Evangelical Perspective

"We Believe"

2012-01-12T16:04:00.000-05:00

True Believers
"We believe in film" is not heard uncommonly in circles I frequent. Oh, of course there are a few things that can be done in film that cannot be accomplished in digital (split printing, for example). But the venue of film is today relegated to a handful of hobbyists, students, and very serious artists. Those artists have maintained some of the unequaled film features, such as Pl/Pt printing. Still, there are so few people using film that the availability of film has detracted from opportunity. No more Agfa APX 100 4x5 or 8x10. (My favorite.) No more Panatomic-X. No more Plus-X. All that remains is a few of us hobbyists. But there are no real "true believers" remaining.

In the early 1980s there was something called "CP/M," though you may not have heard of it. It was the operating system that came before Mac, MS-DOS, and Windows. It was good. We had a great database (dBase II) and office software (WordStar & VisiCalc) along with lots other good applications. But the computers that ran CP/M were "8-bit" and once the 16-bit computers (IBM PC) came out, CP/M died. But it took a few years. I found a couple of people still using their Osborne and Kaypro computers around 1990, but just a couple. The rest of the computers are either buried in attics and basements or are in the hands of collectors. Nobody is in the CP/M church. Even the true believers have left.

A movement that is fading is relegated to the true believers. Everyone else has gone. The church and the pews are empty but for those few True ones. Computing is finished with CP/M. The film world differs little.

An Excursus Into Reason
At this time I remain confident about the future of the Christian faith. I only remain pessimistic about how the Western/American church is dealing with the problem of Rationalism. I went through some of the issues here. But there is more to say, and next I would like to attack a way of reasoning which seems destructive. Let's start with what appears to be almost axiomatic:

This was accompanied on FB by the comment that "it isn't true when you are bungee jumping over croc-infested waters in Zimbabwe." Funny thing about inductive arguments and evidence. What if the evidence available makes just the opposite appear likely? What if the evidence available has more to do with a soft landing/moving floors than a hard/fixed one? Extant evidence often alters the conclusions available.

This is not to suggest that there is a possible universe where all floors are moving and the situation has become untrustworthy. It's more like combining H and O to obtain H2O. It works, but not at 0K (absolute zero). And not on the surface of the sun (roughly 10,000F). The formula does not always work. Inductive arguments can only take us to a "best explanation" by inference -- IBE.

We cannot get to God through induction; we do not arrive at faith through reason. We can not. Certainly we can logically get to theism, but there it ends. This is at the core of evidential apologetics. From that position the Mormon, the Islamist, the Jew, and the Christian may all take their leads and present their contiguous explanation for all that follows. Theism may be best, but after that the results are

I hope you can see that at this point we have not left human capacity and staked any claim in revelation. Reason is not enough. And lest we of the presuppositional stripe fall into the same trap, neither is ascent. It is not the rightness of an idea which is most important, but the facts behind it which subsequently produce real knowledge and real faith.

The Results of Training
Try this analogy: You are a hiring manager and you have two candidates for a VP position. Both, in fact, have worked for you for a number of years. Both see your business through the X lens -- they understand your processes and agree with your direction and goals. The difference between the candidates, though, is striking. Candidate 'A' is as faithful as any employee could be. 'A' even teaches them at a local community college. But Candidate 'B' has taken your financial principles and applied them to his family budget and also taught his children how to start and run their own businesses. 'B' has not only made these beliefs his own but has also applied them to change and improve the lives of others close to him. 'B' "owns" them.

John Fletcher Hurst describes[1] some of the situation around the Thirty Years' War in a similar fashion:

The instruction of children in the doctrines of Christianity, as we have already said, had been sadly neglected, because the pastors of the church had committed the task to less competent hands. Spener determined that he would assume complete control of the matter himself, and, if possible, teach the children during the week without any coöperation. His labors proved a great success; and his reform in catechetical instruction, not only in Frankfort, but thence into many parts of Germany, eventuated in one of the chief triumphs of his life. But he had further noticed that the customary preaching was much above the capacity, and unsuited to the wants, of the masses. He resolved upon a simple and perspicuous style of discourse, such as the common mind could comprehend. But, seeing that this was not enough, he organized weekly meetings of his hearers, to which they were cordially invited. There he introduced the themes of the previous Sabbath, explained any difficult points that were not fully understood, and enlarged on the plain themes of the gospel. These meetings were the Collegia Pietatis, or Schools of Devotion, which gave the first occasion for the reproachful epithet of Pietism. They brought upon their founder much opposition and odium, but were destined to produce an abundant harvest throughout the land. Spener entertained young men at his own house, and prepared them, by careful instruction and his own godly example, for great ministerial usefulness. These, too, were nurtured in the collegia, and there they learned how to deal with the uneducated mind and to meet the great wants of the people. The meetings were, at the outset, scantily attended, but they increased so much in interest that, first his own dwelling, and then his church, became crowded to their utmost capacity.

Of course it is difficult to find any church where the sermon is much more than window dressing. Some take the next step and some level of sermon interaction. But little serious instruction takes place. And while not everyone should be treated as a college or seminary student, there is a lot more to be done than simple Bible study. Some basic doctrinal training. Some practical training in handling temptation and lust. Some challenge to ministry and missions. A sermon should fit into an educational framework and not stand alone. When it does it becomes a weak monologue.

Sometimes I wonder if the church does not do the things necessary because the faith is weak? Is it easier for a pastor to be a manager? Most pastors that I have known, those who were faithful in their work, were also excellent teachers. But the situation seems to be akin to the "Peter Principle" where one is promoted just beyond his greatest skill. Pastors often get stuck doing things that they may be good at in against doing the things that they are best at.

A lack of structure is appealing to many. After all, if the Lord is coming back at any time then why would we be spending our time doing any long-term work? Some set about social work. Some set about to do revivals and evangelism. Few set their minds on education and long-term training. There are things to teach regarding apologetics, doctrine, and living. Education can be both serious and tailored to the character of each individual fellowship.

Let us not through neglect reduce our churches to untrained and unprepared true believers.

[1] Hurst, John F.. History of Rationalism (Kindle Locations 1197-1210). manybooks.net.

What "Separation of Church and State" Really Means to Liberals & Leftists

2012-01-11T17:35:00.001-05:00

Ok, this isn't hard. In fact, it is quite easy. It comes down to a very basic question: Does a group have a right to its own leadership? In this case the question came down to a religious group, a church, and whether it had a right under the constitution to determine its own leadership. This concern was not onlyin regard to hiring but also firing. This is known as the "ministerial exception" and has been recognized since the 1964 Civil Rights Act went into place. (Read the Supreme Court case syllabus and opinion here.)
The court said clearly:

Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964and other employment discrimination laws, the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized the existence of a “ministerial exception,” grounded in the First Amendment, that precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. The Court agrees that there is such a ministerial exception. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

That's good. No, that's great! This unanimous decision by the court upholds the authority of the Constitution over the Obama administration.

The Obama people believe that churches are just businesses of another type. As reported in openmarket.org:

The Obama administration unsuccessfully argued that the government can dictate who churches hire, as long as it also subjects secular employers to the same dictates regarding who they hire (so-called rules of general applicability). So it can ban a church or synagogue from hiring based on religion (defeating the whole purpose of religious freedom, which is to allow churches to promote their own religion) or sex (preventing the Catholic Church from having a male priesthood). No Supreme Court justice bought the administration’s argument, made on behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Supreme Court unanimously found that such government control over who churches can hire would violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

So much for the capacity of homosexuals to move in and take church leadership positions based on the threat of a lawsuit, should that ever happen. But now that potential has been precluded.

The question is -- why would the Obama administration, or the EEOC before the Obama administration, have any desire to invade church life? That is the substance of the lawsuit.

Now this argument must be extended. Church speech must not be impinged upon. The 501(c)(3) rules that restrict speech should be removed based on the "free exercise" clause -- something that IS in the Constitution and to which Congress must subject itself.

One principle to keep in mind is that "separation" for the left is merely a cliche. It's not separation that they want; control is their concern. Were they actually favoring separation then the 501(c)(3) rules would be done away.

Also, I must give due honor to the liberals on the Court who voted with the plain reading of the Constitution. All of you did well and we thank you.

Reading the opinion of Roberts, one is struck by his appeal to early precedent, not recent precedent. The EEOC, as noted, cited recent material. But Roberts cites the origins of the First Amendment and from there makes his argument. It is not the place of the government to seat or unseat church leaders. This is a right reserved to the people and the efforts of the EEOC and Obama administration sit in direct violation of the Constitution.

As one might expect, the Huffington Post opinion of Mike Sacks opposes this liberty. He allows for government intrusion with this comment:

The concurrences touch upon a fault line that some of the justices exposed during the case's oral argument last year: To what extent can religious organizations shield themselves from employment laws by simply deeming all of their employees to be ministers?

Sacks notes some of the language problems of Kagan and Alito.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, took the opposite approach, attempting to define what a minister is. The ministerial exception, Alito wrote, should apply to any person "who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith."

Though they voted for the maintenance of liberty they left the door open for government definitions of what goes on in a church. Theirs remains an intrusive opinion with a destructive potential which is evident as his post continued.

This time, the other justices seemed satisfied by their chief's language pointing to "the formal title given Perich by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the Church," leading them to conclude that "Perich was a minister covered by the ministerial exception."
That holistic assessment, said professor Sally Gordon of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, "left open enough wiggle room" for lower courts to refuse to apply the ministerial exception where an ordination is blatantly fraudulent or a mere pretext.

Religious liberty remains at risk, and even more so with Obama at the helm.

All of this reflects on something important about our liberty. Our liberty has little to do with the structure of our government. We still live in a representative system, a "republic" as it is known. But there have been many destructive republics over the years. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Peoples Republic of China. The Deutsche Democratic Republic. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The USSR, communist China, East Germany, and North Korea all proved themselves the enemies of liberty. Having the mere right to vote is not what our system is about. Our system is about liberty -- economic, religious, speech, and travel. If you trade one then you will likely trade away all.

Photography and the Communication of Christian Truth

2011-12-28T08:26:00.000-05:00

Several years ago I saw a missions picture in a small church north of Butterfield, Minnesota. The picture was of two men concentrating on splitting that proverbial “theological hair” while the world looked in through the church window. The image stayed with me, and I have intended to convert to a photograph for a long time. The picture represents a challenge to minimize concerns which may be relatively trivial and to get about the work of missions.

Now, I am certainly not one who considers theology at all trivial. Today’s evangelicals are failing at providing a thorough education in the depth of the Word and the richness of theological education. We can do that without being distracted from the redemptive mission of the church. Theology is not the problem; allowing ourselves to be distracted is.

This print represents the first in an ongoing series of missions challenges. The series will be expanded over time to include additional challenge issues.

For those who enjoy photography, this image was shot with an 8x10 camera using Ilford FP4+, a Protar VII lens, roughly 13 inch focal length, for 1 second @ f/5.6, and developed for an extended 11 minutes in HC-110(b). This is a contact print on Ilford FB paper.

When Homosexuals Establish Legal Discrimination

2011-12-24T18:48:00.000-05:00

The Jennifer Keaton case provides a rich example. And one need not extrapolate anything obtuse or indefinite. No strange or conspiratorial abstractions are necessary. One only need quote the lawyers on this side of the issue.

Fact 1: The only person prohibited from doing anything is Keaton. She is not allowed to either continue her education while maintaining her belief system nor is she allowed the professional credential necessary to participate and succeed in her field of choice.

Fact 2: The university is requiring remediation of beliefs in order to attain the desired degree. Were the university to grant the credential of her desired degree, the university would lose nothing.

But to the lawyers. This quote is not from some nobody. Joshua Block is "staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project" and this makes him a representative of the position of the ACLU on these matters. He says:

Last Friday, a federal court of appeals issued an important decision, setting limits on the right to use religion to discriminate. The case concerned Jennifer Keeton, a student enrolled in a graduate school counseling program who told her faculty that "as a high school counselor confronted by a sophomore student in crisis, questioning his sexual orientation, she would tell the student that it was not okay to be gay." Augusta State University, where Ms. Keeton was enrolled, ultimately expelled her from the program after she indicated she would be unable to counsel without imposing her religious views on her clients.

That makes one point plain: The position of the court, the school, and the ACLU, is that the Christian belief system and ethic is not acceptable within this profession. Carte blanche has been given to other universities to add therapy for those holding the Christian belief system.

He also says:

The ACLU filed a brief arguing that a student who declares her intent to violate the university's professional standards through her conduct does not have a constitutional right to a court order requiring the university to let her work with clients.

This is more than clear. The ACLU believes that the presence of Christian morality has no place within the four walls of the university. It is a Christianity-free zone. Give up your Christianity and you may enter.

Just as a medical school would be permitted to bar a student who refused to administer blood transfusions for religious reasons from participating in clinical rotations, so ASU may prohibit Keeton from participating in its clinical practicum if she refuses to administer the treatment it has deemed appropriate. Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates. When someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Lawyers must present legal arguments on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding their personal views. Judges must apply the law, even when they disagree with it. So too counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious values on their clients.

Ethics? I wonder what is their ethical foundation? But that's another discussion. What is important here is that the ACLU is becoming even clearer in their religious bigotry. Faith need not be accommodated or tolerated. No disagreement is allowed when it comes to the homosexual agenda.

My main point here is to the homosexual community, and it's not what you might think. When it comes to arbitrary class designations, be careful. The benefits of class are as easily arbitrarily removed as they are arbitrarily granted. Take the case of the two black girls last year who attacked the corss-dresser in their restroom. They fought to defend their dignity and almost got charged with a hate crime. It seems that the homosexual class takes precedence over other class designations -- in that case both black and female. The homosexual community is being used for political gain and nothing more. It is being used to manipulate society for the advantage of communist organizations (ACLU) and socialists (today's liberals in general) as they seek to incite revolution. Do not be surprised if you are called on to "occupy" something and disrupt society for no clear purpose or end. That is the ultimate status of a pawn. And you are almost there.

Just a Few Votes Away

2011-12-21T09:15:00.003-05:00

When the Left and the Right debate (and sometimes pontificate) on what being "Constitutional" means, very often both are right. It's not that non-contradiction has gone out the window. After all, 1 can never equal 0 and vice versa. What seems to be the case is that the America view of the function of government was in dispute even in the very beginning. It is not difficult to see this is situations such as the conflict between the justices Samuel Chase and John Marshall when they butted heads with Thomas Jefferson.

For almost 200 years the anti-Federalist position of Jefferson held sway -- at least until it was revived by Reagan. Though it does not exist today as it did before the Civil War, its current revival is being held up by people such as Clarence Thomas and his interpretation of the Tenth Amendment.

There are, of course the race-baiters who say, or at minimum intimate, that anything called "states' rights" hints of slavery. But the Tenth was not suspended at Appomattox. Neither was it nullified by the Fourtheenth or any other amendment. The principle of federalism -- distributed self-government -- is one of those principles which balances the centralizing authority of the Constitution with the original libertarian principles of those classic "liberals" who founded this nation.

There are some things that we know when we read the Constitution itself. Among the first observations we might make (given our current condition) is that the Constitution is not "dialectical" in its approach. The Law of the Land does not establish rule based on the resolution of conflict. For instance, the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of dspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This sentences provides solutions to matters of speech, faith, faith practice, assembly, and petition. It says nothing about race, class, economy, majority-minority, or any other concern. Most of that came much later.

Bertell Ollman of NYU accomplishes several interesting points as he promotes a Marxist interpretation of the Constitution. Among these points he "demythologizes" the the formation of the Constitution -- probably a good thing. At the same time he notes that the anti-Federalists were concerned about the economy supported by the Constitution. That is, those with little in way of resources would have little opportunity. Our open system seems to be more open to those with greater resources to take advantage of opportunity.

What the Marxist misses is that there is no pure democracy. There is no system where the opportunity of the rich, when removed, gives more to those without these same resources. Differences in personal capacities are too significant to ignore. Opportunity is a non-transferrable entity.

As we listen to the political rancor of an election period there is a note of libertarianism from both sides of the issue. One promotes the libertarian sense of open opportunity. That's the conservative position. The other promotes a type of managed opportunity. That's the modern liberal attitude. But libertarianism is not at the heart of either -- it is there, but it is ancillary.

Conservatism is not, as critics like to say, the conservation of what is old. Then they proceed to promote "progress" as the solution to human issues. But, following Russell Kirk, conservatism can be defined as a set of principles. These are (expanded here) [1]:

(1) Men and nations are governed by moral laws
(2) Variety and diversity are the characteristics of a high civilization
(3) Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own—to the things best suited to their own nature, to the rewards of their ability and integrity, to their property and their personality.
(4) Property and freedom are inseparably connected
(5) Power is full of danger
(6) The past is a great storehouse of wisdom
(7) Modern society urgently needs true community
(8) In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image.
(9) Men and women are not perfectible
(10) Change and reform, conservatives are convinced, are not identical: moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial

The liberal/leftist response to these is predictable. #1 violates "separation", #2 creates class, #3 creates inequality, #4 is unnecessary, #5 is ignored, #6 is immaterial in light of science, #7 they have already solved with unionization, #8 is adequate for today's world, #9 has been disproven by the last century of progress and the improvements to living conditions worldwide, and #10 even today's conservative accepts the various "safety nets" provided by liberals.

