2/4/09
Why I'm a Skeptic
The federal government is not good at creating jobs. I said it back in September and October when the Bush administration was misleading the American public deeper into a financial mess. Now, Obama is using this new stimulus as justification for all the wasteful spending he wants to do. I don't know why this is so hard to understand, so I'll let liberal Maureen Dowd explain why government spending and the current Obama administration is a mess. I'm a conservative because I've seen more change at the local level than I ever have at the federal level. Obama isn't change, or hope, or any other buzzword we attach to him. He's a fallen human who shows a propensity to curry power, money, and ambition. God help him, because I don't know if I'd fare much better....
Reading the Bible is Revolutionary
Plenty of people who haven't read the Bible are certain they don't believe it. Plenty of people who haven't read the Bible are convinced that it's true. Thus, my church is making the case that everyone should read the Bible. It's the most significant book for all of world history. And many in our church are reading the Bible in 90 days. Check out the coverage of this phenomenon in the Denver Post.
2/3/09
Saving Faith in Rural America
David Van Biema has written a piece for Time covering the lack of pastors in rural America.
This is an important piece, and it should be read with great interest. Rural communities are often left out of the news unless there's a sensational scandal or until election season. Apparently the truest Americans live on the farm (I say that in jest, but there always seems to be this grabbing for attention from both parties to farmers and blue-collar workers). But in any event, people aren't farming anymore, and they are moving to metropolitan areas. Much of Evangelicalism centers in the suburbs now. So our church literature is written for afluent people. Our church growth theories thus have a strongly Anglo bent. We don't understand the gospel because: why need something when you're rich? We don't understand the OT because so much of it (especially the Pentateuch) centers on an agrarian lifestyle. I'm not wholly sure how to take the news of pastors leaving the rural areas, but I hope the trend reverses.
This is an important piece, and it should be read with great interest. Rural communities are often left out of the news unless there's a sensational scandal or until election season. Apparently the truest Americans live on the farm (I say that in jest, but there always seems to be this grabbing for attention from both parties to farmers and blue-collar workers). But in any event, people aren't farming anymore, and they are moving to metropolitan areas. Much of Evangelicalism centers in the suburbs now. So our church literature is written for afluent people. Our church growth theories thus have a strongly Anglo bent. We don't understand the gospel because: why need something when you're rich? We don't understand the OT because so much of it (especially the Pentateuch) centers on an agrarian lifestyle. I'm not wholly sure how to take the news of pastors leaving the rural areas, but I hope the trend reverses.
1/30/09
Intriguing Quote
"From that day on I clearly understood that the kingdom of God can never mix with politics. The ultimate, stated aim of Marxist teaching is the complete eradication of all religion. The pure bride of Christ can never be controlled by an atheistic government or led by men who hate God! The true church is not an organization controlled by the rules of men but a holy collection of living stones with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone......"
-Brother Yun from The Heavenly Man
Due to Yun's persecution in China, it's no wonder he has an Anabaptist scheme of how the church should relate to government. His statement, though, should still ring deep in the evangelical soul of America.
-Brother Yun from The Heavenly Man
Due to Yun's persecution in China, it's no wonder he has an Anabaptist scheme of how the church should relate to government. His statement, though, should still ring deep in the evangelical soul of America.
1/26/09
Obama and Pelosi and Evil Rhetoric
President Obama has overturned the Mexico City Policy that bans money to international groups that practice abortion as a method of family planning. Note: this isn't a support that abortion should remain legal, but that the US government should fund abortions. This is wrong. Obama says:
"We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose," the statement said."
How convoluted! Obama isn't just guaranteeing the right, he's supporting it with money I send to the government. This is wrong. President Bush saw it a different way 9 years ago.
"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad," George W. Bush wrote in a memo to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2001."
If Roe can't get overturned, that still doesn't mean I should pay for murder. Obama's pal on Capitol Hill, Nancy Pelosi, agrees with Obama's position. Some of the stimulus money will be used for family planning services that practice abortion. So, not only will the federal govt. be going further into debt, but apparently they will kill unborn infants in an effort to "reduce the costs in state government" (Please watch this Pelosi clip from This Week).
What you see Pelosi articulate there is the fundamental philosophy of utilitarianism developed from the 19th century- do what's best for the most amount of people. By the way, this philosophy is evil. ALL humans are made in the image of God (this includes the unborn, the poor, the rich, the born). Doing what's best for the most amount of people would have kept slavery in the US, would have sustained the holocaust, and would only care about the majority and never the downtrodden.
Utilitarianism is the central idea that Ebenezer Scrooge articulates to the philanthropists about the starving children in A Christmas Carol: "Well if they're going to die they'd better go ahead and do it and so decrease the surplus population." It's no surprise Scrooge "converts" to a redemptive worldview where everyone matters. But Pelosi, and seemingly Obama, articulate a different worldview, a worldview from the core of their base. Humans are reduced to "costs" where less of them means an ease on state budgets. Less humans will "stimulate" the economy. Folks, please understand that this is evil rhetoric.
