endorsed each of these measures (congressional bills), as well
as the more difficult route of a constitutional amendment, and I will give these
initiatives my full support.

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land
when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should
therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when
some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to
abortion or infanticide. My administration is dedicated to the
preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for
preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all
human beings, the right without which no other rights have any
meaning.

Obama is a moral midget compared to Reagan. He needs to believe in the truth that government can prevent murder and has a stake in justice. Reagan did, and we must remember his words not to lose hope.

Worldly People

2009-05-21T12:05:00.002-06:00

G.K. Chesteron says in chapter 2 of Orthodoxy, written in 1908.

Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether
on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking
with a preosperous publisher; who made a remark which I had often heard before;
it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once
too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher
said of somebody, "That man will get on; he believes in himself." And I
remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which
was written, "Hamwell" [a psychiatric hospital, I believe, DS]. I
said to him, "Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in
themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in
themselves more colossally than Napolean or Caesar. I know where flames
the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of
the Supermen. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic
asylums.".... "Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; compelte
self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one's self is a
hysterical and superstitious belief...."

I begin to think about the millions of high school and college graduations that were occuring this month. I think about all the messages of self-reliance and believing in yourself: the Henry David Thoreau quotes, Emerson quotes, Dr. Seuss quotes. They all mind-numbingly say the same things about boring self-confidence. For once, I'd love to go up and read Chesterton here. That'd shake them up.

Americans Grow in Moral Views

2009-05-20T09:00:00.000-06:00

For the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1995, the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life.

With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making
changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his
support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job
protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion
procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a
step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among
political moderates as well as conservatives.

Majority rule does not a moral truth make. But moral truth can be supported by a majority of people, and it seems like America is finally going in the right direction. There are no morally clear arguments (I repeat, zero morally clear arguments) that should make the practice of abortion-on-demand legal. Only in extreme and rare circumstances (incest, life of mother at stake, and debatably rape), should abortion be allowable.

The only argument at stake is whether the person inside the womb is a person. And the person is a person. The person has a uniquely identifiable DNA which is different from both mother or father outright, and is in need of no other additions to qualify him/herself as a person with constitutional protections. These persons have a right not to be murdered. A woman's right to choose does not and should not supercede a baby's right to live. Any other argument is a sideshow (ie "making abortion illegal would create a dangerous black market for abortion," which by the way commits the logical fallacy of question-begging because it assumes that the person inside the womb is not, in fact, a person because killing a person is indeed a dangerous market already).

I grow so sick and tired of a general liberal consensus which considers my view unenlightened, behind-the-times, and religious-in-nature only. These are bad arguments. And for the first time in Gallup's case, a majority of Americans finally disagree with the absurd liberal consensus. Let's now translate these conclusions into state laws and legitimate constitutional protections.

For the most clear, logical, and truthful arguments in favor of the pro-life position (without an overt religious tone) consult Francis Beckwith's book called Defending Life.

Quote of the Day

2009-05-19T17:32:00.002-06:00

Consider the following quote written in 1921. Think about the desires for and heeded calls for increasing government control and statism.

The whole development of modern society has tended mightily toward the
limitation of the realm of freedom for the individual man. The tendency is
most clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic state would mean the reduction to
a minimum of the sphere of individual choice. Labor and recreation, under
a socialistic government, would both be prescribed, and individual liberty would
be gone. But the same tendency exhibits itself today even in those
communities where the name of socialism is most abhorred. When once the
majority has determined that a certain regime is beneficial, that regime without
further hesitation is forced ruthlessly upon the individual man. It never
seems to occur to modern legislatures that although "welfare" is good, forced
welfare may be bad [emphasis mine]. In other words, utilitarianism is
being carried out to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical
well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the
winds.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1921.

Powerful words indeed.

Rites of Passage

2009-05-14T13:02:00.002-06:00

Bar Mitzvahs, debutante balls, and graduation. What do all these things have in common? In some sense, they are all rites of passage. But passage into what? I suppose that they are all passages into adulthood in various subcultures. But then what does adulthood mean? I guess it means taking responsibility for oneself, making ones own decisions, or supporting oneself financially. But are those things really qualitative to adulhood? I know plenty of teenagers who fit those criteria of adulthood and plenty of people over the age of 30 who do not fit those criteria (come to think of it, do I fit that criteria?). So what makes someone an adult? And does a rite of passage ever accomplish those things?