The conservative answer is equally measurable.
To #1: Ending slavery was most certainly a moral law, and the Fifth and Fourteenth are no more moral than the First or Second amendments. A moral and even religious informing of law are ciritical to justice.
To #2: Not even the most serious communist, let alone other liberal nation, has provided any functional example of a flat democracy. To suggest that the elimination of class can be accomplished while maintain anything other than the worse of police states is simply naive.
To #3: Ownership of property is fundamental to the practice of freedom. To be free is more than an internal sense.
To #4: Both the work and labor of the individual are necessary for freedom. Marxism removes property and so reduces freedom.
To #5: Leftists will speak of the power of the rich but never about the unnecessary policing powers of managed economies or private religious practice.
To #6: It is for this reason that Leftists view the language of the Constitution as "living" and subject to re-interpretation at whim. Even the old Rationalist approach must be tempered because no ideas arise from a vacuum.
To #7: Community is not in the province of government. This is the domain of private society. Only the most powerful of governments attempt to manage private life. (See #5).
To #8: Wilsonian foreign policy has led us into unnecessary wars and protracted entanglements. Containment failed -- North Korea and Communist China remain when their defeat was at hand.
To #9: The improvement of external conditions does not change the heart. Crime remains high.
To #10: These safety nets exist as corrections to the problems created by liberalisms. For instance, we have higher welfare rolls partly because of no-fault divorce which forces women into poverty. We have been made to depend on things like Social Security and private remedy is always opposed in favor of dependence.

A debate on these points could go on ad infinitum. Sut let's go back to the beginning. The concern is that the debate about what is Constitutional will be ongoing. Today's extreme leftist position will, I pray, fade away as people see the loss of liberty and the promotion of opportunity. We are just a few votes away from more liberty. Or less.

[1] Read more in The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk. He was a contemporary of Bill Buckley and Whittaker Chambers.

Excitement Trumps Excellence: Considerations on the State of Christian Education in Today's World

2011-12-19T07:55:00.001-05:00

John Fletcher Hurst provides us with a set of critical messages, first from Spener regarding the state of education around the time of the Reformation:

If one were to say that catechizing and the Christian instruction of youth is one of the principal, most important, and most necessary of our duties, and not of less value than preaching, would he not be contradicted or even laughed at by many uninstructed preachers, or by others ignorant of their duty, who seek only their own honor; as if such care were too small and contemptible for an office instituted for more important employment? Yet such is but the real truth. Meantime this duty is by many considered so ridiculous that there are preachers who think it degrading to their dignity to undertake it, or even see that it is diligently and faithfully performed by those appointed to it. It is no credit to our evangelical churches that catechetical instruction has been so little or not at all thought of in so many places; though even Luther recommended it so strongly, and gave us so many admirable writings to promote it. But now it either does not exist at all, or is performed negligently, and thrown almost entirely upon schools and schoolmasters.

"These duties should not have been left to schoolmasters; for these are almost wholly unfit to discharge them on account of their own meagre attainments. But preachers should recollect that the souls of the youth are intrusted to them, and that they must give an account of them. They should therefore submit to this as well as to the other duties of their office. It is not anywhere prescribed who among them should perform these duties. In places where there are several clergymen, and the pastors and superintendents are laden with so many other occupations that they cannot perform this duty, we cannot object to its being left for the deacons, or for others who may have more time for it. In large churches able catechists might be appointed. Superintendents, however, and theologians in high office would not do amiss if they would sometimes countenance this exercise by their presence, and even now and then perform it themselves in order to encourage others. If there were some who would voluntarily commence it themselves, it would not be interpreted ill, or thought below their dignity. "I have become acquainted with the character of most instructors of youth, and I find that their real aim is not to lead the soul of youth to God, but their pay also, that they are chiefly not fit to impart a correct knowledge of God since they do not possess it themselves. And indeed there are very many who have not a knowledge even of the letter of that which is or is not to be believed; much less do they comprehend thoroughly and spiritually what is the will of God in faith and its fruits. Catechizing is as necessary to the church as any other religious agency can be.[1]

The question is whether anything much has changed. At that time the church was the source for its own training -- task not left to the schools.

Now from Calixtus.

We have also the important authority of Calixtus on the sad condition of the education of the young. "The chief cause and origin of the decay of learning," says he, "now tending to extinction, (which may God avert!) I hold for my own part, to be this:--that the younger children are not well grounded in the minor schools. Foundations ought to be laid there, which might afterwards support the whole weight of solid learning and true erudition. The children ought to learn from genuine authors the Greek and Latin languages; the Keys (as they are) of those treasures which preceding ages have laid up for our use. And they ought so to learn, as to be able to appreciate the thoughts of others (specially of the best authors), and to express their own in suitable and perspicuous words.... But now, in many places, we see the reverse of all this. Before they can speak (passing by preposterously, the matters essential to ultimate success), the boys are made to proceed, or rather leap, to higher subjects; 'real' subjects, as we have learned to call them. Pedagogues of this stamp seem to themselves learned, whilst they are teaching what they have never themselves mastered; and what their scholars neither understand, nor at their age can understand. In the mean time the writings of those good authors, who, by all past ages, have been recognized as masters of literature and style, are struck out of their hands, and they (the schoolmasters) substitute their own comments; disputing in a circle of children about Anti-Christ and the doctrine of predestination. [2]

The remarks are scathing.

It does remind me of so many teachers of theology -- of all stripes. As they say, teachers speak of things that they have not mastered. Preachers preach of things that they have not mastered. Scholarship is of little concern. We would rather today, 500 years later, speak of the Anti-Christ than of the richness of redemption, the apologetic truth of the faith, the error of secular philosophy (especially the neo-Platonism of the rationalist), Excitement trumps excellence.

The solution is hard work. Construct a church educational program that encompasses all of the challenges of our day and attack the issues. Of course we will not do it. We're happy with a few lessons about Moses, Abraham, and Noah for the young children. So sense in making S.S. "no fun" and no sense in making adults do anything but feel good about their faith.

Ok, I'm pretty cynical about this. But look around and find a church that is taking the full scope of education seriously. They are few. And I am becoming pessimistic about the capacity of Christianity in the US (the West in general) to get past this challenge.

There is a solution. But do we want to hear it. How many pastors/preachers would hear this criticism of the then-equivalent of today's therapeutic sermon? [3]

A sermon on Zaccheus from the words, He was little of stature, claims for its theme, "The stature and size of Zaccheus." The first division is, he; the second, was; third, small stature. Application first, The text teaches us the variety of God's works; second, it consoles the poor; third, it teaches us to make amends for our personal defects by virtue. Tholuck well asks, who would imagine that the author of this sermon was the minstrel of "When the early sun arises," "Oh Jesus, all thy bleeding wounds," and so many other deeply earnest Christian songs which have touched the hearts of many generations,--the immortal Hermann von Köben? A pastor of Wernigerode preached from Matthew x. 30. His divisions were, 1: Our hair--its origin, style, form and natural circumstances. 2: On the right use of the human hair. 3: The memories, admonition, warning and consolation that have come from the human hair. 4: How hair can be used in a Christian way! A Brunswick pastor commenced his Sabbath discourse on one occasion with the words, "A preacher must have three things; a good conscience, a good bite, and a good kiss;" wherefore his transition was made to the theme under consideration: "an increase of my salary." But it is needless to continue illustrations of the almost universal dearth of preaching. One hardly knows whether to laugh at its absurdity or weep over its prostitution.

Does anyone wonder why secularism flourishes and evangelicalism, the most militant of orthodox theologies, is stagnant?

[1] Hurst, John F.. History of Rationalism (Kindle Locations 888-906) manybooks.net, and
Hurst, John F.. History of Rationalism Embracing a Survey of the Present State of Protestant Theology, 1895, Hunt & Eaton, 63-64.
[2] ibid, 907, 64-65.
[3] ibid, 971, 70-71

The Scope of Conservatism and Liberalism

2011-12-15T09:11:00.000-05:00

Here's a thought. More of a thought experiment -- just a starting point. The idea is that conservatism, at least in the U.S., is a populist movement while liberalism is a magisterial movement. That's reformation-type of language. Some history might be useful here.

Liberalism in the US was the grander system of governance proposed. Self-government itself is a liberal concept and the US was largely influenced by the several French schools. Certainly Rousseau among others.

But how did conservatism come to the U.S? Russel Kirk calls ours a conservative revolution as it found strong popular support in the positions of Edmund Burke. For instance, in dealing with the matter of excessive taxation ...

Soon, Burke became embroiled in a different political controversy. He and other Whigs charged the advisors of King George with funding the election of "placemen" to seats in the House of Commons. The king had appointed these individuals to government-paid jobs that had few or no real duties. Burke claimed that these "friends of the king" were conspiring to control the House of Commons and Pitt’s government.
Although historians tend to doubt this "conspiracy" amounted to much, Burke wrote a pamphlet on what he believed was royal tampering with the traditional roles of king and Parliament. "When bad men combine," he wrote, "the good must associate, else they will fall, one by one."

And this not far from the position of today's Tea Party or the specifically "social" conservative movement.

I seems that, at least at first glance, the tax revolt represented popular and commercial "conservative" ideals while the actual governing structure was "liberal" in philosophy. At least in today's language.

I wonder if the tension we have today is just a continuation of a tension that existed two centuries ago. Your thoughts?

The Election is Coming, the Election is Coming!

2011-12-09T09:07:00.001-05:00

Electioneering
Here in Ohio there is a battle brewing about congressional redistricting. Here are the current map and the proposed map.

As you can see many of the districts are changing significantly. Some are changed very little. Both look gerrymandered significantly. Both parties, after all, are about electing candidates and both will secure their relative significance. And this stuff is about maintaining electability (or virtual non-loss) by an agreed-upon number for each party. Some districts will be up for grabs but some will have a certain outcome. That's what redistricting is all about. So have the Republicans done anything that the Democrats have not done? Na. It's just that nobody likes to lose.

Stupidity and Willful Ignorance
Gary Younge describes the strong conservatives in the Republican party as "very wing of the party that had become so openly and virulently racist" that "they shouldn’t have" found a place for Herman Caine. Does Younge even know what "conservative" means -- a definition that lies outside of the pro-communist folks he is writing for? I hope he describes the anti-Jewish behavior (not the rhetoric) of Obama in the same terms -- but I won't hold my breath.

Then there is the ever-wrong voice of Fred Clarkson. First he quotes Rick Perry:

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.

Now let's wait and see if there ever arises an actual definition for "dominionism" which is deemed acceptable outside of political punditry. If it means "the institution of theological law" that might have a place. Some might even extend it to "law first informed by theology" and going further, "law first informed by a theological ethic" though that is pretty vague and hard to control.

I wonder how corrections to bad history (teaching that all our founders were hard Deists), teaching that a government free of religious influence was the intention of all the founders, or that "democracy" trumps "republic" as our form of government. There is much to fix. And though Perry's remarks amount to little more than campaign blabber, they do not represent a theonomy. There are reasonable voices which will continue to work against the ongoing secularization of culture -- which is in no way the domain of the federal government. History has had enough of Rousseau's damage.

The Result of a Lack of Theological Education

2011-11-16T09:37:00.001-05:00

Look beside your computer. You probably see a mouse, or perhaps a trackball. If you are like me there is a cup of coffee or tea. And some books. I've got a stack of three that I'm reading now -- The Peace Maker, Premarital and Remarital Counseling, and Android Wireless Application Development. In front of me is the obvious computer screen and keyboard. My time is now consumed with learning. I hope it always is.

Learning is education. Whether it is formal in the educational institutional, less-formal in the local church, or personal in one's own expanding library, what you read sets your course. Political blogs can give you a perspective on the political world. And the slant that they bring can be enlightening even if it comes from a direction which opposes your personal convictions.

When it comes to providing for the educational needs of those around me -- that's the challenge which I enjoy. It is my desire to teach and to do so without misrepresenting those who are my opponents or challengers. If I "fight fair" then I either win or I win by learning where I was in error. There is nothing to lose but my misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I like Calvinism. It says a lot about the sovereignty of God. Though there are some today who speak of it in terms of determinism and even fatalism, it is nothing of the sort. Human will is still free -- just without the libertarian sense that the Arminian and Pelagian would allow. Then again, the error of the Arminian and the heresy of the Pelagian help keep me in line theologically. That does sound a bit strange, doesn't it. How do they do that? They force me to continually re-examine myself to know that I am following within God's plan. It is tempting to act fatalistically if God is sovereign and their objection is refreshing.

But there are things that Calvinism is not. Calvinism has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with racism. Take this uninformed remark, for instance.

The doctrines of Calvinism and racism are not that many clicks apart in theory.

You know, life is rough enough, and church education is challenging enough, to make me wonder where nonsense like this comes from. And this following paragraph:

Author Charles Kimball reminds us of the link between John Calvin and the Religious Right. Calvin's Geneva was viewed by many on the right as a utopia. Religious Right historians claim John Calvin was the founding father of the United States. They do not mention that people accused of adultery could be executed. Neither do they mention of the case of Michael Servetus who dared to disagree with Calvin and was burned at the stake. The term "Reformed" seminaries or churches is often an indication that these groups are 5-point Calvin followers. Many of them are also R. J. Rushdoony adherents.

Oh, so little time. Let's see what we can correct here.

Not too many people are naive about the sometimes harsh character of Geneva, especially after Calvin. One man was, as I understand, punished for naming his dog "Calvin." And that Servetus case -- he was already under a death sentence by Rome and Calvin himself asked for a reduced, painless execution rather than the method used. Calvin was not in charge of Geneva at the time. He was involved, but was not entirely his call. [1]

The author if the cited essay has provided no documentation for his assertion about racism. Feeding his flock of like-minded secularists and leftists a set of false information seems to be his goal.

Now, he might find a particular point where some Calvinists and some racists make a connection. And he did with Christian Identity. But that is not a part of historic Calvinism, and it is not necessary that a Calvinist hold to those positions. This amounts to the most juvenile of fallacies -- broad-brushing. He is saying that if some are x then all are x. I would laugh if it were not a grown man making such ill-informed remarks.

Another silliness in his article would refer to Calvinism as "fatalism." These views are a later addition to Calvin's teaching and are frequently found in a method known as "philosophical theology" where the concept of sovereignty is re-packaged in alternative language. This is what got Jonathan Edwards in trouble. Though there is much more to say here, we should leave it at this: Fatalism does not represent what Calvin taught.

Finally, there is the dubious link between social matters (political control) and Calvinism (esp. the five points). First, these points, from Dort, were not a stand-alone treatise and core test of faith. Rather the council came about as a response to Arminius and his errors. They should not be separated from this history.

Calvin's points have nothing to do with the structure of Geneva. What so many miss is that all societies have structure and can not exist, as the US found under the Articles, under a libertarian system. Libertarianism fails when applied to government. We needed the Constitution and the centralization of power. And while I believe we have to day gone too far beyond the remedy that the Constitution provided, the fact remains simple: Proclaiming libertarian ideals against religious control while ignoring the necessity for control amounts to an ignorance of history. No weak government can survive -- none ever well. They end in either anarchy or as conquests.

Conclusion

It is articles like this that drive me to further education in the local church. We must challenge believers with a world view that will take them past the simple and help them go further -- with their families. Education must include direct Bible study, theology, history, and even political philosophy. A theologically informed and mission-minded church will grow. Let the postmoderns, emergents, leftists, and liberals ignore God. They are already fading from the scene.

[1] http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/calvin.htm

Welcome to the (worst of the) Progressive Movement

2011-11-14T16:24:00.001-05:00

For decades the pro-life movement has been talking about progressive eugenics. From long before Sanger, but reaching its peak with 1930s US and European policies, the eugenics movement has gone from distinction to an endemic philosophy. Today it haunts science with its utilitarian mask and proclaims that it can produce the sort of people that are most productive and beneficial. It is all about creating "Captain America" through science. Science, that is, as Reason without the need to answer to Theism.

Rock Center reports about eugenics in North Carolina.

Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967. The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized. Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes.

“I have to carry these scars with me. I have to live with this for the rest of my life,” she said.

Riddick was never told what was happening. “Got to the hospital and they put me in a room and that’s all I remember, that’s all I remember,” she said. “When I woke up, I woke up with bandages on my stomach.”

Can you read this without seeing it as racist, or at least elitist/classist? The language of "feeble" and "promiscuous" comes straight out of Sanger[1]. Certain behaviors are unacceptable and certain people are to be treated as inferior.

But these things do not happen any more, do they? Riddick was in 1967. Have things changed? Not much. In the 1990s (though it might have been in the late 1980s) Oklahoma treated black children with spina bifida differently, and the courts supported it. It never became a scandal because the children were black.

Many know of the work of Jill Stanek in exposing infanticide within the abortion industry.

Not much has changed.

This is a time for education. When you talk to proponents of abortion, mention Riddick. And when you talk to Christians who have suffered because of this progressive deception, proclaim forgiveness, mercy, and most of all grace. And when to talk to women in general who have also suffered: The message is the same.

[1] See Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion by Jean H. Baker. Baker notes that "there were political reasons for Americans to accept sterilization that grew out of progressive attempts to provide protection for the poor. Along with criminals whose antisocial instincts were no believed inherited by their children, the unfit were becoming expensive in an era that was installing programs and institutions to support those who could not take care of themselves." Sanger was a progressive through and through.

They Hate Christianity Soooo Much ...

2011-11-14T07:22:00.001-05:00

You've seen little children exclaim their love for Mommy and Daddy. With outstretched arms and a beautiful smile they proclaim their love "This much." It's a joy for any parent to receive, and joy for the child to give, and even a joy to watch. Some things are soooo special that they cannot but be appreciated by all.

Some hearts are filled with hate. There are those who hate the Christian faith so much that they will make the most ridiculous remarks. Often for silly political points. Tim Tebow must be a bad football player because he is a Christian. After all, "all the charisma, good looks, and athleticism in the world won’t help you play quarterback in the NFL if you can’t throw a football." Of course The Nation, Stalinists that they are, frame everything according to politics -- even faith.