"We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose," the statement said."
How convoluted! Obama isn't just guaranteeing the right, he's supporting it with money I send to the government. This is wrong. President Bush saw it a different way 9 years ago.
"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad," George W. Bush wrote in a memo to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2001."
If Roe can't get overturned, that still doesn't mean I should pay for murder. Obama's pal on Capitol Hill, Nancy Pelosi, agrees with Obama's position. Some of the stimulus money will be used for family planning services that practice abortion. So, not only will the federal govt. be going further into debt, but apparently they will kill unborn infants in an effort to "reduce the costs in state government" (Please watch this Pelosi clip from This Week).
What you see Pelosi articulate there is the fundamental philosophy of utilitarianism developed from the 19th century- do what's best for the most amount of people. By the way, this philosophy is evil. ALL humans are made in the image of God (this includes the unborn, the poor, the rich, the born). Doing what's best for the most amount of people would have kept slavery in the US, would have sustained the holocaust, and would only care about the majority and never the downtrodden.
Utilitarianism is the central idea that Ebenezer Scrooge articulates to the philanthropists about the starving children in A Christmas Carol: "Well if they're going to die they'd better go ahead and do it and so decrease the surplus population." It's no surprise Scrooge "converts" to a redemptive worldview where everyone matters. But Pelosi, and seemingly Obama, articulate a different worldview, a worldview from the core of their base. Humans are reduced to "costs" where less of them means an ease on state budgets. Less humans will "stimulate" the economy. Folks, please understand that this is evil rhetoric.
1/22/09
Dwhoops
Obama has taken the oath of office again last night after the joint flub on Tuesday with he and the Chief Justice.
And out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts administer[ed] the oath a second time.
This one was just funny to me, especially as I saw Biden make a crack at Roberts in the White House Press room yesterday. Obama didn't think Biden was funny, and so hit him on the elbow and showed a straight face all the way (watch it here). It seems the Biden gaffe machine is already under way. If it's in temperament alone, it seems our President knows how to be cautious, measured, and show a reasonable demeanor to the American public. I don't know how important those things are in the grand scale of things, but they only help his image and they do evidence some sort personal virtue.
And out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts administer[ed] the oath a second time.
This one was just funny to me, especially as I saw Biden make a crack at Roberts in the White House Press room yesterday. Obama didn't think Biden was funny, and so hit him on the elbow and showed a straight face all the way (watch it here). It seems the Biden gaffe machine is already under way. If it's in temperament alone, it seems our President knows how to be cautious, measured, and show a reasonable demeanor to the American public. I don't know how important those things are in the grand scale of things, but they only help his image and they do evidence some sort personal virtue.
1/21/09
An Agenda To Set
This isn't exactly the kind of news a "centrist" or a "pragmatist" should get on his first day in office. CNSnews goes on:
President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Given that Prop. 8 failed in California, this agenda isn't from the center, it's from the far left. Now, in fairness to Obama, he unveiled a large-scale agenda on his new whitehouse.gov website, not just stuff on civil rights (scroll down to the section on the LGBT community). But in fairness to all thinking people, you don't put something like this on your website unless your really liberal.
From my vantage point, I haven't decided what I think about all the issues laid out in the Civil Rights section. Some are worth considering while others seem like shoddy politics. While I generally have conservative sensibilities, I think the issue here isn't that I disagree with his agenda, but that it isn't a pragmatic agenda. It's "ideological," to use a word Obama doesn't like. While it does matter what we think about these specific issues, I'm really concerned that we just call a spade a spade. Barack Obama is really liberal, and it looks like he's going to pursue a radical ideological agenda. Let no one be fooled.
President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Given that Prop. 8 failed in California, this agenda isn't from the center, it's from the far left. Now, in fairness to Obama, he unveiled a large-scale agenda on his new whitehouse.gov website, not just stuff on civil rights (scroll down to the section on the LGBT community). But in fairness to all thinking people, you don't put something like this on your website unless your really liberal.
From my vantage point, I haven't decided what I think about all the issues laid out in the Civil Rights section. Some are worth considering while others seem like shoddy politics. While I generally have conservative sensibilities, I think the issue here isn't that I disagree with his agenda, but that it isn't a pragmatic agenda. It's "ideological," to use a word Obama doesn't like. While it does matter what we think about these specific issues, I'm really concerned that we just call a spade a spade. Barack Obama is really liberal, and it looks like he's going to pursue a radical ideological agenda. Let no one be fooled.