I have little nostalgic moments, you see. Often those moments pass without me getting to post something on this blog. And by the time the moment has passed, I find myself quite trite. But I'm remaining a little nostalgic this week because I'm graduating. But this graduation is different. For the first time in my life, there is no further education in the foreseeable horizon. I have finally finished school: preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school, college, and grad school. Lots of schools had lots of me. I finally have to wrestle with the fact that I'm an adult. Or at least maybe I am.

And I haven't necessarily looked forward to graduation, but if I didn't have that ceremony would I have as much closure on the biggest part of my life thus far? Think about it. Since preschool, I've probably spent at least 4-5 hours a day in school for 5 days a week (counting class time and homework- the number might even be higher). That is a huge portion of my identity since I was 3 years old. What am I to do with the vast identity I have created about grade performance, reading, and writing?

I have a lot of questions on this post, and not many answers. But I suspect that in some way the events of Saturday will remain with me in a deeper way than the mere symbolism of passing across a stage or moving a tassel. I'm just not sure how yet.

A Parable of Culture Clash

2009-05-11T09:25:00.003-06:00

A Secular liberal named Richard, a Christian named Billy, and a highly committed Muslim named Sayyid walk into a bar. Okay a pub. Okay they're on lunch break from their job. Something's been on Billy's mind, so he decides to talk to his friends about it.

Billy: Guys, my wife and I have been having problems lately. We want to move out of our apartment and into a house. Problem is, we can't agree on where to live. I want to live out in the suburbs and she wants to live down in the city. We just can't seem to agree. We're at a classic impasse. What's the right thing for me to do here?

Richard: Well, Billy, I think you're asking a misguided question. There's not really a right thing to do. Not with your wife, and not ever. Morality is constructed by human beings and you and your wife can construct it however you want. Right and wrong are not real categories of morality. There is no such thing, really. Does that help, Billy?

Billy: Um, not really. That leaves me with no advice on what I should actually do. What about you, Sayyid?

Sayyid: Your wife should do whatever you want her to do. You should move to the suburbs. Does that help?

Billy: Well not really. I told you we were at an impasse. Plus, our relationship does not really look that dictatorial.

Sayyid: Well it should. Your wife should submit to whatever you tell her to. As a matter of fact, if she won't agree with your desires, I think you should take matters into your own literal hands. After all, the Quran in Surah 4:34 says, "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance). (Ali translation from 2001, 7th edition). Does that help?

Richard: Excuse me a minute! You mean to tell me you think it's okay to beat your wife, Sayyid? That is not right at all!

Sayyid: According to your own view, there is no right and wrong. Leave me alone and do not question my religious convictions. It is not right to do so.

Richard: I suppose you're right. Or I suppose you are right to believe whatever you believe, since there is no right or wrong.

Billy: Hold up guys! This conversation is ridiculous. I refuse to believe there is no right or wrong, and I refuse to resort to spousal abuse. Sayyid, domestic violence is illegal after all, and there's a reason for that. That's because it's wrong, despite whatever Richard agrees with. It's plain wrong. It's wrong in any time or place, in any culture. It's wrong. And beyond all that, neither of you have helped me with my problem at all!

Richard: I suppose you could find a halfway point between the city and the suburbs.

Sayyid: Compromise is a weak position, for sure.

Billy: Well, whatever the case is, I'm more inclined to love my wife first and give her what she desires, but if it comes to compromise, I guess that's the best suggestion I've heard yet. Say, when's that server coming? We've been sitting here for a while.

The Top 10 Worst Countries to Blog

2009-05-06T09:23:00.003-06:00

It's chic in this era of geopolitics to insult America. The President does it. Many "social justice" pastors do it. Way too many liberals condemn America's moral compass (which I find really ironic). But much of the time this rhetoric is misguided. I recognize that America is not a perfect country and has indeed propagated many social ills. Yet, if only for the sense of the rule of law and the 1st Amendment, America is a more moral country than most (if not all) in the world. I don't think that's a smug comment either. For at least proof that we're more moral than 10 other countries, try challenging the leading authorities of these countries on your blog.
Authoritarian regimes have been unable to stop the march of media
freedom, but they continue to try. And bloggers are in the crosshairs--sometimes
literally. CPJ has just come out with a report called "The
10 Worst Countries to be a Blogger"--no surprise that the Middle
East features prominently.