Those familiar with the nature of leftist politics know that power is the key to their method. While all political methods require the use of power to accomplish their desired ends, the left differs from all others because it portends to be informed by Reason instead of Faith. Because Reason reigns there is no moral authority, no God and Judge, to which the Left will answer. Reason stands opposed to the Christian faith. Always has and always will.

So they proclaim "hypocrisy" because because of Tebow's Superbowl message. They call it "right wing" and "politics" while whining about being "silenced." Ok. Will The Nation allow editorials by Al Mohler or Joe Carter or Sarah Flashing or Nancy Pearcey or ... any of the other intelligent conservative voice? Na. And we don't whine about it either. Why? Because we don't need to support Stalinists. The nation does not need The Nation.

But this is also an opportunity to educate further in our local churches. In the near future I will publish a class curriculum to help develop the world view of the Christian. It will involve some serious reading. And it will require an instructor who is willing to take on some difficult challenges. But you will find it productive as you train your church in Christian thought and theology.

Threatening Public Officials in WISCONSIN - Documented

2011-11-10T08:06:00.002-05:00

This person, Joe Wright, should be investigated. At a minimum. One just does not say these things out loud. A call for assassinations is outrageous! Where is law enforcement? FBI? And who was it that Liked this post?

Christian Life Ethics vs the Four Walls

2011-11-04T09:08:00.001-04:00

It is a given that church life cannot be restricted to the four walls of our facilities. The Christian message of redemption, with all of its consequences and benefits, was never designed to remain within the walls of any facility. I would also contend that the fact of four walls of our facilities are actually part of the problem. More on the implications of that later.

The sanctity of human life has been part of Christian theology, and Jewish theology, for all time. The imago dei begins in Genesis and continues unabated. It is from this point that the modern pro-life movement takes a call. Life represents God's existence. To deny God is to deny our own humanity. Francis Schaeffer states it in these terms in A Christian Manifesto:

In contrast to the materialistic concept, Man in reality is made in the image of God and has real humanness. This humanness has produced varying degrees of success in government, bringing forth governments that were more than only the dominance of brute force.

and

We must understand that the question of the dignity of human life is not something on the periphery of Judeo-Christian thinking, but almost in the center of it (though not the center becuase the center is the exitence of God Himself). But the dignity of human life is unbreakably linked to the existence of the personal-infinite God. It is becuase there is a personal-infinite God who has made men and women in His own image that they have a unique dignity of life as human beings. Human life then is filled with dignity, and the state of humanistically oriented law have no right and no authority to take human life arbitrarily in the way that it is being taken.

At this point the Christian world view sits in clear opposition to modern secular materialism. But it is not just the materialism of Wall St. and Madison Ave. that is a problem. (The Occupy crowd is only half right.) Both capitalism and socialism are essentially materialistic. While Christianity has been able to influence at least a small segment of free enterprise and capitalism, the Marxist/Socialist movement has rejected the presence of a Christian ethic and its attempts to inform their world view. here is an example from The Nation where Patrician Williams delves into the irrationality of an undefinable humanity. She begins:

On November 8, Mississippi is set to vote on Measure 26, a ballot initiative that would redefine the state’s Bill of Rights to extend the protections of personhood to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” It is striking that the measure, which is largely motivated by religious concerns about the sanctity of human existence, crops up in a state that has one of the lowest indices for overall quality of life—whenever it might begin—in the entire country: the infant mortality rate over the last decade is about 10 per 1,000 live births, with black babies dying at twice the rate of white babies. Mississippi leads the country in obesity and ranks forty-sixth in the number of state residents who have health insurance. It suffers from high death rates from cancer and heart disease. Twenty-three percent of the population lives below the poverty level, giving Mississippi the unenviable distinction of ranking dead last in the nation.

Like all who come from the Left, she is partly right. Infant mortality is a problem. Infant mortality is also a racial/ethnic problem in many areas. But if we are to expect that socialism would actually solve this problem, then it is clear that she is among the most naive. Capitalism has minimized the problem, but only when it was informed by a Christian ethic. Even those components of the socialist/liberal agenda which present a reasonably sound ethos extend from a Christian world view[1]. She might as well have quotes the statement from Ezekial that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, when the says that "the killing of a human being, whether considered legally justified or not, is momentous, mysterious, a repercussive tragedy no matter how reprehensible the record of that life."

But unlike Judeo-Christian theology, Williams is entirely materialistic. There is nothing of eschatological benefit -- to end, no solution. Williams does not venture into any suggestion of a solution because she can not. Nor does she pursue a path toward a solution because for materialism there is no end. The Hegelian-Marxist dream of a better world, even as promoted by today's young progressives, has been reduced to a fantasy and is lost in pessimism. Enter empty materialism and the threat of apocalypse.

As I write, the seven billionth person is said to be entering this earthly dimension. That statistic has been reported with Malthusian apprehension, as well it might. The resources of the world are not infinitely replenishable; much of the planet’s ecology risks systemic collapse as a result of habitat degradation, global warming, invasive species and thoughtless exploitation; and the superpowers continue to go to war with one another over dismally non-sustainable energy sources like oil, gas and coal. Add in the uncertain-to-teetering economies just about everywhere, and it isn’t hard to fathom the dangerous contradictions of those who feel both deep resentment about the mad global competition to make ends meet, and simultaneously, a frantic “need” to propagate more of “our kind” because “we” are too few—regardless of actual numbers or common well-being. It’s as though we are walking a tightrope stretched between fetishism of the fetus and an abyss of human disposability.

She reads like Glenn Beck. "The world is going to end unless ..." has become tiring. Too many apocalyptic preachers have deadened our ears to the message of redemption. And now we conservatives are stuck with an apocalyptic Mormon. But the liberals/Left/progressives are equally stuck with the apocalypse of Gore and the concept of secular materialism. "The world will end soon ... if we do not keep aborting children," is her clear mantra.

There is no redemption in fear. And as far as secularism goes, there is also no progress in fear.

Now for the church: We of course need to be teaching a systematic Christian ethic in our churches. And by "systematic" I mean the full scope of Biblical exegesis coupled with application and challenge to the world around us. This needs to be done with youth groups so that they might be prepared to challenge secularism in the universities. Only then can they enter the business and academic worlds fully prepared to challenge the current dominant world view.

Education, done to its fullest possible extent, requires that we exit the four walls our facility. If Christianity is exclusively true, then so too is the redemptive message and the content of the ethic proclaimed.

[1] See John Gray's Black Mass, Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia and Klaus Bockmuhl's The Challenge of Marxism, A Christian Response, for analyses of the history and content of today's Leftist ethical system.

Occupy Leadership: Because NOTHING Happens In a Vacuum

2011-10-25T08:13:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post says that there is no leadership in this movement. The author of the article makes this statement
:

Implicit in this structure is also a rejection of the narcissistic, “I know what’s good for you” form of leadership, now pervasive in this country, in which lawmakers fail to consider the needs and desires of the people they claim to represent. The failure of representative democracy in the United States is perhaps one of the most serious problems of our time, and the Occupy movement is a symptom of this crisis of legitimacy. The people no longer trust their leaders and are even starting to indict the system itself. They think we can do better.

The movement is acknowledged to be political. The parallel is set against other movements, and the standard Leftist theme that "everything is political" makes its appearance.

In the 1960s and 70s, feminists convened consciousness-raising meetings aimed at politicizing the various forms of women’s oppression that were occurring in private. Women in the ranks were tired of being excluded from the inner circles of leadership where the issues and demands were being decided. And, they were sick of the generalized hypocrisy regarding gender roles. For this reason, feminist consciousness-raising eschewed formal leadership because each woman’s experience and opinion had to be valued equally. The personal was the political. (bold mine)

It seems that the occupy movement is some sort of experiment in direct democracy. When the author says things like "We are all leaders," we can be certain that this is an "anarchist-inspired" movement. Just as the author has stated.

So is this movement just a flash-in-the-pan event? Sooner or later, will these disgruntled students who took massive loans for meaningless coursework, go about creating their own income? Will they be willing to work jobs outside of their meaningless Columbia degrees? Will they produce, or will they continue to complain?

There is an irony to their complaint. Among their complaints is the bailouts given to Wall St. I think that was a problem as well. But who gave the bailouts to Wall St? Go protest Obama, Reid, and Pleosi! (But don't get your hopes up.)

Of course this could become (if the quantities of people increase and violence increases) a "stage 1" revolution where the people are turned on their government. (Stage 2 is where the attacks are direct and people fight their government. Stage 3 is where all parties lose hope and seek a new leader. That's how Lenin manipulated Russia from the outside.) Right now police and other public servants are being encouraged to turn on their cities.

There are some who parrot the WP article. Bill Berkowitz parrots the WP with the claim to it being leaderless. Be belittles the anti-Jewish flavor that has come on more than one instance. Funny how that works. For the Left, all conservatives/Republicans are racists and deserve the badge. But Leftists are somehow as pure as the driven snow.

At least Berkowitz acknowledged the place of AdBusters in the movement. And he acknowledges a few other notable problems. But it seems that these problems are to him just little ones. After all, the Right is always at fault. "The right is 'exploiting anti-Semitism'." Funny how that works. Better than defending it, protecting it, or minimizing it, Bill.

So where are we? Well, we have a supposedly leaderless movement which was instigated by Adbusters and some other influences. It operates on a revolutionary/anarchist paradigm. So far it is only able to raise sentiment but has the capacity accomplish nothing. To fulfill that goal -- actually being productive -- seems opposite its complaint.

Beck calls this Communism. I think that needs to be more specific. Let's try Leninism. It is revolutionary. The institution of a form of government comes after a revolution. But certainly the mindset behind this behavior can be traces to Leftist thought which comes from universities. These people have been educated in a mindset. The real leaders are the educators behind the scenes.

Now is the time (actually, yesterday was the time) for Christians to earn their higher degrees and enter the world of education. Christianity will lead to stability. Marxism only leads to anarchy, poverty, and death. As Russell Kirk noted, only the vermin survive a revolution. Only the redemptive message of the Gospel is suitable here as people prepare for eternity.

A Day with Ed Brayton

2011-10-17T17:02:00.003-04:00

aka Some Days Are Just More Fun Than Others

I have this unfortunate propensity to jump into conversations with challenges. Sometimes it works; sometimes not. Today was a so-so day. I went over to Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars and attempted to correct some errors. Probably not a wise move. What intrigued me was that TIU, parent of my current seminary TEDS, is running ads on freethoughtblogs.com. Seems counterproductive to me. But alas.

Now Ed is an interesting character. He is pretty good at analysis and can spot an inconsistency with ease. But an historian he is not. From his post it is clear that he has bought into the simplistic rhetoric that "religious right" == "dominion" and that the whole things is some grand scheme to overthrow the free world. Ok so far?

Now Ed has every right to his own opinion. It's a free country. Has been whether the president has been Reagan, Clinton, Bush (W), or Obama. Nobody is rounding up dissenters. (Well, there was that one unfortunate incident involving a tank against non-combatants.) What is interesting is the opinions that he encourages. My challenge to the reign of Rationalism garnered tis characteristic response:

“Something other than Rationalist values?”
“Other traditional matters?”
You can cloak it in whatever flowery language you want, but here is the reality of actual policy positions such people have actually been advocating:
-A nationwide ban on gay marriage, which helps nobody but actively hurts actual real-life gay people.
-Re-criminalizing homosexuality, in other words putting actual real-life people in jail for being gay.
-Official establishment of Christianity in public schools, in the form of mandatory prayer, sectarian bible study, and the censorship of science education according to religious dictates.
-A radical rescinsion of women’s reproductive rights, including not only abortion but contraception as well. In case you didn’t know, that translates directly into massive child poverty and women (actual real-life women) dying in back-alley abortions.
You can call it a defense of tradition if you want, but that’s the same rationale offered by the Klu Klux Klan. Strip away the spin and what you find is a wholesale assault on fundamental human rights.

Apparently any defense against rationalism means a whole bunch of insidious things. Apparently this makes me a racist, a murderer, completely unscientific, and a theonomist. Amazing. Truly.

But hey. This stuff is generally harmless. Isn't it?

This past year or so I decided to stay away from Crooks and Liars. To much uneducated rabble. No real intellectual interaction. I thought some challenge here might bring out a little substance.

Why would I think that? Well, about 3 years ago Ed banned me from his original Dispatches blog over at Science Blogs. Why? Because I referred to PunkEek as a type of saltationism. He thought that was too uninformed to deserve dialogue. (I took that banning as a call to study evolution as thoroughly as possible. It has been a fruitful experience.) Interestingly, I think Daniel Dennett has said the same thing, though some have called him to task for it as well. Still, it's not a completely uninformed opinion.

In short, that's the fun I had today.

Should "Talk to Action" be Silenced?

2011-10-13T10:11:00.000-04:00

Let's look at the situation, the question, and some potential answers. Then I'll give my take on it.

Bruce Wilson has his panties in a bunch because C. Peter Wagner has apparently called for the silencing of Talk To Action. Now, I am no friend of the world view presented on that site. But neither am I of the so-called "dominion" (an imprecise term, so read: Reconstructionist/post-millennial) perspective that the site regularly criticizes.

I'd be upset, too. That's not a statement to be taken lightly. It's not like we're all out burning their books. Despite the site's propensity to misrepresent dispensational theology (Rachel Tabachnick and Fred Clarkson) by either ascribing violence to it or placing it within the aforementioned movement, the site is a textbook example of fallacy after fallacy. Guilt by association. (Like Christian activism equals a violent jihad. Ya, right.) I guess a lie falls into the category of a fallacy. (It's not SCR, but ESCR that we oppose. Keep the facts straight and your argument either gains weight or loses weight.) There is plenty more, but this is enough for a short post.

T2A can rightly be classed as a hate site because of its inability to grasp truth and propensity to demonize things like the historic family. Those who disagree with the homosexual agenda are branded with that oh-so-effective "hate" moniker. Same goes with the "racist" brand -- easily thrown around. The site has even promoted the idea that evangelicals deserve less political influence than other citizens.

But I don't think it should be shut down. We have neither a dictatorship nor any other form of heavy-handed government. It's not like the Left has promoted shutting down Fox News (or calling in "dangerous") or shutting down Rush or other conservative voices. :-) Or controlling radio station ownership through some "diversity" doctrine. It's not like any Leftist radio network greeted the name of President Bush with the sound of gunfire. Or some Leftist two-bit broadcaster ever suggested that all Republicans be jailed.

There is something much better and far more effective than censorship. Exposure. Exactly the opposite. Read their material. Give it fair and accurate criticism. Let people know what lies and totalitarian garbage they publish. That's enough.

The End of the Christian Faith

2011-09-25T09:19:00.000-04:00

Just some basic considerations for Sunday morning to challenge the content of your worship.

It looks as though Vanderbilt University is ready to take control of religious organizations and even Bible studies. I wonder how long it will be until the believers there will, instead of hiring lawyers, simply practice their faith and let the Lord do something other than be a courtroom topic. (I Cor. 6:7) Even so, Martinez is not the end of the conversation.

So far the U.S. military has burned Bibles. This would seem to add a level of tolerance to the activity and even make it acceptable. Seems to be so to some.

We can ask "where's the media" and pretend that Glenn Beck actually has something to say on the subject. Like his political discussions and unitarian civil religion methods are actually representative of orthodoxy.

Christianity is not a political religion. (Ok, that's my premill coming out.) Though it carries some serious political implications (as do all world views), it's first message is not political but redemptive. But unlike those who separate faith and reality, Christianity takes the redemptive message to all corners of society. People redeemed from the practice of sin (John 8:11) as well as the spiritual consequence of sin. A new allegiance (Acts 16:31) is demanded. To many, even to many conservatives, that represents treason and must be controlled.

A gospel that is imminent and militant will first change us and then, as a consequence, change society around us. The second cannot happen until the first does. Those are some of the practical ends of the Christian faith.

Allotropic Evolution & Social Justice

2011-09-22T08:38:00.000-04:00

Let's say for the sake of argument that evolution does happen on the community scale. That is, traits develop and change based on some combination of group genetic interchange and function. Whether it is according to classic Darwinian adaptationism or modern neo-Darwinian genetic influence as the source is immaterial to this discussion. Either one works. The question here is: How does one population group survive and surpass the other? What is it that allows one group to go further than the others -- to own more land and to wield greater influence?

It is easy to read a simplified idea -- a group develops a trait and then, though intermingling with adjacent groups, the trait is passed on until it becomes endemic within the race/species. That is all well and good -- if the world was at peace. Did not all of the North American Indians get along peacefully until the Europeans arrived? Were not all of the African tribes at peace until the arrival of the slavers? Was not all of this caused by religion and is not Christianity the worst of the religious influences? There is more than a hint of a "noble savage" and liberal optimism about human nature influencing "science" on this issue.

How does a trait get passed on? With any honesty we can look at human history and say conquest is the system and dominant group breeding control the mechanism for trait dissemination.

How quickly we have forgotten that the melting pot of culture, the liberal world of the west, is an anomaly in the world, even today. Cultural groups remain separate and often isolated, only mixing within themselves. Culture is important. We might even call it a sort of social federalism because it reflects a sort of self governance that is taken for granted. Culture is by its nature conservative. It preserves both the content of society as it provides definition and its context as it clarifies the distinctions between various cultures.

It was not uncommon that one culture would conquer another. Duh. There were many social managements used in conquest. The Assyrians and Babylonians, as we read in Daniel and other ancient documents, would take the young men away to both marry and be educated in their system. That provided a genetic improvement and cultural education.