The Most Fundamental Justice Issue of Our Times
The right to actually live is still the most fundamental human right. The older I get (which isn't that old), I honestly have no idea how someone cannot hold this position. I don't ever want to become a demagogue, but I simply understand the pro-choice position less and less these days. Human beings should have the right to live, and the fact that this isn't so contradicts so much of our law system. While I'm normally not a John Piper fan, he has good thoughts today. From the President he asks for straightforward honesty to hard questions:
1. Are you willing to explain why a baby's right not to be killed is less important than a woman's right not to be pregnant?
2. Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
3. Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
4. And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the "Freedom of Choice Act" by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?
I dare any Christian that claims that they are pro-choice to articulate a coherent argument on why abortion should be legal (with obvious exceptions for the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest). Normally, the pro-choice argument proceeds from the fringe of a conviction, not the core of it. Stuff like: "we don't want black market and unsafe abortions" or "it's a hard decision for women in poverty and the government shouldn't make it for them" or "the government simply shouldn't intrude into people's lives." But these arguments never deal with core issues: "Is a fetus really a person?" and "Is the procedure really murder? (it is, it cannot be anything else)."
But the more I talk to people with the pro-choice argument, I'm left feeling that everyone agrees to restrictions on abortion. It just leaves me asking why we're not actually pursuing these ends legislatively. You say you don't support limits, then I'll ask "Do you support an abortion to determine the sex of the baby?" "Do you support an abortion in the case of twins or triplets?" "Do you support an abortion for those babies with a degenerative illness?" If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then you are for limits on abortion. If you answered "yes" to all of them, then you do not have a conscience. Unfounded murder should be illegal.
1. Are you willing to explain why a baby's right not to be killed is less important than a woman's right not to be pregnant?
2. Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
3. Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
4. And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the "Freedom of Choice Act" by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?
I dare any Christian that claims that they are pro-choice to articulate a coherent argument on why abortion should be legal (with obvious exceptions for the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest). Normally, the pro-choice argument proceeds from the fringe of a conviction, not the core of it. Stuff like: "we don't want black market and unsafe abortions" or "it's a hard decision for women in poverty and the government shouldn't make it for them" or "the government simply shouldn't intrude into people's lives." But these arguments never deal with core issues: "Is a fetus really a person?" and "Is the procedure really murder? (it is, it cannot be anything else)."
But the more I talk to people with the pro-choice argument, I'm left feeling that everyone agrees to restrictions on abortion. It just leaves me asking why we're not actually pursuing these ends legislatively. You say you don't support limits, then I'll ask "Do you support an abortion to determine the sex of the baby?" "Do you support an abortion in the case of twins or triplets?" "Do you support an abortion for those babies with a degenerative illness?" If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then you are for limits on abortion. If you answered "yes" to all of them, then you do not have a conscience. Unfounded murder should be illegal.
1/20/09
What Obama Communicates about God
On this inauguration day, spirits are high. Polarizing rhetoric takes a break. Our country's first African-American is inaugurated as President. Truly historic stuff, and I will be watching with great attention. And surely President Obama will have great expectations thrust upon him- some might say godlike expectations. Interestingly, I've come across two pieces this week that insinuate as much. Or rather, they both note that Barack Obama says something about God.
This article in Time notes how African-Americans (James Earl Jones, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.) have taken their place in the American consciousness as THE authoritative voice, almost the voice of God. And in a way, Obama takes on the "voice of God" as a great orator.
Plenty of white or white-sounding actors could say "THIS [pause] is CNN" as well as Jones. Most people who have heard that phrase a hundred times don't know whose voice it is and — unless the question is raised specifically — they aren't even consciously aware that the person is black. They relate to the voice on a subconscious level, and they associate it with power and authority...When God turned into an African American, it became less unthinkable that the President might be African American as well.
On the complete opposite side of this view of God, John Piper claims Obama to make Christ a minister of damnation. That's because Obama openly used Gene Robinson (first openly practicing homosexual priest in the Episcopal church) to give the invocation to the opening inaugural ceremonies on Sunday. By openly promoting Robinson, Piper asserts, Obama is acknowledging and promoting sin in supposed "leaders" of the Christian faith.
On a proud day like today, it might be prudent to ask who our God really is, and how he's different from all leaders that have gone before and all that will come in the future. Are some leaders better than others? Yes. But do any come close to the virtue of the character of God? No (none of us do). Let us never forget that politicians make political decisions, despite how they may inspire us or motivate us to greater good.
This article in Time notes how African-Americans (James Earl Jones, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.) have taken their place in the American consciousness as THE authoritative voice, almost the voice of God. And in a way, Obama takes on the "voice of God" as a great orator.