The Truth

2009-05-05T09:53:00.007-06:00

Update: I had some problems embedding the video but it should be working now.

Sometimes I think I need to be a media watchdog. Television news is so atrociously sensational that almost all of it is yellow journalism (I'm talking to you, Dateline). Television, print, and radio all exist to make money. While there are ethical standards in journalism, one sees very little responsible reporting these days. What happened to caring about the truth? Allow me to humor you with one example from last week:

Oh really? You think it's in the public's best interest to know that a little boy in Mexico who started an "epidemic" is okay and will not die at all? The media throws around scare words such as "epidemic," "pandemic," and "extreme public safety precautions" (9 News isn't guilty of all of these but I have heard them in the last few days). And then the media tells us the real facts, such as no one in the US is dying of this, is close to dying of this, and that most with "swine" flu don't even need to be hospitalized. And you run 3-5 minute introductory pieces on the nightly news running with this story first for two weeks. How am I supposed to conclude anything else but that you are competing for ratings?

You media don't care about the truth. You care about the money. And the ironic thing is, in this case I think the ratings would have followed the truth.

I would have given anything for Adele Arakawa (of Denver's 9 News) to just get on the show and say, "This swine flu coverage is a bunch of bull. You know it. I know it. Let's talk about real issues." I would have been a devoted listener after that.

Losing faith vs. Losing church

2009-04-29T06:00:00.001-06:00

Empty pews. Is the church dying? What about Christianity? What about religion? What about spiritual beliefs? What about God himself? In true American fashion, the trend in this country has been to disavow insitutional forms of religion and to keep or maintain religious belief to some extent in God. Time is trying to track this trend and make something of it.

Yet rumors of religion's demise turned out to be premature... as a new report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows, it is a mistake to conclude that more Americans are rejecting religion. Leaving church, it turns out, doesn't mean losing faith...

"The U.S. has an unmatched religious dynamism," explains Lugo. "It's an open religious marketplace as well as a very competitive one. This is the supermarket cereal aisle." Without an established state religion, all faiths can freely exist in the U.S. but must compete for adherents in order to survive.

Our plurality in belief is certainly represented by the plurality that is allowed by our founding documents. Our smorgasbord and super-independent spirituality mirrors our marketplace- eBay, Amazon, iTunes, craigslist, etc. But we lose something if we lose organized religion. Can we be just as spiritual in the future if we're not reading religious texts and being influenced by religious institutions in our cities and neighborhoods? We might still be spiritual now, but is it only a matter of time before we'll lose that influence too?

Gay Rights Continued

2009-04-28T15:33:00.005-06:00

Yesterday I discussed the church and gay rights. Today, Colorado healthcare (from AP):

A bill allowing partners of gay and lesbian state workers to get health insurance coverage is headed to the governor.

The bill got final approval Tuesday in the House. Same-sex partners who've been in a committed relationship with a state employee for at least a year would qualify for coverage. The sponsor, Democratic Rep. Mark Ferrandino of Denver, says gay couples don't have the option of marrying and it's only fair to provide an alternative.

Republican Rep. Kent Lambert of Colorado Springs says it will be costly and is unfair to heterosexual couples who are committed but not married.

Opponents also say the measure violates the will of the voters, who passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage and rejected domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

Pragmatic response: we probably shouldn't saddle the state, that's already struggling to fund it's state budget, with more entitlement expenses.

Ideological response: this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of healthcare to begin with. Yet, this stance doesn't make privatized health insurance any better. As in, how does it make sense that the most standard way people get insurance now is through their employer?