The Romans would often leave a culture intact while demanding tribute. At other times (Gaul in particular) the men were killed or enslaved, the women were taken as wives, and the land was inherited by these new occupants. What we call occupation today amounts to a mere military presence. For the Romans it was to occupy the land and the culture. It was conquest at the most fundamental level.

Now back to the issue: How are traits spread through allotropic evolution? One need take only this brief look at history to understand that conquest and enslavement were necessary components of evolution. Strong insects take more resources from their weaker cousins, diminishing their numbers and forcing them to adapt or die. Wild animals do the same. But not humans? Why not?

Conquest and enslavement are part of history and they seem to be a real part of the evolutionary story. It seems to be a part of allotropic behavior.

Is this a legitimate reason to reject evolution? Well, not specifically. We are are not dealing with the detail of the model here, but with the framework of the model. To be a little clearer, this is not a reason to reject developmental reasons why we have tall groups, short groups, darker and lighter groups, redheads and blonds. It is however a reason to reject the models built around those things as perhaps naive. That thing called "evolutionary ethics" seems unwilling to accept that the framework of their ethic appears to be a system which would reject their core ethical principles.

Does evolutionary ethics teach the dignity of the person? If it is evolutionary and if conquest and enslavement are necessary evolutionary components, then the inclusion of a modern concept of dignity is wholly arbitrary. It is not consistent to deny it on one hand and accept it on the other. We might even, and this seems correct, conclude that the evolutionist still wants to borrow Christian theological concepts to make the system appear nicer to the masses even though it denies the reality.

Things That Confuse Both Evangelicals and Liberals

2011-09-19T09:02:00.000-04:00

It gets confusing sometimes. Why do protestants so often cling to the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian nation" and why do liberals fight so hard to dismiss the idea? The again, why do liberals continue to use Christian language and ethical principles to reach their goals and yet say that "separation" is the standard? Are both groups being inconsistent with history? Are they being manipulative? Or maybe there is something else -- something even more nefarious? Or perhaps something really simple.

History teaches us. Well, history can teach us, but we have to learn from it lest the lesson fall on deaf ears.

So what is all this about a "Christian nation" anyway? Well, there are a lot who think that the U.S. is, because of its history, a protestant nation. That's pretty true. It's tough to argue anything else about the American population, except perhaps for Canada and Mexico. But sometimes origins and ownership get mixed up. This was, after all, just 200 years more or less after the Reformation. We can easily forget that. Time flies but ideas rarely take wing.

Mark Noll (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) notes (some of this is from his work and some are my conclusions from it and from other material) that protestants in the early days of the U.S. clung tightly to republicanism as the desired form of government. Not the capital-R political party, but the governing principle. To them it represented the best way to account for and deal with human freedom and moral responsibility. That remains the case today.

But things never stay the same. The 19th century saw a shift in protestant thinking. The world was getting better and better and missions and government became tools for the evangelical (and other protestants). Even rejecting Rauschenbusch's "social gospel" many protestants remained socially engaged. At least until the fundamentalist movement took hold in the 20th century.

The leftward swing forced evangelicals to sway back to their roots -- republicanism. But again it's not like this was a party matter on their part. We can hear it loud and clear today -- the constructionist view of the Constitution reflects the return to first principles. There is a rejection of the liberal whose loss of meaning (even in the simplest language) and regular calls for violent revolt are seen as socially destructive. And they are. Are they not?

Liberals cannot help but borrow Christian language and principles from Schleiermacher, Rauschenbusch, and Ritchl. They inherited the a religious tradition. Though these three had nothing at all to do with our nation's founding they did influence religious thought. They did not get it all from Marx and Hegel. Some, perhaps. But not all. What is unmistakable is how German these ideas are. Their liberalism contributed significantly to the problems (both of them) of 20th century Germany. Ethical standard with a Person to obey opened the door to all sorts if issues. Reason proved inadequate, and that's a fact of history.

Protestants did not distrust the Catholics because of their skin color. They distrusted Rome's theology and theocracy. They distrusted what Rome did to Europe and even to some of their own families and property. The Church of England represented the same thing to many, though perhaps in a lower form. Protestants in the 19th century U.S. were diverse but often worked together. From the Wesley revivals and onward the number of "born again" evangelicals in the U.S. grew rapidly and their social influence was unmistakable. Abolition.

It was liberal Sanger who distrusted the Italian poor because of their ethnicity.

Yes, only a few of the Founding Fathers were evangelical. And the founding documents represent a more-than-a-little influence from the French Rationalists. It was their disciples (like Jefferson) who maintained and attempted to contain slavery. (Liberals have tried containment twice now and it just does not work.)

Thanks to people like Edmund Burke the Rationalists were kept out of England. (So to speak.) The revolutions of Rousseau and Paine were kept at bay. Their influence in the U.S. is notable, but so was Burke's conservatism. And so was the evangelical protestant voice. A cacophony of world views and only one could end slavery. As happened in England, it was not the work of the Rationalists which could accomplish this task.

The rise of the evangelical voice today is no anomaly. The lull created by the mid-20th century fundamentalist was the anomaly. A loud protestant and evangelical voice is a social conscience. Like John the Baptist to Herod it is a call to a nation.

Reasons for Optimism

2011-09-15T09:28:00.000-04:00

It has been said by many that evangelicals (and I'm thinking of fundamentalists here) are pessimistic. The evangelical view of evangelism is that only a very few, a tiny minority, will be saved. Their view of society is that it is lost and there is nothing we might or ought to do to engage it. Their view of philosophy and thought is that these come from the mind of unbelievers and so are to be rejected out of hand.

This took a couple of centuries for us to perfect. Mark Noll (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, ch. 3) notes that American revivalism, entwined with republicanism, yielded an individualistic system filled with demands for immediate results. Add to this the intentional retreat because the presumed soon return of the Lord and you get a modern fundamentalism which is totally disengaged.

Well, not totally. The fundamentalist will speak from a distance -- through a sermon or broadcast. But seldom will there be a serious academic among them who will confront the issues at hand. Instead they will harken back to the pioneer days when sermons moved a nation, somehow imaging that the same method today will accomplish the same result. The nation and culture changed, but they missed it. The message may be correct but the method and medium are completely estranged.

The question that comes to my mind is whether engagement necessarily entails the idea of redeeming society. I agree with the fundamentalist that society in general is lost. But I must disagree with their near-Pietistic level of separation. If the call to evangelism is taken seriously then it is imperative that the believer be willing to enter all fields. A believer can competently enter the arts, no differently than anyone else. Same with the sciences. There is no "separation of church and society" in any document which would prevent us from doing this. And there is no sanctification mandate which would inform us to do otherwise. In face, the opposite is quite true:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. (I Cor. 5:9-10)

There is the door, if we are willing to walk through it.

To engage the world means to many that we must dominate the institutions of society. That is the perspective of the Reconstructionist and postmillennialist. As a method, though there is something to be said for its potential success, I am left questioning it as the place for the church. My thought has always bee, and this comes out of my dispensational heritage, is that the militant (intrusive and engaging, but not violent) church must train its people for furthering the Gospel into all corners of society. It matters not which government system is in place. Christianity flourishes anywhere everywhere.

There are several significant challenges which we face. One of the most visible is the political progressive movement. A lot of promise is placed in the capacity of the human will to take the race further. I wonder -- with the progressive movement failing so much, it seems that the skepticism about God might be easily abated with a bit of history. And while I hesitate to give a simple laundry list of cliche statements that will be quoted here and there. But a summary is necessary, so here it is:

The individualistic, revolutionary progressivism of Rousseau and Paine failed because it could not provide a cohesive enough nation to survive in the world.
The progressivism of the Unitarian (postmillennial) failed because good cannot be advanced through war.
The progressivism of Marx failed because the only things that survive revolutions are foxes and rats.
The progressivism of Wilson (and his corollary in Strauss) failed because no one nation can rule the world.
The progressivism of Darwin, who sought to explain the continued improvement of the species, failed because it was a science devoid of moral restraint.
The progressivism of Sanger/A.H. failed because we cannot perfect humanity through selective breeding or breeding limitation.
The progressivism of Stalin and Mao failed because a nation cannot be managed through scientific atheism, else it end in mass genocide.
And a prediction for the near future: Even today the progressivism of the (equivalent to the old) social democrat will fail because people refuse to be managed like cattle.

Behind each of these statements is a great deal of study. History books -- a lot of them. Sometimes more than I think I should be reading. But this is the imperative of the believer, for to be a disciple is to be a student. To understand history is to understand sin in its expression. The Bible records history both to show God's grace and to remind us of our excessive amount of sin, even among a people called by Him, let alone those who burned their children alive.

I am always optimistic. Well, almost always. Today's Christian apologetic is an offensive one. When we take the presupposition of God's existence into the conversation then we can see doors open for the advancement of the Kingdom. What God has to offer is more than progress.

To Think Within a Specifically Christian Framework

2011-09-13T09:43:00.001-04:00

"To think within a specifically Christian framework" is (what appears to me to be) Mark Noll's definition of that elusive thing called the "Christian mind."[1] But alas, the depth of this is not a part of church life -- at least not in most churches. He goes on and explains that this would and should encompass "the whole spectrum of modern learning, including economics and political science, literary criticism and imaginative writing, historical inquiry and philosophical studies, linguistics and the history of science, social theory and the arts."

Evangelicals have forgotten their roots. At least for the most part. The movement that we call "Baptist" finds in its heritage two segments of evangelical scholarship. First, there is the Calvinism which gave Baptists the doctrine of predestination. But it appears that many Baptists have forsaken the scholarship of Calvin and long ago jumped on the bandwagon of revivals and Wesleyan anti-intellectualism[2]. Were those schools which originated out of revivalism and the missions movement of the last two centuries[3] -- the Bible institute schools -- to return to the scholarship of past generations then perhaps their graduates would gain a greater deal of respect in the world and thus take the gospel even further.

The second character trait of the Baptist is found in their name. The re-baptizing upon a confession of faith -- anabaptist -- involved a great deal of Biblical scholarship and a willingness to stand on the Bible as authoritative in spite of the consequences. Anabaptists were severely persecuted in their early days but today represent a significant part of protestantism.

The evangelical mind is Biblical and the evangelical mind is engaging. And on the negative side the evangelical mind is not compromising. There are theological trends today -- we call them "postmodern" -- which have a destructive appeal. In all of these you will find that one's relationship with God does not simply include your relationship to each other and the world, but is actually defined by it. In other words, things like repentance from sin is not a specific act but a relational act. If you get along with people and feed the poor then you are right with God.

Noll cites the studies of Numbers and Boyer with a sobering conclusion. It is that "no responsible Christian teacher in the history of the church ever endorsed before this century came to dominate the minds of American evangelicals on scientific questions."[4] Evangelicals do not know history and the history thought. Is it enough to say that the Bible is true while science marches on with all of the errors of rationalism raising it to a place of political authority. As we let the situation continue, will it be inappropriate to anticipate the soon rise of a new form of "scientific atheism" with all its destruction?

To know why the church is here would be a good starting point. Could it be that the anti-intellecutalism of the fundamentalist mind is actually a compromise? Perhaps we have joined with the world in separating faith and reason and actually practice the Platonism which we would verbally deny? The Christian might do well to read History of Rationalism: Embracing a Survey of the Present State of Protestant Theology[5]. This book does not provide answers. It provides historical perspective. It will tell you how and why you are thinking and what went on not only in the US but in European nations as well. It will help you understand how Germany went the way that it did -- from the Thirty Years War to the Kaiser and his companion Social Democrats and on to the subsequent socialism which would destroy the nation again. History is bloody, but it is ideas which drive people to act. Understanding your thoughts and become more clearly Christian is the goal.

So what else is going on today in Christian thought? In the blossoming field of women's ministry there is a move to the "relevant" things. Women teachers are raising some troubling positions: If IVF or other mechanism work for having children, is there any reason to raise ethical questions? If science provides the solution to my immediate problem and makes me happy, why shouldn't I accept the solution? In these situations the Bible is reduced to therapeutic resource. It's not that these teachers will treat it as not the "word of God" but they have reduced the authority of the Word to the circumstantial. It is a shallow theology.

Rachel Held Evans complete failure, even though a seminarian, to grasp the core hermeneutical issues, says of the complementarian/egalitarian debate on the application of the Scripture to life, that

Our rationales for selectivity are often thoughtful and reasoned. I think most complementarians would agree that Christians don't need to live by "every word" of the Bible, that there are things to consider like Old Law vs. New Law, universal commands vs. culturally specific commands. We are all selective, so let's stop accusing those who select differently than we do of usurping the authority of Scripture. It's hypocritical and it's a straw man. (emphasis in original)

Hmmm. Well, she got it part right. She does note that there are differing hermeneutical approaches and she does note that there is a need to, in some cases, agree to disagree. But what she missed, and this is significant, is that the literal (reading further in her post) approach to the Word is not a flat approach but does accept the matter of "universal" and "culturally specific" questions. But the question is deeper than the culture calendar, and this calendar seems to drive the egalitarian. Even with in the world of Christian thought as it is, Evans is not even fairly representing the alternative position.

Even with in secular education it is not difficult to find trained Ph. D. professors (full or otherwise) who jump into subjects and language which they do not understand. (And I am fully aware of this, having made a total fool of myself on multiple occasions and at this point only maintaining a baccalaureate degree.) Jason Rosenhouse, for instance, does not seem to have a grasp of what the term "theocrat" means, nor does he seem capable of viewing science outside the world of evolutionary theory and seems to use the terms interchangably.

Something as simple as a grasp of language would be a core starting point for Christian education. Add to that the philosophy of science (a niche which I'm certain Noll would include within either science or philosophy) with some better, more precise understanding would be an area of Christian study. But because it is difficult to find a Christian institution which can cover this field the studies will need to be done in a secular university. That's not all bad, though. Once a Ph. D. is attained then the Christian with an expertise which is informed by theology can enjoin academia to a higher level of discourse. This will not happen overnight, though the imperative remains.

There is a edge that we might take advantage of. Liberal education has become so dismissive of knowledge that it might now be up to the Christians to be the ones, as it was in old Ireland and other areas of Europe, to retain and preserve knowledge. We can show that religion in general [6] and Christianity specifically are not only not opposed to knowledge but also work to advance knowledge.

The educational institutions are not the only ones with a problem in front of them. As with the early days of Sunday School actually being school for children in need, today's local church would do well to restructure its functions to take adults further. Then, when higher-ed institutions start receiving a stronger student base, the educational content will improve. At least that's one scenario.

However we do it, the challenge sits right in front of us. We must not think that there is no elephant.

[1] The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, p. 7.
[2] Discussed by Noll, p. 10ff, and noted by Kirk, The Conservative Mind, 7th. ed., p. 136
[3] Noll, p. 18-19
[4] Noll, p. 14
[5] Also see Noll, p. 19. This represents the connection between theology and other areas of study. Hurst wrote the history in 1865 and it represents the work of a theologian and historian, very similar to what Mark Noll is doing.
[6] Even Islam during its "golden age" was the preserver of a great deal of the ancient knowledge. We might be tempted to consider the Islamist as something less than "academic" but a great quantity of them are bi-lingual, knowing both their national language and Arabic. In contract the American Christian is often barely capable, like most of our compatriots, of capably handling a single language.

Joke Science

2011-09-12T09:41:00.002-04:00

First a parallel. In theology we have a segment of the field known as "philosophical theology." One way to view this is to think of it in two more distinct sections. We might call one the "philosophy of theology" where the logical structures and arguments are examined and analyzed. For instance, Jesus used an ad hominem argument against the Pharisees to expose their hypocrisy. And in Romans we are presented with a series of deductive arguments regarding humanity and sin (eg. Romans 4:1-4).

The second section might be termed "theological philosophy." In this area we see a use of theology in a unique fashion. Instead of being essentially exegetical it becomes abstracted. The theology morphs into a system of ideals which are then available for combination with other abstractions. Reading a system of this type would remind software developers of classes and other containers which are reusable when combined into new applications. The rightness, wrongness, or propriety of this is not up for discussion right now. The point here is to give the reader a framework for observing some of the issues in "science" that are headed in the same direction.

Joke Part 1: Confusing Science and Evolution

Talk to a High School science teacher and ask "What is science?" The answer you get will be, more than likely, something of an empirical nature. And of course "science" is definable in terms of methodologies other than traditional empiricism. There is the "model" approach which can make predictions or emulate or perform other tasks as needed. Other concerns might also be covered, but they are too extensive to describe here.

We know the confusion of, during a discussion, when one's opponent defines a term as "a" and then later in the discussion changes the definition to something modified (to "a prime") just to win a point. When we catch this then the opponent's point fails. But when their point is not caught, though the argument may be won, the point remains weak.

So what does modern "science" teach us? Now we need to clarify the term. Is science the predictive modeling process or is science the post-test proof? Is the theory structure itself science or is it the results that count?

In his "scientific" argument against original sin, Jason Rosenhouse has pulled a "Rachel Maddowism" [1] by altering his definition of science during his argument. He uses the term quite broadly at the beginning:

One of the many problems modern science poses for Christianity is the question of how to understand original sin.

Having read his material for several years, this use of the term can be understood as a combination of empirical evidence and the results of model predictions with both predicated on metaphysical naturalism. This is clear in his subsequent statement:

Moreover, evolution makes clear that humans arose through eons of natural selection.

In this "evolution" is the matter of model prediction with its commensurate assumption.

Now let's return to Dr. Rosenhouse's starting point. We have taken a step from "science" to "evolution" and the two have become interchangeable. Is it "science" generally which raises the question or is it one specific scientific discipline and set of assumptions which have become the argument? The latter seems to be the case.