Plenty of white or white-sounding actors could say "THIS [pause] is CNN" as well as Jones. Most people who have heard that phrase a hundred times don't know whose voice it is and — unless the question is raised specifically — they aren't even consciously aware that the person is black. They relate to the voice on a subconscious level, and they associate it with power and authority...When God turned into an African American, it became less unthinkable that the President might be African American as well.
On the complete opposite side of this view of God, John Piper claims Obama to make Christ a minister of damnation. That's because Obama openly used Gene Robinson (first openly practicing homosexual priest in the Episcopal church) to give the invocation to the opening inaugural ceremonies on Sunday. By openly promoting Robinson, Piper asserts, Obama is acknowledging and promoting sin in supposed "leaders" of the Christian faith.
On a proud day like today, it might be prudent to ask who our God really is, and how he's different from all leaders that have gone before and all that will come in the future. Are some leaders better than others? Yes. But do any come close to the virtue of the character of God? No (none of us do). Let us never forget that politicians make political decisions, despite how they may inspire us or motivate us to greater good.
1/16/09
Deepak Chopra and our National Health
Derek Lowe, a chemist in the pharmaceutical field, writes this article against an op-ed piece by Deepak Chopra (among others) about how to handle our nation's health in the new Administration. Really, the article boils down to a fight for Western medicine against "holistic" medicine, but that's not wholly what I find fascinating.
Well, we don’t even know who the new FDA commissioner is going to be under the Obama administration, but people are already making their bid for a change in direction......My hopes for this piece were not high – Deepak Chopra, for one, I consider to be an absolute firehose of nonsense. Both he and Andrew Weil should be whacked with sticks every time they say the word "quantum".....
Our culture is always having fights about what worldview we should believe in. Note: I didn't say world religion, and our culture is confused on this point. Not all believe in a "religion," per se (and I don't want to hear any Christian blather about how Chrisitianity is a relationship and not a religion. It's both.), but everyone in the entire world has a worldview. We all have either explicit or implicit answers to the following questions: What do we believe about God (he's one God, he's many gods, he's in everything, there's no god at all, etc.)? What do we believe about humanity (inherently good, inherently bad, a little of both)? What do you think about the need for some kind of human liberation (no need at all, removal of sin, a higher consciousness, following a set of regulations, etc.)? So everyone has a worldview, and so here's what I liked about that article: it seems to be a fight of naturalism versus new age. Because Christianity was historically the dominant worldview in the West and presently a powerful voting bloc in this country, generally Christianity must take its lumps against both new age in the media (ie Oprah) and takes its lumps against naturalism at the University (ie Darwinian macro-evolution). I suppose I just appreciate it when the two are fighting one another. As for my take on medicine?
Science and empirical testing came out of the prominence of the Christian worldview. We believe the world is testable and repeatable, because it was made by a dependable God who cares about beauty. And we also believe humans are made in the image of God, and therefore capable of knowing more about the universe that we live in through science. But I also believe in miracles and God's intervention into the natural order. So, medicine must go hand in hand with an open view of the universe. Chemicals can heal and make us better, but so can God. They are not opposed, but rather they can work together. And I believe they do so more than we care to admit.
Well, we don’t even know who the new FDA commissioner is going to be under the Obama administration, but people are already making their bid for a change in direction......My hopes for this piece were not high – Deepak Chopra, for one, I consider to be an absolute firehose of nonsense. Both he and Andrew Weil should be whacked with sticks every time they say the word "quantum".....
Our culture is always having fights about what worldview we should believe in. Note: I didn't say world religion, and our culture is confused on this point. Not all believe in a "religion," per se (and I don't want to hear any Christian blather about how Chrisitianity is a relationship and not a religion. It's both.), but everyone in the entire world has a worldview. We all have either explicit or implicit answers to the following questions: What do we believe about God (he's one God, he's many gods, he's in everything, there's no god at all, etc.)? What do we believe about humanity (inherently good, inherently bad, a little of both)? What do you think about the need for some kind of human liberation (no need at all, removal of sin, a higher consciousness, following a set of regulations, etc.)? So everyone has a worldview, and so here's what I liked about that article: it seems to be a fight of naturalism versus new age. Because Christianity was historically the dominant worldview in the West and presently a powerful voting bloc in this country, generally Christianity must take its lumps against both new age in the media (ie Oprah) and takes its lumps against naturalism at the University (ie Darwinian macro-evolution). I suppose I just appreciate it when the two are fighting one another. As for my take on medicine?
Science and empirical testing came out of the prominence of the Christian worldview. We believe the world is testable and repeatable, because it was made by a dependable God who cares about beauty. And we also believe humans are made in the image of God, and therefore capable of knowing more about the universe that we live in through science. But I also believe in miracles and God's intervention into the natural order. So, medicine must go hand in hand with an open view of the universe. Chemicals can heal and make us better, but so can God. They are not opposed, but rather they can work together. And I believe they do so more than we care to admit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