The Continuing Fight About Gay Rights

2009-04-27T14:13:00.003-06:00

Should the state sanction gay marriage? Does the state have an economic (forget theological) stake at preserving and providing incentive for traditional marriage? And probing even further: does the church have a say in whether it gets to ordain gay pastors, priests, and bishops? Forget the first two questions, how come Christians can't agree on this last question? Time has an article covering this phenomenon with the following biased comments:

Mohler [President of Southern Baptist Seminary] sees the true church as a body comprised of believers who refuse to give ground on gay marriage. So does the Catholic Church, which has shown no willingness to change its own teachings, rooted as they often are in centuries of tradition...

Interesting. The Bible mentions homosexuality or homosexual acts 7 times and each time is mentioned negatively. Despite how some egregious errors in biblical interpretation can occur by pro gay-rights "theologians," an obvious contextual reading of any of these passages places homosexual acts in a negative light. But forget that; the Catholic church holds their beliefs based on crusty, old tradition apparently. They have no legitimate reason to believe what they believe in the tenets of their faith. After all, Christians disagree on this issue (please understand my sarcasm here). And then there's this quote:

So while both men [Mohler and Roman Catholic Joseph E. Kurtz] are calling for courage and compassion among their flocks, it's not clear yet whether their message that homosexuals are sinners by definition is resonating beyond their staunchest supporters.

Apparently the staunch supporters are people who actually read the Bible. I know many people claim the label "Christian," but many don't actually know, believe, or practice the tenets of the faith. I suppose the media cannot really parse that difference but I sure can. The problem with this issue involves a certain form of idolatry- one Herbert Schlossberg calls the idol of history. Allow me to elaborate:

I was watching an old episode of Law and Order:SVU last night, and the victim happened to be a homosexual person who was the son of a "bigoted" pastor, or so the show portrayed. When discussing the "unfortunate" views of the pastor, the detectives lamented his "bigotry" and his "unenlightened" position. For instance, "How could anyone in this day and age believe that someone can choose their sexual orientation?" The detective's assumption, like many today, assume that whatever is, is right. This is the idol of history. Now I won't challenge (for the time being) whether someone chooses sexual orientation or not. There's enough research to suggest a complicated answer there. But what does NOT naturally follow is that something is right whether or not someone chooses it.

I hesitate to use outlandish examples with this sensitive issue, so let me say on the front end that I'm not comparing homosexuality to any of the "sins" to be mentioned next. But, a sociopath often has a strong disposition to kill, but that doesn't make it right. "But that's the way he is," I hear the detective arguing. Or how about an alcoholic- they don't have a choice whether they'd like and be addicted to alcohol, they only have the choice whether they drink or not. Predisposition to alcohol doesn't make alcoholism right. And so the logical fallacy follows with homosexuality: even if someone had no choice of sexual orientation, it does not logically follow that it is right. I know there's a bigger problem to address then- the problem of evil. Why would God make them that way? Why would God make people with dispositions to something wrong?

The same way that we're all predisposed to do wrong, think selfishly, and act selfishly. We all have the mark of sin as a stain on our humanity. Christians call this original sin, and it affects every human.

From a human perspective, I lament the misunderstanding and fear that many Christians have for homosexuals. Indeed, the issue is vastly more complex than a simple "you are good" or "you are evil." But even in a loving, pastoral response to homosexual people, we should not fall prey to the idol of historicism. Whatever is, is not necessarily right. History is not the final adjudicator of right and wrong. God is. His moral law is. And Biblical Christians should stand up to this flagrant abuse of logic and the Bible in the church. Our public response in the political world is another issue. We have to handle our own house in a different way.

More From Schlossberg

2009-04-22T15:31:00.003-06:00

Consider this truth in the American experience:

It has often been said that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and that, as the disparity increases, the poor will rise against the rich in a revolution. The old socialist idea was that the great dissatisfaction of the poor masses could only be assuaged by a socialist redistribution of wealth. The dissatisfactions, however, have grown with the increase of equality, exactly the opposite of those expectations. This is what Alexis de Tocqueville predicted when he visited the United States 150 years ago... As society erases social distinctions and moves toward a leveling of income differentials, the demand for equality is not satisfied, but intensified. People do not envy Rockefeller his millions as much as thye envy their neighbor a ten percent differential in income. All inequalities, monetary or otherwise, are more galling to the envious when they are nearby, when the advantage is held by those whom one knows and when it is seen daily. The leveling movement has nothing to do with justice, because its impulse is not to raise those who are down but to topple those
who are up....

Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction

I wonder how much this sentiment, seeped into the American consciousness as it is, affects our public policy? When people start to claim that healthcare, unemployment benefits, and retirement from the government are rights, this social phenomenon has infected us.

Quote of the Day

2009-04-15T15:29:00.003-06:00

When you read the following quote, I want you to think of politicians- Democrats, Republicans, Independents- who call themselves pragmatists.
In practice, the hallmark of the humanist ethic is pragmatism. The fact that politicians describe themselves as pragmatic in order to induce people to vote for them is a telling indication of the values of our society. The pragmatic politician portrays himself as a realist who looks at the facts to tell him what to do rather than seeking a wise course of action in theory, in principle, or in ideology. All of that is illusory. Facts never told anyone what to do. Facts are always interpreted according to principles and values, and the pragmatist hides his, possibly even from himself. The ethical result of this is worse than the means being justified by the end, because the pragmatist explicitly elevates means over ends; the means justify themselves. And the values remain hidden because to speak of them, except in the most general and meaningless sense, is to lose one's credentials as a pragmatist.
Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, 1990

I suppose one either believes that there's objective morality beneath the law or it is constructed by humans without an objective morality. I suppose that objective morality is above the pragmatist's pay grade.

Jesus was and is real, and really rose from the dead

2009-04-13T09:40:00.005-06:00

Stephen Colbert has a little fun with liberal scholar Bart Ehrman. Of course, many of Ehrman's claims are flat-out wrong, and nothing he posits in the interview constitutes any new thoughts in liberal scholarship (so why another book?). But watch the clip. Even though it's humor, Colbert makes seem decent points at times.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Bart Ehrman

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

NASA Name Contest

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington deals with the claims on his blog:

Actually Bart is dead wrong about early Christology, and I think he even knows it. Its pretty hard to miss Phil. 2.5-11, written before any Gospel probably. There it is said not only that Christ is "in very nature God" even before he takes on human form, but then on top of that Paul quotes and applies Isaiah to Christ after the ascension saying he has the name above all names, which very clearly in Isaiah is the name of God. The transfer of the LXX name for God 'kyrios' to Christ is clearly enough a statement about his divinity. In addition to which in Romans 9.5 Christ is called "God above all blessed forever".

Furthermore, the Synoptic Gospels most certainly do view Christ as divine. This is why he is portrayed as Immanuel for example in Matthew's Gospel, or as the human and also divine Son of Man of Daniel 7 fame who came from heaven to judge the world and will rule in a kingdom for ever (see Mk. 14.62).

Ehrman's retro arguments about such things don't even convince most liberal scholars these days, they just say that Paul was divinizing Jesus because they know he had an exalted view of Christ.

As for Colbert, he is a devout Catholic who teaches Sunday school, and is not much interested in making fun of any orthodox Christians.

The Simple Irony of Darwinism

2009-04-09T06:00:00.001-06:00

I have a thought experiment, and it involves the philosophy of science:

What if we had started out as Darwinists in Western history? What if humans had always believed that chance and various unpredictable situations would have given us everything we could possibly know?

The irony is this: if we had started out as Darwinists, we likely wouldn't have science. The fundamental assumptions of science is that the universe is orderly, rational, and measurable. Fundamentally, if one had started as a Darwinist without the prior influence of other worldviews that maintain orderliness and rationality, it's doubtful that that person would have ever thought to test the world or its biological underpinnings, because it all happened by chance anyhow. Darwinism implodes by its own philosophy.

What would it have mattered if the universe was measurable? Nobody would have done it. I think many people forget that modern science had it's birth in a Christian worldview. We believe in a God who has ordered the universe, making himself knowable through order, rationality, and measurability.

White House God-Squad

2009-04-08T06:00:00.001-06:00

Here is the list of Obama's religious counsel called the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Any names that intrigue you? Make you outraged? Make you curious?

Time's brief take on it is interesting. For liberals that never want a litmus test, not wanting Tony Dungy on the counsel is petty. Read the article for more.