It is a common assumption that one cannot to science without an evolutionary framework. The process has spread into other fields such as morality, ethics, politics, and social sciences despite the objections of the physical scientists. But this is different. This approach equates the two so that when one says "science" then one can also say "evolution" and do so with impunity. His concluding paragraph:

In science, it is fairly common to face the following situation: A theory works pretty well and explains a fair amount of data. But then some anomalies arise. Do we need to discard the theory completely, or is it just a matter of fine-tuning a few details? That is not the case with original sin. It is not as though we used to have really good reasons for thinking it is a valid and useful notion, but then modern science came along to provide a few distressing anomalies. Actually all we ever had was an ancient, Biblical account that told a pretty clear story about human sinfulness and its affect on the world. There was never any particular reason to think that story was true, and science now shows it to be completely false. But instead of throwing the idea of original sin straight in the garbage where it belongs, a lot of really smart people tie themselves into knots summoning forth strained reinterpretations of the doctrine. It is beyond comprehension to me that anyone could think this is a valuable use of time, or that our knowledge or understanding of the human condition are advanced, in even the slightest way, by such investigations. (underline mine)

This is the confusion that approaches the incredible. He now treats science as an explanatory theory structure. It is not predictive as one might find with empirical formulas. And it is not a matter of positivist results which is demanded so commonly today. His standard is also quite clear: How to deal with the details which conflict with the model. His demand is not unreasonable. Any systematic must be refined to answer these issues, and all doctrinal statements are summaries of Biblical teachings put into a systematic statement. This standard holds for evolutionary theory. What's good for the goose ...

At this point let's also note his formal conclusion regarding the doctrine of Original Sin and the Biblical record: "science now shows it to be completely false." That leads us into ...

Joke #2: What the evolutionary model predicts
What happens when an evolutionary model makes a false prediction? Should it be discarded as false? Should its error be glossed over? Or should we just talk over the issue and put on a mask of certainty. Randolph Schmid, the AP Science Writer, recently presented us with one of these situations in his article about the 'Game-changer' in evolution from S. African bones.

On the one hand, Darryl DeRuiter of Texas A&M says:

"This is what evolutionary theory would predict, this mixture of Australopithecene and Homo," DeRuiter said. "It's strong confirmation of evolutionary theory."

Ok. That is scientific modeling as an explanatory structure, and "predict" has nothing to do about the future, except for the anticipation of forthcoming evidence. The question here is -- is this correct? Does this represent the reality of the scientific predictions? The article goes on to say that

"For example, in previous definitions of our genus, the leading edge in the emergence of Homo has been brain enlargement. The sediba bones show, however, that reorganization of the brain and pelvis typically connected with the evolution of Homo need not have involved brain enlargement," he noted.

Now we appear to be approaching some serious confusion. Were the older models that made an alternative prediction, and which were presented as settled science, wrong? How wrong were they? Is this prediction wrong? How wrong?

The problem is an extensive one. And it is also an emotional one. Anyone here really think that a scientists who accepts evolution will ever throw out the theory because of the many regular contradictions which arise? Think the set of assumptions can be challenged in academia even when shown to be wrong?

Conclusion
This type of science amounts to a joke of sorts. Of course there is a lot of good material which accurately describes the world we live in. But when error is glossed over as though nothing really happened, then we have ample cause to question the framework used to build those predictions. We have cause to call for dismissal of predictions that are so erroneous that they cannot be corrected but must be completely dismissed.[2]

We must keep our definitions in order and our methodologies consistent. It is apparent that the secularist is often incapable of this.

[1] Rachel Maddow has been criticized harshly for her willingness to say "A" and "not A" in the same comment in order to make a point. She recently did this with regard to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's handling of the Wisconsin debt situation. She did it in her earlier days on Air America in an interview with Max Blumenthal, 8/14/06, where she could not decide whether evangelicals were essentially anti-Jew or pro-Jew. So she said both and with either she intimated racism. Such is her method.

[2] Buy Stephen Gould's Bully for Brontosaurus and keep it on your shelf as a reminder of bad science being held up as accurate and valuable. Remember: There was never such an animal as a brontosaurus.

Movie Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-08-28T19:10:00.003-04:00

Ok, we can all rest assured that one of my conclusions is quite simple: The movie smacks of the standard Godless character of Hollywood. God has little or no place. Now that that's out of the way ...

First, the movie is positive. It promotes patriotism, but not a mindless patriotism. It promotes the defense of freedom. And it does something which is not popular in Hollywood -- it opposes the internationalist. The "bad guy" (played by the very respected Hugo Weaving) makes it quite clear that one of his goals is to eliminate national borders. That's not normal fare from the Left Coast. The Matrix promoted, in the last scene, the idea that we (for some reason) might actually want a world without borders. Those two miniscule statements reveal something important about the writing and direction of this movie that is noticeable especially when set against its opposite.

Second, the movie is positive. It promotes the idea of a willingness to serve and even sacrifice one's self for a greater good. Since so many movies preoccupied with self, it is refreshing to hear something resembling the Christian ethic step out so clearly.

Third, the movie is positive. It looks toward a better future when evil is dealt with. Winning is the goal. Containment is not acceptable. The fight was taken to the enemy with the express goal of wiping out the enemy. That is what (the tragic necessity of) war is about. Our nation became war weary when we settled for a truce in Korea and a politicized loss in Viet Nam. Your UN-supporting tax dollars at work. This movie hints at none of that nonsense.

Finally, the movie is positive. But this last one is different. Part of the story line was the construction of the perfect soldier -- one fighting for good and the other for evil. But both represent genetic engineering. Though the idea reflects the progressivism of the era (a theme which today's progressives do not like to discuss) this seeming positive shows something very frightening about genetic engineering. And the pragmatic approach that is taken can be just as dangerous. Any time we say "whatever works" and have no moral constraint we end up in situations that could not have been predicted.

Think of this movie as an old-style progressive set of ideas combined with something of American Exceptionalism. It is a unique package and, I think, might provide young people a good hint at some of the attitudes of the era.

I want a vibranium shield for Christmas.

The Ignorant and the Lazy

2011-08-26T08:18:00.006-04:00

Not long ago we were treated to a series of slurs regarding Nancy Pearcy and Francis Schaeffer. Among the pop-slime were the claim of "dominionism" and some form of "dominion theology" as well as a purported call for violent by Dr. Schaeffer. Joe Carter responded with a quality piece regarding the recent history of the term "dominionism" and Nancy Pearcey followed suit.

Unfortunately false information often gains a life of its own. You just cannot keep a good lie down.

Chip Berlet, with Political Research Associates, has an essay on "dominionism" on PRA site. He states that it will be updated. I trust what is there will not change (and be lost to the ether) but that another will be put up as a new version. But just in case ...

Consistent with Joe Carter's assessment, Mr. Berlet acknowledges that Sara Diamond was the source for the term.

In a September 1994 plenary speech to the Christian Coalition national convention, Rev. D. James Kennedy said that "true Christian citizenship" involves an active engagement in society to "take dominion over all things as vice-regents of God." Kennedy's remarks were reported in February 1995 by sociologist and journalist Sara Diamond, who wrote that Kennedy had "echoed the Reconstructionist line."

Mr. Berlet has a concern, which he states quite clearly:

So let's choose our language carefully, but let's recognize that terms such as "dominionism" and "theocracy," when used cautiously and carefully, are appropriate when describing anti-democratic tendencies in the Christian Right.

He believes that there is an anti-democratic tendency. Hmmm. And he finds this where? He looks to the use of he mandates in Genesis.

This highly politicized concept of dominionism is based on the Bible's text in Genesis 1:26:
• "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Version).
• "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (New International Version).

So far, so ... at least we understand the issue. But there is something missing here, and it absent the precision necessary for a precise definition. This passage actually has two mandates regarding dominion. The first is a creation mandate and the second is the (and this is the issue of concern) thing that the Reconstructionists (and other postmillennialists) call the "cultural mandate." The two are quite distinct, which he noted but apparently wished to ignore in order to make a different point.
Here's the first problem: Anyone who holds to a more moderated creation mandate may, by employing Mr. Berlet's method, be classed as a domionist because their position depends upon the same passage even though the interpretation and application differ greatly. This is the sort of slip-shod logic which creates problems like we have today.
Mr. Berlet seems to enjoy a hasty generalization as well. For instance, the popular Christian consensus of the early population of the United States is historically undeniable. This influenced may of the laws of the nation as well as local religious involvement in government. One should not think that prayers in school arose out of nowhere, or that prayers at government meetings were introduced by religious radicals. It was the religious character of the nation. America was originally "Christian" in its shared ethic. An all those "blue" laws where stores were not allowed to be open on Sunday, as well as the illegality of homosexuality. And much more. The predominance of the Christian ethic cannot be ignored in American history.
But this can be written off with ease because so many secularists want to believe that the Rationalism of Jefferson permeated society. Somehow the religious neutrality type of secularism has become a religion-free secularism and the U.S. is not to be considered a Christian nation. So Mr. Berlet can now make this accusation:

Open advocates of dominionism declare that "America is a Christian Nation," and that therefore Christians have a God-given mandate to re-assert Christian control over political, social, and cultural institutions. Yet many dominionists stop short of staking out a position that could be called theocratic. This is the "soft" version of dominionism.

Ok. So the Wesley revivals and the religiously-influenced laws and cultural character of the US never happened. And if they did, then you are a dominionist. It's easy; too easy.
Ok. At several points he says that there are moderate evangelicals who work within the democratic system. But what he fails to do is to identify a way to draw a distinction. His definitions are so fluid that, even my own Ryrie-esque dispensationalism, classic Calvinism, coupled with a pretty good grasp of history and philosophy and a desire to engage and even make changes in the political landscape, would meet his definition. Never mind that positions such as mine are functionally compatible with a constitutional republic -- if I seek to influence laws with an ethic which is not sourced in rationalism then I would easily fit the (soft) dominionist category.
It seems that the only evangelicals whom Mr. Berlet will tolerate are those who will go along with the secular agenda.
Mr. Berlet defends the secular agenda against the position of Tim LaHaye:

According to LaHaye, adultery, pornography, and homosexuality "are rampant" and this is evidence of the warning by Schaeffer's "that humanism always leads to chaos.

Mr. Berlet appears to view this as a reactionary position. I would posit that history says otherwise. What Schaeffer called "humanism" I will re-draw as the Rationalist movement. This movement created the U.S. and early-on it created the French Revolution and Napoleon. It brought us Hegel and Marx, and with them Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. The results were mixed, to say the least. The U.S. did not follow the problems of Europe, according to Russell Kirk, because of the influence of Burke who kept the movement from destroying England.
But after Hegel the movement changed. We got Marx and the call for revolution. Some revolution was violent but much was not. The theme has become "subvert the dominant paradigm" and criticism of religion became the first attack point of the movement. These are necessary steps for the implementation of a secular state.
I watched on C-Span the anniversary of the Berlin wall raising, along with honor given to those who died attempting to escape East Berlin. One of the speakers was quite clear that human rights are not self-evident. That nation suffered through a series of dictatorial issues which proved, to them, that both natural right and rationalism had failed. This is the chaos of which Schaeffer spoke. It is the chaos of which most Americans are only remotely aware. Burke saved us from becoming Europe.
Likewise Whitaker Chambers warned that a secular state not informed by theology will proceed down the same path, though perhaps taking a different turn here and there. The problem with the Rationalist movementis that it refused to be constrained by religious (Christian) ideals. So if we went back and started over with the same system we will still end up with a totalitarian solution. It may be a different type of totalitarianism, but totalitarianism it will remain.
The 20th. century tried "scientific atheism" and it failed miserably. Should we continue down the path of becoming a nation driven by "science" then we will continue to recreate the same problems again and again. We do not experiment on the infirm, but we do experiment on those who will are not able to respond. We do not gas a population after declaring them less than human but we do define humanity arbitrarily and allow the killing of those outside that definition. We do not commit genocide ourselves, but we do blame that little nation for many of our international woes and today are giving military support to their enemies.
Mr. Berlet is partly right. There are certain theological issues. But a lack of precision amounts to error and confusion. It misleads the reader. Whether you agree or disagree, "don't embarrass yourself by not doing some homework."

Conservatism and Christianity

2011-08-22T06:44:00.002-04:00

The case has been made by many that evangelical Christianity and American (including British) conservative political theory are compatible. That is, they are functionally compatible and are capable of working together as partners. This is opposed to any sort of ontological compatibility. In that case one could say that to be "Christian" is to be "conservative" and that is not at all the case.

The compatibility also has its negative characteristic. Christianity is clearly at odds with liberal theology. Christian theology does not see humanity as basically good, but fallen and in need of redemption. Much has been written about that and we will not pursue the issue at this time.

The question that I raise now is the degree of compatibility between evangelical theology and conservative principles. Conservatism today differs little from conservatism in its early days though it has taken on some new characteristics.

One of the founders of 20th c. conservatism, Russell Kirk (The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot) provides some insights for us as to the reasons for the changes we see today.

Kirk notes that James Burke, whom he sees as the proper founder of modern conservatism, the core of conservatism is the practice of "prejudice and prescription." (p. 1) In this case prejudice is not racial as we would use the term to day. Rather it is that simple willingness to draw distinctions between bad, good, better and best. This says something about the fallenness of humanity -- progress is not possible. Though we can do better, and often do, it is not from an innate goodness as the liberal might say, or out of program as the progressive might say. Rather it is the result of proper choices made by way of our prejudices.

But these prejudices do not stand alone. Prejudice without prescription is a commonplace issue. The prescription of the conservative, in Burke's case, was natural law. Burke rejected the alternative of natural right for its arbitrariness.

For these several reasons, Burke rejects with contempt the arbitrary and abstract "natural right" of the metaphysicians, whether of Locke's school or Roussseau's. Yet natural principle society must have, if men are to be saved from their passions. What other basis exists for realizing the natural moral order in society? "Reason," Voltaire might have answered; "Utility," Bentham was to say; "material satisfaction of the masses," the Marxists would reply six decades later. Burke looked upon reason as a feeble prop, quite insufficient for most men; utility was for him a test only of means, not of ends; and material satisfaction an aspiration grossly low. Another foundation for social principle is Burke's. "Obey the divine design" -- so one may paraphrase his concept of obedience to a natural order. By a proper regard for prescription and prejudice, we discover the means of dutiful obedience. The collective wisdom of the species, the filtered experience of mankind, can save us from the anarchy of "the rights of man" and the presumption of "reason." (p. 57)

Here Burke, and Kirk, separate conservatism from several varieties of liberalism. Though one might be tempted to accept an Hegelian model as equally "conservative" on account of its heavy use of prescription, his model is also rejected on account of its lack of foundation. Like the natural rights system it is arbitrary and focused on power and determinism (p. 40, "an arbitrary, unreasoning urge").

It is the prescription which we do well to note, and for Burke that was Natural Law. As we read in the quote from Kirk above, it is a matter of "divine design" for dealing with the human condition. Kirk follows Burke maintains the eschatology of humanity with Christianity and not with the liberal.

This opens the door for new ethical arguments,new prescriptions, to enter the conservative world. Since the time of Burke (and Kirk) we have come up against a more refined eugenics argument. It is no longer a matter of reducing the minority population, as taught by Sanger and practiced by Planned Parenthood. We now add to conservatism the prescription of a Christian ethic regarding the whole schema of reproductive technologies. Some accomplish this through natural law theory and others through a "reformed" approach to the question. There are likely other methods. In either case, though, the conservative model has become a suitable mechanism for carrying Christian ethics and influence into the public arena.

The framework of conservatism thus has the capacity to serve Christianity. Conservatism is malleable, and that is a good thing. But this is also where some caution is required. A philosophical system may serve the advancement of the Gospel, but in itself is not the advancement of the Gospel.

Natural remains, at least as a remnant, in conservative theory. In the late 20th c. Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., brought a strong Roman Catholic influence to the conservative movement. And with Roman theology comes natural law. Still, the "party elite" that would serve the conservative movement, today the Republicans, have become mere pragmatists. There is no conservative party though there is certainly a liberal party; in fact there are several which differ mostly by degree. But given the elections of the past 30 years, beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1980 and going through today's "tea party" movement. Given the control of the liberal party it is a wonder that conservatism has made any real difference, let alone won any significant elections. But with its theological foundation it will continue to win.

The Unity of Scripture: Hermeutical Issues and Their Consequences

2011-08-17T13:12:00.005-04:00

A response to Jason Rosenhouse.

Theology is not for academics. We are all theologians at some level when we open up the Bible and read it. The meaning of words becomes clear and the content is given application to our lives. The work of theology is not some abstraction to be left for the seminaries and colleges while the rest of us "live by faith." Faith is reinforced with knowledge and understanding and this is both a principle and a command in the New Testament (2 Peter 1:5). The Bible knows no fixed distinction between knowledge and faith.

In his No One Like Him (Hardcover): The Doctrine of God, John Feinberg outlines the various approaches available for dealing with the doctrine of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 (p. 574ff). These are the Day-Age (592), twenty-four-hour-day (597),and literary framework (603). All of these fit into, or may if they are handled properly, the methodology we know as "literal interpretation."

We should be clear on what "literal" means. Sproul & Packer (Knowing Scripture, 54) providet his quote

We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

That statement is very clear. We hide under God's wing, but God does not have wings. That is a metaphor for God's protection and we accept it at that. In this sense we give attention to the meaning of words and phrases. The question comes when we ask whether this approach can be applied to larger passages -- whole sections -- and not just to sentences.

For instance, the "literary narrative" approach can be useful here. When we read Genesis 1 & 2 we see more than a discussion of creation. We see the Fall. We see the nature of God. We see the need for a "rest" which becomes a dominant theme through the Bible. There are multiple topics intertwined in this section.

Boyd and Eddy (Across the Spectrum, 93) identify one issue.

Some conservative evangelicals object to the literary framework approach to Genesis 1 on the grounds that it acquiesces to liberal theology. A good deal of liberal theology is premised on the mistaken notion that people can embrace the symbolic meaning of an event while denying the event ever literally took place.
The truth of the matter is that the literary framework interpretation of Genesis 1 has nothing in common with the agenda of liberal theology. The reason liberal theologians sometimes deny events such as the incarnation or resurrection is that they find Scripture impossible to believe.

As evangelicals committed to the grammatical-historical approach we may employ the literary narrative differently than do the liberals. The liberal says it is either true or simply a metaphor. We of course reject that not only on historical grounds but also as a reflection of the destructive power of the error know as Rationalism, identified in theology as Modernism. It is a conflict between faith and fact which need not exist.

Our alternative approach is a "whole package" approach. The passage, is a discussion of multiple topics all woven into a single narrative. It does not matter whether one is a YEC (6/24-hour day) or Old Earth creationists. For each, and all in between, though there be a difference on the understanding of numbers and time, there is no difference in the claim of creation and the doctrines which accompany it. (This, of course, leaves TE (Theistic Evolution) outside the camp of literal interpretation.)

Now to the topic at hand. Dr. Rosenhouse has given us a mixed bag. On the one hand he understands some core principles of literal/grammatical-historical interpretation. And yet, well, I'll let him speak for himself as he defends the position of Jerry Coyne against a critic.

I would flesh out Jerry's question by looking at other places where science prompted a reconsideration of scripture. Giberson mentions the case of Galileo. The ninety-third psalm asserts, “The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, [wherewith] he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” (KJV) That certainly makes it sound like the earth does not orbit the Sun, and it was taken to mean precisely that for quite some time. But a modern reader could reasonably reply that nothing central to the Christian faith rides on this point, and that the Psalms represent a genre of writing in which we expect poetry and symbolism. Asserting the the Earth cannot be moved can readily be given a poetic meaning.

His treatment of "moved" as having a meaning that is not terminal with the word itself seems to have a handle on the question. But he has only one way to go with it -- "poetic" is the end product. What he seems to be missing is that the terminus of literal interpretation is not with the word but with the whole package -- words, language, and the author's intent. Culture even plays into this as a significant contributor. No matter how we might arrange the priority of these components it remains that "literal" is not a simplistic word-centered approach. Such straw men belong is Oz.

The importance of creation to Christian theology is one that did not escape him.

But with Adam and Eve we have a perfect storm. We have unambiguous scripture coupled with a point of central importance to Christian theology. If even in this case we can summon forth a reason for relegating Adam and Eve to the realm of mythology, then we really do have to wonder what isn't up for grabs.

This is a significant apologetic concern. Upon creation rests the existence of God and all His works (Heb. 11:6). The importance should not escape us as students, even in the field of mathematics, will regularly encounter theorists who, though uninformed about the fuller nature of theology (in this case the hermeneutical principles which are applicable outside of Biblical studies) and make uninformed statements which might prove to be train wrecks for our young as they head off to college.

The Bible, like Christianity, is eschatological. It looks to the end. This is not about events -- that is the simplified apocalypse of the heresies like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and the errors of innumerable false prophets. It begins with a creation which is culminated in God being at rest (Gen 2:1). It proceeds to a Fall from which a rest is sought (Gen 5:29) for generations (Deut 31ff, Heb 3:11, 4:5). But the end is not simply a rest for the people of God, though that is in store. It also does not end with a final rest for the whole of creation. Creation is replaced with one which does not require rest for it will remain at rest.

Pentax lens comparisons FA24-90 A35-105

2011-08-11T09:31:00.018-04:00

This is a comparison of two lenses. The first is the SMC Pentax-A 35-105/3.5 zoom. It was built between 1984 and 1989 and is available periodically on the used market. The second is the SMC Pentax-FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 AL [IF]. These were manufactured from 2001 to 2004 and are also available periodically on the used market. Neither lens is considered "rare" in any sense. But to find one in good or excellent condition might require a little searching.

As a "control" for this comparison I have also employed the SMC Pentax-FA 50/1.4 and SMC Pentax-FA 28/2.8 AL. These two represent the high quality optics that Pentax has always produced and are in all senses the equals of any other in the industry.

The "FA" lenses are autofocus. The "A" lens is manual focus.

It was unfortunate that the sun moved during the shoot this morning. But the sun has a way of doing that.

My conclusion about the comparison is at the end of the post. Some of them are about the optical quality and others are in regard to the character of the lens itself.

***

This first comparison is just a bit unfair. Since the A35-105 will not go to 28mm, I resorted to using it at 35mm. But if a zoom has its worst performance at its widest apertures, then the results will become closer. The FA28/2.8AL lens, like the FA50/1.4, is a quality piece of optics.

The FA28 and FA24-90 results appear nearly identical. The FA28 has a bit more contrast, but for a 4x6 or even 8x10 print, and especially web shots, the difference is not appreciable. Both handled the black/yellow pollen contrast fairly well.

The A35-105, given its closer focal proximity to the flower, shows some very good contrast given the focal length.

FA28, center

FA35-105 @ 35mm, center

FA24-90 @ 28mm, center

Here the two zooms were set to approximately 50mm. The comparison also includes a control lens, the SMC Pentax FA50/1.4. This outstanding lens allows for a comparison against something better than either zoom. As with the 28mm, you've got a basis for making a choice between the two zooms.

The 50mm shows the pollen black/yellow contrast very nicely. Neither of the zooms is as good though both perform nicely. These are not lenses that you would normally use for a professional macro task. But for a good print the quality is there.

The not-yet-open flower in the lower right looks nearly identical between the three. The closed bud on the upper right displays a great deal more texture on the FA50 and the two zooms provide just enough contrast to make it acceptable.

FA50, center

FA35-105 @ 50mm, center

FA24-90 @ 50mm, center

At approx 80mm, the two zooms produces similar results with only minor differences.
The A35-105 appears a bit better in the contrast (seemingly better edges) while the 24-90 has better sharpness, which is noticeable in the water droplets as it makes them more distinct.
The shadow detail in the not-yet-open flower at the lower right shows that both handled the shadow detail well. The "bokeh" -- the character of the out-of-focus areas in the back are very natural with both lenses. Neither was subject to any apparent coma or halo effect.

A35-105 @ 80mm, center

FA24-90 @ 80mm, center

FULL SIZED IMAGES
Here are the full images from which the center pieces were extracted.

FA28/2.8AL

FA50/1.4

FA24-90 @ 28

FA24-90 @ 50

FA24-90 @ 80

A35-105 @ 35mm

A35-105 @ 50mm

A35-105 @ 80mm

Conclusions
In general - both lenses have an accurate color cast. You will not have to adjust with Photoshop (or whatever photo editor you use). Both have a consistent "bokeh" for a pleasing image.

1. The A35-105 is almost as good as the FA24-90. If you are not doing large prints, do not need to go as wide as 24mm, do not need auto focus (AF), and do not mind the extra weight, the A35-105 will save you about $100 or even more.

2. If you want that extra minute advantage of a little more sharpness, as well as AF, then get the FA24-90.

3. If you need to focus closer then 3 feet (wide angle with small people groups) then do not get the A35-105. It does not focus very close. That is the lenses only real negative point and it depends on your needs.

4. If you want to put one lens on your camera to carry around, the FA24-90 is much lighter. The older manual focus lenses are generally built with more metal and less plastic than these later AF lenses (from any manufacturer). That means it might take a beating much better. This is a toss-up.

5. Is there any reason to own both? Perhaps, but not likely. But I would suggest getting a 24mm or 28mm wide angle along with the A35-105 for use on a digital body, just because 35mm provides the coverage of your old 50mm on film. You will regularly need something wider. The FA24-90 is a much better general-purpose lens simply on account of its wider coverage.

So which would I choose? The FA24-90. No question. I decided long ago to "thin the herd" and rid myself of my mediocre lenses. So now I am down to 3 -- FA24-90, FA50/1.4, and FA28/2.8. The A35-105 belongs to my son. If I did not have the FA24-90 and the A35-105 was available, I would get it as a quality optic, and would do so without any hesitation.

Francis Schaeffer, Violence, and Journalistic Integrity

2011-08-10T08:01:00.008-04:00

The recent political hack hit piece at The New Yorker regarding the world view of Michelle Bachmann made an assertion which deserves an appropriate response. The first point to be addressed is the assertion that Francis Schaeffer was promoting violent revolution. The author, Ryan Lizza, says this:

In 1981, three years before he died, Schaeffer published “A Christian Manifesto,” a guide for Christian activism, in which he argues for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe v. Wade isn’t reversed. In his movie, Schaeffer warned that America’s descent into tyranny would not look like Hitler’s or Stalin’s; it would probably be guided stealthily, by “a manipulative, authoritarian élite.”

The content of this assertion is plain enough to be past debate. So the question is a simple one: Was Schaeffer promoting a violent overthrow of government or was there something else which he had in mind? There are several options available. He might have been promoting militant protests. He might also have been promoting non-violent protests. But these are speculations. The answer to the issue is to be found in the cited work, A Christian Manifesto. Much can be said for Joe Carter's substantive response to Lizza's assertion:

Anyone who has read the book knows that it says nothing of the sort. Throughout A Christian Manifesto Schaeffer advocates the use of “force”: “Force, as used in this book, means compulsion or constraint exerted upon a person (or persons) or on an entity such as the state.” [emphasis in original]

But couldn’t this mean “violence?” Schaeffer says no. In the only time that the word “violence” is used in the book, he condemns its use:
Two principles, however must always be observed. First, there must be a legitimate basis and a legitimate exercise of force. Second, any overreaction crosses the line from force to violence. And unmitigated violence can never be justified.
Throughout the book Schaeffer makes it clear that the way to oppose abortion is through non-violent civil disobedience. His strategy includes a human life amendment, overturning Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court, and legal and political actions against abortion providers. If all else fails, he says, the State must be made to feel the presence of the Christian community by using a fearsome tactic: “doing such things as sit-ins in legislatures and courts, including the Supreme Court.”

That should suffice for the specific point. Mr. Carter also deals with some additional nonsense of Lizza's, and not the same things as I do below. For instance, the term "dominionism" has its feet planted firmly in Leftist political theory and not in anything of historical substance.

As noted in the first paragraph, Lizza has a serious problem with sound reasoning. One point which is plain is his willingness to employ guilt by association. It's that old "you know someone who knows someone who is that way, so you are tainted" argument. If you have any friends who, say, vote Republican, then perhaps we shouldn't have anything to do with you. Or perhaps you have a friend who has a friend who knows a racist, then you are just too close to the problem. If that sounds silly and even juvenile; it is exactly what Lizza does. He says:

At Oral Roberts, Bachmann worked for a professor named John Eidsmoe, who got her interested in the burgeoning homeschool movement.

Eidsmoe explained to me how the Coburn School of Law, in the years that Bachmann was there, wove Christianity into the legal curriculum.

Eidsmoe has stirred controversy. In 2005, he spoke at the national convention of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a defiantly pro-white, and anti-black, organization. (Eidsmoe says that he deeply despises racism, but that he will speak “to anyone.”) In Alabama last year, he addressed an event commemorating Secession Day and told an interviewer that it was the state’s “constitutional right to secede,” and that “Jefferson Davis and John C. Calhoun understood the Constitution better than did Abraham Lincoln and Daniel Webster.” In April, 2010, he was disinvited from a Tea Party rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, because of these statements and appearances.

Bachmann has not, however, distanced herself, and she has long described her work for Eidsmoe as an important part of her résumé.

The inference one might reasonably draw, given the lack of actual evidence that Bachmann is a racist, is that Bachmann (and even Christianity) is either soft on racism or might actually be one herself. What the author does not do is provide actual evidence. And this in itself is enough to declare this piece nothing more than hackery.

One additional piece that is worthy of note is the quote from Chris Rodda and the reference to him as an "historian." Rodda is the Senior Director of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Rodda is also an author. But as far as some academic rigor, I cannot find any. (Though not everyone publishes their CV.) Rodda is a student of history, and that is admirable. But whether or not he is one who can set aside politics in favor of historical honesty is questionable. Rodda publishes on HuffPo and other political hit sites which lack academic credibility. (Rodda goes as far as to question the basic intelligence of those who disagree with the progressive/Leftist agenda with statements like "Don't worry, your parents can't spell words like that either.") "Historian" seems to be a reach. It would be fair to call Rodda a student of history and then wait (and wait ...) for some quality, peer-reviewed material to surface. And this takes us back to the main point: What Lizza writes is as questionable as those whom he quotes. (Carter noted other citation issues and reading his post is worth your time.)

And to be candid, I recently lost a writing gig because of some not-well-considered material and that situation forced me to change my tone. Perhaps Mr. Lizza may also find a path to publishing better material. Or maybe The New Yorker just needs a better editorial board to serve its website.

Cross-posted at evangelicalperspective.blogtownhall.com

Re: As atheists know, you can be good without God

2011-08-02T09:46:00.007-04:00

Jerry Coyne has, like Peter Singer, provided the evangelical with some meat. And quite tasty meat it is. It is in his recent post, As atheists know, you can be good without God, in USA Today. He makes some statements of obvious truth mixed with some statements of serious error. We need to give him full credit for the good he has done in both practice and principle:

One cold Chicago day last February, I watched a Federal Express delivery man carry an armful of boxes to his truck. In the middle of the icy street, he slipped, scattering the boxes and exposing himself to traffic. Without thinking, I ran into the street, stopped cars, hoisted the man up and helped him recover his load. Pondering this afterward, I realized that my tiny act of altruism had been completely instinctive; there was no time for calculation.

The question that he raises is where this altruism finds its home. Does it come from God? Can it come from God? Of course he sees no room for God in the world of empiricism where everything requires a proof. He sees morality coming out of our evolutionary development.

He states that both behavior and beliefs are possible without God (or any other deity). So far, so good. But is not the question is not whether behavior and beliefs can take place, but whether an external and absolute morality can exist without it having been created? This is a confusion of "ethics" (moral behavior and moral beliefs) with the possibility of a transcendent morality. Apples and oranges. A non sequitur. He fails to answer the ultimate question: Is there good without God.

Dr. Coyne also misses completely that there *might* be another approach to morality other than Euthyphro. And if he really, really thinks that such a dilemma is what encompasses Christian morality, then he is seems to be, so it seems, making things up as he goes. His views on religious behavior expose this when he says

... the idea that morality is divinely inspired doesn't jibe with the fact that religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time. Slavery was once defended by churches on scriptural grounds; now it's seen as grossly immoral. Mormons barred blacks from the priesthood, also on religious grounds, until church leaders had a convenient "revelation" to the contrary in 1978. Catholics once had a list of books considered immoral to read; they did away with that in 1966. Did these adjustments occur because God changed His mind? No, they came from secular improvements in morality that forced religion to clean up its act.

In this instance he leaves out a great deal of historical material which would destroy his point. For instance, the Mormon situation. Did secularism inform Mormon theology or was it the power of the state? There were no theological discussions. This challenge to Mormonism was more about state authority (aka, statism) and had little, only incidentally, to do with theology.

And again, was there any R.C. claim that the "immoral" books list was a divinely inspired ethical practice? If you accepted his earlier non sequitur then you will receive another of equal value at no extra charge.

Is it not also interesting that he holds to an absolute morality regarding slavery? I wonder: What makes an act moral? And if this is an evolutionary question, is this morality not fluid with allopatric need? There is an evolutionary case to be made that, at times, slavery and genocide were necessary to set the course (the direction) of human development to bring the population to this place.

An evolutionary model must account for those human behaviors which have advanced humanity. That would include slavery and genocide. It must ask whether those actions advanced humanity. And for those who hold to allopatric (population-group directed) evolution, the question of subjugation becomes important. Does a superior group defeating and destroying an inferior group benefit the physical development of the race? Does group sex selection for reproduction become enhanced if the better women are given a higher place in society? Is a society better fit for survival if weak children are killed in order preserve group resources? Of course all this has been tried before. In the 20th c. it was known as "scientific athiesm" and the theory was that a society could be directed by the morality (discerned through "reason") of the state in a manner and fashion completely separate from religious influence. We know what happened then. It was a bloody century.

Without a real and revealed morality there is room for all of this. What Dr. Coyne has done is opened the door for the Christian ethicist to confront the evolutionary model against one of its strongest positions.

No Country for Old Apologists

2011-07-26T19:17:00.009-04:00

Apologetics in academic circles differs mostly in style from apologetics in casual conversation. When thinkers (theologians and apologists) get together they discuss what approach is best to take -- should we do this or that, and should we frame it one way or the other. The discussions are often strategic, though sometimes they go further and question the orthodoxy of certain frameworks.

Apologetics training tend toward the practical. The message is often quite practical. "For best results" employ certain arguments and attack specific weak points. The average participant hears what seem to be irrefutable arguments about the veracity of their faith. So they go out with confidence to attack the bastions of paganism. But too often they come back wounded. This is especially true in college where so many fall away from the faith since they were given inadequate ammunition for either offense or defense.

Apologetics in casual conversation frequently tends toward things like personal testimony. Academics rarely discuss this point. (They do, but not too often. Perhaps not enough.) People interact on what the Lord is doing in their lives. They picture God's providence over time and often the richer discussions sound like the positive side of the prophets of the Jewish nation who recalled God's goodness and then called for repentance and faith on that basis.

In between these two there is a struggle. The world of skepticism keeps many from recognizing the legitimacy of Christianity. Skepticism, it seems, demands empiricism. And empiricism as both a method and a framework for life demands that all submit to it. But this logical positivism, popular in the early and mid 20th century, should have died. It fell victim to the advances in theoretical sciences which took away its place as an exclusive methodology.

Bad science has its analogies. The "progressive era" was supposed to have died with WWI. But we still deal with the over-optimistic do-gooders among us who repeat constantly that "we can do more." Likewise many an actor will repeat the maxim that "you can't keep a bad script down." Theology also suffers from this foible. There is a large group which, at one time, said that all its members became Jews upon conversion. Even though science proved this wrong they simply change to an Aristotelian framing and now say that they are spiritually (the substance behind their genetic makeup) Jews, not physically. So much for sound theology.

Bad apologetics can be destructive to our message. Can be? It is. And I think most apologetics is done poorly. It is often defensive in posture. When criticizing things like naturalism (evolution is a separate matter) the defensive approach is to try to find God in nature. But the unbeliever cannot find God in nature. Were He so evident, and were human capacities so oriented to Him, then I suspect more would believe. In the end it seems that natural law theory proves more to the believer than to those outside of the faith.

Many who do evidential apologetics fall into the trap of likelihood. Christianity, it seems, is the best option, the inference to the best explanation. The message to the unbeliever is that there is no better choice. This creates an issue: What happens when another philosopher or theologian enters with an argument that provides an apparently better answer to the question? Does the unbeliever then have both warrant and justification for not believing? And if one accepts that, then is the message that the unbeliever has an answer to God who judges? The inference approach raises serious theological issues because it depends so much on the human capacity to respond.

An offensive apologetic first presents the Christian faith as exclusively true. Some who take the evidential approach do this. But at this point we should not confuse an offensive posture with an offensive content. For instance, many apologists are willing to take on the strongest of naturalism's defenders in serious debate. These days they often win. That is their offensive posture. But the content is defensive: Why we believe needs to be defended. That is, because empirical evidence is missing we need to develop a convincing argument for something that escapes normal sensibilities. We need to prove what is unprovable. (Or more precisely, we need to show the necessity of what is deemed by others to not exist.) This goes hand-in-hand with the inferential approach -- that Christianity is most likely true and that it is the best option we have available, and people should choose it on that basis -- it is the most justified position.

An offensive apologetic shares many of the same characteristics held by the defensive system. One outstanding feature separates it -- it does not seek to "prove" anything. That is, it presupposes the truth of revealed scripture and from that posture takes the offensive against targets such as empiricism, naturalism, and scientism. The method of this approach is not to attack the particular details of things like logic, method, and justification. At least not in the same way. Instead the end is to attack the foundation, the presuppositions of the world.

The method that we face is two-fold. The promoters of naturalism have been attacking Christianity on three fronts. The first, as seen in the writings of the Rationalists, is that Christianity, especially when combined with the power of government, has been destructive. Their primary evidence was the Thirty Years War and its destruction of Germany, with cascading destruction around the rest of the continent.

For these philosophers Christianity was inadequate for solving the human condition. So they proposed an alternative: Reason. It was held that Reason was adequate to solve the problems of the world. It was Reason that created the United States' governmental system. Even the oft-quoted statement of Washington, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle," depends not on revelation but rests first on Reason. Of course Reason proved inadequate and by the mid 19th century the individualism of the liberal movement morphed into collectivism. Though differing greatly from the movements roots it remained staunchly anti-Christian. Reason attacked the institution of Christianity.

The second large-scale attack on Christianity comes out of naturalism and evolution. In most instances the two come as a package and most evolutionists assume naturalism. It is their presupposition. The attack here is one that we all understand: If there was no "creation" moment then the whole of what we call "revelation" is nothing but a fantasy. This is our greatest weakness. It goes to how we view Scripture, how we view science, and how we defend the faith. Our interpretive method comes into question. Our sense of reality about the physical world gets questions. Even our psychological stability is often framed in doubt. Reason attacked the revelatory foundation of Christianity.

There are answers to all of these concerns, and they can be done in a way that protects orthodoxy and doctrine. But unfortunately some would rather not deal with hard questions. It is easy to cling to a 6,000-year-old earth without asking if Genesis might contain some material better suited for a literary framework approach rather than a granular and wholly grammatical approach. (There is more to say on this, but that is better suited for another post.)

The third venue for attack is to fulfill the first: Replace the institutions of Christianity with the institutions of naturalism. This goes to the question of social influence. For instance, even though, as I understand the times, the US was formed out of the ideas of the French Rationalists, the popular consensus, especially after the Wesley revivals, was highly Christian evangelical and quite pietistic (at least from today's vantage point). In those days education was run by the churches or at least by trusted religious people. But as collectivism took over, the same educational institutions today are run by the collective and children, and adults in the colleges and universities, are educated in the naturalistic world view. A dominant Christian voice disappeared from the university system by about WWII. Empiricism demanded that what was not provable was not worthy of educational resources. Reason took control of the institutions of Christianity.

Christianity has responded to the third through the establishment of Christian educational institutions and through the promotion of the Christian world view by advancing into academia. What was almost non-existent in the 1960s is now becoming common. Evangelical philosophers are able to stand along-side naturalists in major universities and are able to hold their own quite capably. The University of Wisconsin and the College of New Jersey come to mind.

The institutions of Christianity are not just the corporate institutions that we might think of. There are also the social institutions we think of regularly. Marriage laws are today not informed by theology but by Reason. Proponents marriage law change will speak of human rights but can not cite any. This seduction has crept into church life. Few Christian singles in their 20s are able to maintain sexual purity. It seems to be their "right" to live as they choose. Churches succumb and no longer teach a firm morality as this can sound either judgmental or overly demanding. Christians have, it seems, become as undisciplined as those outside of the faith whom they would like to win.

The first criticism, the inadequacy of Christianity as an institution, is easily defended against. The Rationalists proposed that Reason was adequate. And what did that give the world? It gave us more than the US. It gave us modern France where churches were closed and a dictator made a march across Europe until being defeated at Waterloo. Reason brought us the two world wars (WWI being prompted by Germany's Social Democrats), the USSR, PROC, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein. So much so that roughly 1 out of every 100 persons who even lived in the 20th century was killed by the intellectual produce of the Rationalists. While Christianity made its error in partnering with the State, the terror unleashed by the State when not informed by Christian morality has been a fulfillment of Washington's warning.

The second criticism -- evolution and naturalism -- is where students are attacked within the institutions. Of course the easy way to resolve this is to regain institutional control and ignore the question. That's why the secularists have done. Try to criticize evolution and watch the fur fly. Substantive questions are not often entertained. And if they are, despite the problems of the models, religious slurs abound. It seems that attacking the questioner amounts to an answer to the question. (Such is the method of one defeated.)

What is an apologist to do?

At this point the evidential approach goes after the details. Attack the bad evidence of evolution. Attack the bad methodology. Attack details. These are all well and good, but the naturalist retains the upper hand. All they need to do is adapt. There is been no loss of institution or control and the presupposition of naturalism remains intact.

Evidentialists will attack logic of naturalism. Various arguments such as the ontological or cosmological argument or TAG will be used to show the necessity of God and thus the contingency of naturalism. But like the models used in science (eg tachyon and string theory), the naturalist-empiricist returns volley like the old Wendy's commercial: Where's the beef? Where is the evidence of God's work in the world? Where is God?

The hard questions are not answered glibly. We see God in history. The doctrine is called Providence. God has worked in the past to protect his people. He has given predictive prophecy which has always been fulfilled. He has done miracles. As true as these things are, and they are quite well-documented, it is unfortunate that the message is often not heard because of charlatans in $20K suits. The historical evidence is there.

We can do nothing less in our argument than we do in our lives. We live (or at least ought to live) as though God is. That is the message of Hebrews 11:6. It was the discovery of C. S. Lewis -- that God is God. This is presuppositional apologetics in life. We live according to a set of beliefs and not according to a list of facts and details. From there all else works out.

The unbeliever also lives according to his assumptions about the nature of the world. Though few can verbalize what they believe, each believes something about the world and responds accordingly. But it is not our simple task to tell people to change their presuppositions. That's stupid, both as a direction and as a criticism of presuppositional apologetics. What we do is present people with the alternative -- repentance and faith in God.

There are some who will not respond without some reasonable answer to the hard questions of the era. These need to be framed as something other than just facts. As we adapt our understanding of Genesis 1 & 2 (again to maintain both doctrine and orthodoxy) the answers to hard questions become a matter of reframing with better definitions of science and interpretation of information. We might also point out that the inevitable result of rejecting God has been a loss of human progress that is visible in slavery, more war, and more death than ever dreamed of in human history.

We come with God in Christ as both Solution and Solver. From that all else cascades both eternal and temporal.

Setting the Spiritual Mind Apart From Culture

2011-07-24T20:49:00.003-04:00

Creating an Awareness of Historic Influences That Affect

Our View of the World and of God’s Workings

Introduction

This is my perspective regarding the place and implementation of clarified discernment in my own Christian life and in my field of ministry. It encompasses my motivations (historical, philosophical, and theological) as well as plans to further this in both my own life and in the local church. This clarified discernment is the development of a Christian mind which, as much as possible, is aware of and can behave apart from the world’s methods of reason and justification.

The area where I minister in our local fellowship is in Christian education, specifically adult education. The philosophy of Christian education that I bring has a sort of “tool box” approach. All believers are in need of the full set of spiritual “wrenches” for living the Christian life. These tools include that broad scope of knowledge, practice, and discipline for knowing the Word, understanding the Word, applying the Word, and living the Word in that full and rich relationship which God intends. (Of course all of this within the framework of the sufficiency of Christ’s work and dependence on the promptings of the Spirit.) As with all disciplines, practice begins with these two things: Intention and knowledge. The world is filled with good intentions but few who have been instructed in following through on a path to where the Lord might take them. Coupling that with a proper knowledge base we then have a working foundation for building Christian disciplines. This intends to make our work both “thick” and “rich.”[1]

We are all able to think as Christians to some degree. We are all aware, for the most part, of what is right and wrong from a Biblical frame of reference. We have a functional Christian ethic which guides our belief and behavior. We may also be ready and able to answer ninety-nine percent of all ethical questions through our informed Christian ethic. There are difficult questions which challenge our belief system and we respond as best we can. Yet we sit perplexed with that one percent unanswered.

That final one percent ought give us some pause. It should raise serious questions in our minds regarding the capacity of our ethic. Does the Christian ethic have the capacity to answer the dilemmas of the human condition? Is so, it possible that our Christian ethic has been contaminated by a worldly way of thinking, a situation of which we might be totally unaware? When we are more fully aware of our historical and theological context then we can better assess and change to answer the challenges before us.

We can begin with the assumption that the first question receives a “No” response. This assumption is not without foundation. We have a basis in revelation and within this revelation we have both example and principles available to us.[2] What we may be lacking is the necessary framework in our thoughts and commitment which would allow us to leverage revelation in the best possible manner.

The second question, which dovetails with the first, is the question of the integrity of our world view. This is where we confront our humanness and sinfulness. In humanness is the incapacity to fully understand all of the intricacies of revelation. Even if we were not fallen we remain less than God and incapable of attaining the desired moral and ethical perfection. The limitation of our fallen humanness is reflected in one of the terms for sin – missing the mark. Not only do we miss the mark but we are also incapable of even hitting the mark. We can not hit the mark of moral perfection.

Likewise the noetic effects of the fall affect our capacity to fully frame revelation as we ought. Even so, revelation is clear enough that we can understand matters of right and wrong, lest we become pessimistic in this area. What has happened to us is that revelation, as we perceive it, has become confused with current secular thought to a degree greater than we might think. It is my observation that this has happened while we remained unaware of its presence and influence.

The General Issue: Revelation versus Reason

We live in the world of the rationalist[3]. We live in a world which has been built around the capacity of human beings to discern and solve their own problems. It is assumed that the human condition might be cured of its ills were we to apply our minds and our pocket books to actually do it. We live in the era of human progress – the “progressive” movement that we hear about today. It is a view which, on its surface, many believers reject. We believe in human fallenness and our incapacity for intrinsic moral goodness. At the same time many believers accept some progressive premises without question. We may often partner with progressives under their banner for their goals and never bring the gospel into the discussion. Whether we are aware of it or not, we have this propensity to substitute something else for the thoughts which God intends[4].

Progressive pragmatism is a reaction to Christianity. The idea that the human mind can understand, can explain, and can solve all problems it faces comes out of the rationalist movement. The movement rose to popularity after the Thirty Years War devastated the European continent, especially Germany. Because of the involvement of the church in these wars, the relationship of church and state was brought into focus as the problem. The nature of the church and revelation was brought into question. The nature of knowledge through theology was brought into criticism. Skepticism became the rule of the day. It also became part of Christian thought and theology.[5]

It is an irony that this modern approach was founded on the principle that religious knowledge is not real whereas scientific knowledge represents reality. This was later fulfilled in logical positivism, which is observed by philosophers for its neo-Platonist narrative.[6] The consequence was the separation of knowledge of the material world from knowledge of revelation. Revelation took, at best, a lower place on the hierarchy of knowledge because it seemed less verifiable, at least by empirical standards.

The problem (at least the problem addressed here) is the question of knowledge and fact. It is about how we interpret information and how we view God’s creation. Are we interpreting reality around us in a manner informed by revelation, or are we presuming to view facts atomistically? The former would reflect the reformed approach and the latter would tend toward the rationalist’s method, though it does appear to affect some segments of theology.

The Specific Issue: Theology Contaminated with Neo-Platonism

Theology is done by theologians. When any of us reads the Bible we are doing theology. We interpret the material we read and give it application to our lives. We practice both theoretical and practical theology every day. We are all real theologians. But given the difference that exist between us and the issues we face in the world, it seems that there is something more to the situation. Why do we interpret the Bible the way we do? Why do we apply Scripture the way we do? What thinking do we bring to the table that causes this?

We cannot, of course, answer these questions in a broad manner. The specific issue here is how our thoughts, and thus our theology, might be contaminated with a world view which goes unrecognized. It does not take much effort to identify the presence of this neo-Platonism in a great deal of theological material. After that comes the task of cleaning up our theology and thus producing a more Christian mind – a stronger Christian world view. With this should come the matching Christian behavior.

Neo-Platonism may be observed by its divide between information and senses, a divide which often results in conflict between the parties. The Bible maintains an alternative, a connection between our senses and the world around us. Hebrews 5:14 notes that we must have our senses trained. Many today will might read “senses” in terms of “conscience” and go no further. But we forget that this is involves more than an unconscious reaction to good and evil. It involves thoughtful choices on moral matters. The term for “senses” (αἰσθητήρια) has first to do with intent rather than reaction.[7] It is about habit. This sets the Christian response mechanism apart. We are to be driven by a mind that is intentionally active instead of being a passive responder. A suitable modern term for the Christian might be “sensibilities” as we are attempting to re-couple intent and response.

Examples of the influence of secular thought (neo-Platonism) influencing theology can be identified with ease. Francis Chan, in Crazy Love, creates a class conflict (p. 88) between rich and poor out of Jesus’ confrontation of rich men in Luke 18 and 19.

When talking to a wealthy person who wanted to go to heaven (and doesn't that describe most of us?), Jesus said, "'sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. The come, follow me.' When he [the rich man] heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, 'How hard is it for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" (Luke 18:22-24). He says it's as hard as a camel to go through the eye of a needle -- in other words, impossible. But then Jesus offers hopeful words: "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (v. 27)

In the very next chapter, as Jesus enters Jericho, we see exactly how the impossible becomes possible with God. There, the wealthy tax collector Zacchaeus gives half of his money to the poor and pays everyone back four times what he has defrauded them. And Jesus declares, "Today salvation has come to this house" (Luke 19:9)

The impossible happened that day -- a rich man received salvation!

Mr. Chan describes the actions in a materialistic fashion and in the framework of conflict. Wealth is identified with evil and poverty with good. Charity is not only identified as good, but even as a work sufficient to earn salvation. The conflict between social classes is likewise clear. Rich people are apparently more evil than are those who are not wealthy. In the end his exegesis wrong because his framework for interpretation is wrong.

The division between thought and feeling is fundamental to Mormonism where a sense about something may be decided based on the “burning in the bosom” completely apart from, and often in direct opposition to the facts[8]. Yet despite the polytheism of this cult there are many believers who welcome Mormons as “Christian” based on politics, not on theology.

Movement Toward Resolving the Issue: Training the Christian Mind

There are no simple solutions to training the mind to think biblically. There are no simplistic formulas or clichés that one might place in a sermon or lesson which, when heard, will change the audience. This situation did not arise overnight. There are disciplines in the Christian life which are critical for developing a mind which is committed to Christian thought. These are life disciplines, not weekend programs or material for revival events. Bringing these into focus involves unifying the educational program of the local church, and almost certainly more.

Education in the local church has a history of being surface material. Children go through Sunday School making paper cut-outs and reading the same stories over and over. When they get to high school they begin to drop out. There is nothing there because there was nothing there before that point. Education before the high school years needs to be revisited. Our educational curriculum must be replaced.

High school educational material must take on a stronger tone. An offensive apologetic which attacks the ways of the word with the truths of the Gospel and other matters of Christian ethics and thought will allow the student to thrive not only in secondary school but also in college and later.

Various solutions have been proposed. There is the classical catechetical approach as practiced in “reformed” circles. These place an emphasis on the doctrines of the church, such as the Westminster Catechism.

Among fundamentalists there is the “local church Bible institute” (LCBI) which goes even further. The LCBI attempts to integrate a rich Biblical knowledge into participants to prepare them for ministry. One example is Lehigh Valley Baptist Church[9] which places its emphasis on Biblical studies and pastoral ministry. This solution follows a pattern seen in previous decades with the “Bible institute movement” of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries[10]. (This includes my alma mater, originally Grace Bible Institute in Omaha, NE.)

There is also home schooling and private Christian elementary and secondary schools. These give children a “hot box” environment for training and education.

It is my opinion that these solutions, for the greater part, accomplish only half of what they need to fulfill. The Biblical knowledge is, as I have observed, done quite well. But the context of the Christian mind and learning to think in a manner which is intentionally contrary to the rationalist approach is generally missing. Few include any philosophy courses, either continental or analytic, which set the Christian world view apart and so help the student clarify his/her world view in precise terms.

Also necessary is a richer apologetic. Current trends in apologetic, at the local church level, center about a collection of facts which intend to “disprove” secularism, evolution[11], and other challenges[12]. A few have adopted a “world view” approach to emphasize the distinct truths of Christianity[13]. Though there are other apologetic approaches[14] the evidential appears to dominate. But evidentialism as an approach requires a great deal of expertise and little of that is available in the local church.

The larger institutions become dedicated to either groups outside of the local church, or do not cover the greater quantity of local church membership. They concentrate on professional ministry to the exclusion of building a fully educated and fully trained local church.

The alternative which I am pursuing is the potential for a periodic “institute” that operates as an intensive. For one year, two nights per week, take both the youth group and interested adults through a curriculum which will include original languages, philosophy both continental and analytic, exegetical practice, teaching skill development, and a host of other necessary skills and disciplines necessary for effective ministry.

This type of solution is not practical within any smaller fellowship. But it is within the grasp of a fellowship of churches in close proximity which would be willing to work together in spite of their doctrinal distinctives. Of course the degree of distinction between groups might preclude practical manageability. It would be difficult to choose between a Baptist and someone from the OPC instruct on either baptism or eschatology. Still both would present a very compatible soteriology – Christ’s work plus nothing.

On matters of philosophy and world view the differences will also vary greatly. For many from the fundamental/fundamentalist heritage the study of secular philosophy is treated as superfluous and even damaging to faith. Likewise a VanTilian epistemology differs enough from analytic epistemology that instruction in apologetics will require either a multi-faceted approach or a narrowing to an agreed-upon sacrifice for the sake of the calendar.

In most all situations it appears that there is going to be a need to adapt to the restrictions of the calendar. This is the case for both matters of scope and the issue of coordination with other fellowships. Yet the opportunity exists for local churches to go further in the process of training believers. We would do better to have 10 distinct but highly trained Christian instructional systems in a city putting out dozens per year who are able to defend the faith and more effectively present the gospel than to maintain our current situation.

In the end, what I am striving for is to produce Christian minds which might escape our current trappings. The end produce should be a more militant presence of the Gospel and the Christian mind.

[1] “Thick” reflects Moreland’s (The Kingdom Triangle) integrative approach to the Christian mind and “rich” is to suggest a question of scope in its application to education and training.

[2] I Corinthians 2:16 sets the wisdom of God apart from the wisdom of the world and also establishes the presence of the Holy Spirit as the “mind of Christ” in the believer. The carnality of Corinth was that the flesh was set against the Spirit as evidenced in the practical ethic of dispute resolution (chapter 6). In their case the wisdom of God was unknown to them unless it was sought by the Spirit accompanied by this mind committed God and controlled by the Spirit.

[3] Hurst, John F., History of Rationalism Embracing a Survey of the Present State of Protestant Theology. Hurst provides an historical and philosophical explanation of the rationalist movement with an emphasis on both theology and the changes to various nations and cultures. The rationalist movement brought and end to the dominance of Christian theology in government and substituted for it a neo-Platonism with its accompanying issues. Much of this discussion is driven by principles derived from Hurst’s material.

[4] Taylor, Charles, "Reason, Faith, and Meaning," in Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 28, No. 1, January, 2011. He began with this:

There are two connected illusions, it seems to me, which have become very common today. The first consists in marking a very sharp distinction between reason and faith -- even to the point of defining faith as believing without good reason! The second is to take as a model what I want to call "disengaged" reason. And these two are tightly linked.

This situation leaves the believer in a quandary. In the US we grow up and are education in this faith-reason dualism. Getting past this and back to a unified and uniquely Christian world view and epistemology should be, in my opinion, one of the primary targets of a rich Christian education.

[5] Sarah Coakley ( “Intorduction: Faith, Rationality, and the Passions,” in Modern Theology, 27:2, p. 217) suggests error in an overly-specific blame placed on Enlightement ideals or on modernity. Yet she acknowledges the level of historic credibility here. This examination is not so much about blame as it is about the results and the nature of the issues we face.

[6] Suppe, Frederick, The Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Illinois Press, 1977, p. 8ff. Suppe explains the history of logical positivism and its foundation in neo-Kantian and post-Hegelian epistemology where the sense and the object are completely separated. Ernst Mach’s positivism went a step further by attempting to remove a priori elements from theory structures. These proved useful until the development of theoretical areas as we see in subatomic studies and cosmological which entirely preclude empirical methods. These are based on models, frameworks for observation and analysis, rather than on direct physical testing.

[7] TDNT 1:187ff.

[8] Taylor deals (p. 12) with the problem of senses and reactions isolated from knowledge:

This is what the disciples at Emmaus knew, when they said to themselves "did not our hearts burn within us?" (Luke 24:32). They meant: we ought to have known. Our hearts were recognizing the truth, even while we were resisting it.

But again, this sounds paradoxical. Does this mean that ultimately we judge by brute reaction? We feel this is good so we judge it good? Does reason have no further rule here? On the contrary. Just as in the case where we are trying to understand people very different from us, there can be reasons to mistrust our reactions.

In other words, just having the feeling that X is important doesn’t resolve the issue.

The practice of many Christians may be to behave in the same way as those in cults – to isolate faith from thought in a destructive fashion.

[9] http://lvbaptist.org/Bible_Institute.ihtml?id=261466

[10] Thigpen, Jonathan N., “A Brief History of the Bible Institute Movement,” http://www.etaworld.org/general/a-brief-history-of-the-bible-institute-movement-in-america.html

[11] I have gotten great mileage of late by dealing with evolution from two perspectives. The first is that there is more than one evolutionary model (PE, UG, Syn, PG, Neo-Darwinsim, classic Darwinsim) and that these models are in exclusive conflict. The second is that directionality has its history in 19^th century progressive/postmillennial sensibilities. Directionality explains why things seem to be getting better. It is a religious and progressive concept and has no place in proper science. The challenge which I leave the evolutionist with is simply to clean up his science and see what remains.

[12] The problem with this approach is that it assumes facts can be interpreted apart from revelation. It hints at the very neo-Platonism which confronts us and appears to be a compromise of framework.

[13] World view apologetic places its emphasis on a Biblical framework for looking at the world. It is intended as a framework for the evidence-based approach and as such is a component of evidential apologetics.

[14] My approach is presuppositional for multiple reasons. The first is that the truth of the Gospel and history and God’s existence (Heb. 11:6) are the starting point for the believer, and these are only arrived at by way of the Spirit’s work. The second is that much of evidentialism is defensive (though I have been pleased to see W. L. Craig employ VanTil’s TAG). The declaration is made that the secular world view is wrong so Christianity is more likely to be right. Finally, presupp is able to avoid the neo-Platonist framework that separates “fact” from “faith.” Though presupp is imperfect it appears at least to be proper and is a step in a better direction.

Wisconsin's State and Church Tightrope

2011-06-30T09:59:00.002-04:00

In Walworth Wisconsin

The situation is confusing and disturbing. At Grace Evangelical Free Church in Walworth, Wisconsin, Pastor Joe Fultz apparnetly had knowledge of a group of boys between ages 5 and 12 who were engaged in sexual experimentation. This was among themselves and did not involve any adults. The age range of the boys is disturbing as those as young as five years of age become targets for older boys.

The parents of all the children involved were informed of the situation. The Evangelical Free Church district leadership knew of the situation. In their discussions it was understood that this did not appear to be a reportable offense. It appears that the pastor’s goal was to resolve the situation through the parents and the home.

The state of Wisconsin disagreed. To the state this activity, presumably because of the age range, amounted to something of a potential abuse or neglect. Knowledge of the situation is enough to call for mandatory reporting. Even suspicion is enough. And that's where the question sits -- could the situation have been reasonably considered as either abuse or neglect?

The pastor, now free on signature bond, was arrested for non-reporting and, if convicted on all changes, may face up to 30 months in jail. No parents were arrested. The school operated by the church will face no charges.

The state will now be conducting reporting rules instruction for churches and schools. This appears to be mandatory.

This raises some questions …

But a few years ago here in Ohio, when a handicapped girl was sexually assaulted in a public school, the principal was prosecuted (and acquitted). Covering up crime is acceptable in Ohio's political machine. (Just look at the Kent State shooting.) She was fired and her license revoked in Ohio. But what next, if anything? Is it enough to go through the institution’s proper bureaucratic channels? It took that incident for Columbus Public Schools to change their policy and require an immediate call to 911.

I wonder if in Wisconsin there is an identical requirement for state schools as for private? I wonder if it is enforced?

Do Wisconsin public schools get a break but private institutions, even a church, are held to a higher standard?

These are questions to be answered. The state’s influence in the life of a local church may also come into question: Who informs whom? It remains a tension in our society which is not likely to be resolved any time soon.

Pray for the pastor and his family. And the church.

Links:

http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2011/jun/28/christian-school-staff-wont-face-criminal-charges/

http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-news/2011/jun/16/officials-pastor-knew-sex-club/

http://www.byroncrawford.com/2005/06/mifflin_high.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2005/04/20/the-horror-at-mifflin-high/

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/schools/mifflin/090805_story.html

Imago Dei Confronts the Human Commodity

2011-06-15T18:00:00.006-04:00

Leaders of the Religious Right can either adjust to this reality or lash out blindly with lousy legal arguments that clog up our courts and waste time. Guess which avenue they've taken?

Rob Boston said this with regard to the judicial overturning of Prop 8 in California. Of course we can see a statement like this for the silliness and illogic that it represents and simply write it off. It lacks substance. Even so it does represent a challenge that is worth considering. The question is: Should the believer continue militant civic involvement in the face of failure? Why? Why not?

It does not take much of an historian to see that the rationalist reaction to the Thirty Years War has led to more bloodshed (eg., 20th c. rationalist totalitarians) than was ever created by any failing church-state entity. The loss of human dignity apart from a Christian metanarrative for society [1] has led to commoditization of humanity.

We can refresh ourselves with the 20th century's dictatorial bloodshed when roughly 1 of every 100 who even lived in the century were killed as a result of the work of the rationalists. But there are other matters of human commodity of which we need be alerted.

Slavery is the first commodity. Though Christianity brought it to the end in Europe in the first millennium, secular and unrestrained capitalism brought it back to life until about 150 years ago. Slavery represents a whole-person commodity where people are bought and sold as individuals.

Another form of slavery is sex slavery. This exists under Sharia as well as within secular societies. Though we might like to think of Las Vegas in terms of professionalized prostitution, most prostitutes in the US live as unwilling servants[2] to their owner/pimps. Child abduction into sex slavery is an unknown quantity. This is a dark and hidden world which is difficult to document and prosecute.

But not all commodity views of human life involve slavery. Reproductive therapies treat both sperm and egg as tradeable units. Likewise the resultant human being, or the embryo being subjected to laboratory experimentation, have economic value to the institutions producing them.

Egg donation has been documented by Jennifer Lahl as an issue of both abuse and exploitation. The reduction of a woman to an egg-producer reduces her to the position equivalent to that of a laying hen. Woman + hormones yields profit.

The removal of human dignity extends further than commodity. Assisted suicide is abhorrent to most of us. It is the symptom a culture with little or no reason to live. Worse yet, it institutionalizes death in the same fashion as abortion does. Once it has become acceptable as an institution then it might even become acceptable as television entertainment or education. The sequence seems simple enough: Tolerate, institutionalize, entertain.

The situation regarding homosexual marriage seems the same. Homosexual marriage represents the institutionalization of what we were told in prior decades was mere tolerance. With institutionalization comes entertainment. Television is filled with normalized homosexual behavior. Strangely, though, this is artificial. It would not need to be normalized if it were actually normal.

This leads to the theological issue: Is the image of God seen in the human as commodity? The simple answer is No. If by "image" we mean in the matter of character, then the image of god is not removed because of external condition, such as enslavement. But if enslavement or other condition defines the character of the individual -- less than properly human -- then the commodity condition supplants imago dei. So in no sense does the human as commodity reflect the character of God in human existence.

Likewise, if humans were created with a specific character, then to supplant that character with some deterministic or fatalistic view of human sexuality would likewise supplant the sense of imago dei in interpersonal sexual relationships. More simply, if the homosexual cannot change, if it is natural in a positive sense, then in no sense can the image of God be found in the relationship. There is nothing analogous to God's relationship with humanity to be found in homosexual relationships. They are mutually exclusive.

There is no simple resolution to social problems. We may fight many battles and even lose most of them. It is not the battles which matter. The primary calling of the church is the spreading of the redemptive message of salvation to a lost world. It is grace instead of judgment; there is no real grace unless it precludes judgment. Individuals are redeemed; societies are not. Social change and challenge is useful but not sufficient. The redemptive message of the gospel comes first. It came first with Jesus and His redemptive work. We can do no less.

[1] This is the position presented by Whittaker Chambers. If we appeal to the historic liberal metanarrative, even the one behind our Constitution, then the potential for other neo-Platonistic errors of similar character seem inevitable. See Reinsch, Whittaker Chambers, Spirit of a Counterrevolutionary.

[2] According to the linked site,

89% wanted to escape, but did not have other options for survival
65% to 95% had been sexually assaulted as children
70% to 95% were physically assaulted
60% to 75% were raped
88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt
68% met criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. The severity of symptoms was in the same range as combat veterans seeking treatment, battered women seeking shelter, rape survivors, and refugees from state-organised torture

Documentation is available via the post links in the "Useful Articles" section.

If God Exists ...

2011-06-10T08:13:00.008-04:00

Christians seem to like democracy. A lot. In fact so much that many treat it as though it can be found in the Bible. But that's another story. There is something more about democracy that we might need to consider.

You have almost certainly heard the expression that 'the wheels of democracy turn slowly." If you have not heard it you have certainly experienced it. It accounts for the speed of Congress to deal with issues. It accounts for the speed with which Congress will put off issues. It accounts for the speed of your local BMV and post office.

Democracy breeds bureaucracy, or at least it seems that way. But totalitarianism move quickly. The twentieth century saw the rapid rise and fall of two significant totalitarian regimes -- Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. Neither lasted a whole century and neither even crossed a century boundary. But Communism never disappeared from the earth. Cuba had to be put in its place, with due thanks to the Reagan and first Bush terms. And the People's Republic of China, though encouraged by the Clinton administration to reacquire the Republic of China, has been developing its own odd sort of materialism and sense of wealth.

Our system is supposed to be opposed to totalitarianism such as proclaimed by Nazis and Communists. But socialism continues its creep and expansion, taking over both government and private institutions. Part of this movement involves vilification of conservatism in a personality. As noted in Whittaker Chambers: The Spirit of a Counterrevolutionary (Library Modern Thinkers Series) (pp. 13-14):

Chambers believed that counterrevolutionary politics meant never losing sight of the enemy's ability to distort your ideological stridency into their psychological rallying cry. Chambers believed national Review's (and much of he American Right's) embrace of Senator Joseph McCarthy was an unforced error. However effective the Wisconsin senator may initially have been, Chambers felt McCarthy lacked judgment and believed that through abuse certain victories were possible. On McCarthy's technique, Chambers opined, "[I]t is repetitious and unartful, and, with time, the repeated dull thud of the low blow may prove to be the real factor in his undoing." Senator McCarthy's incoherent strategy and general impudence led Chambers to refuse an alliance with him. Chambers made his position clear in his advice to Buckley to refrain from coupling conservatism with the Wisconsin senator.

On can hardly read an attack on conservatism without seeing a mention of the name McCarthy. But never Chambers or Buckley. Why? Because both of these names in history represent the intelligent and reasoned responses to the totalitarian concerns which conservatives maintain.

One of the significant challenge of the current era is to confront the progressive mantra: Criticism of religion is the first criticism. Read an evolutionary science book in the language of today and you will see almost immediately an attack on creation. Coyne did it. Prothero. It is the standard method. It is not enough that these scientists present their respective cases. They engage in a systematic apologetic for the context of their system and so go far beyond science. They become, with varying levels of competency, theologians. In doing so they exit their expertise and enter a field where most all have proven themselves not a little incompetent.

Likewise the sufferings of humanity were also not solved by any of Marx' philosophical or political progeny. While Lenin was hard on criminals in the new nation he founded, the use of force became necessary; Stalin followed suit. Yet today's neo-Leninists will not acknowledge the necessity for coercion and force to implement their modern equivalent. Ever wonder what it will take to implement a sustainable economy? It will require a forced reduction of both production and consumption. Now imagine what your life will be like when you cannot go purchase the food that you believe you need, or the medicine, or the home and auto repair parts. That is sustainability -- no surplus. It is poverty as the mandated lifestyle. Ok, that's the worst-case scenario for sustainability. But the best-case is the diminishing of economic growth and the commensurate expansion of government for enforcement. That means fewer jobs and less saving. And all of this will require a strong central government to enforce.

We are, of course, no where near the police state of soviet communism. But in many parallels we are drawing closer to the communism of the People's Republic of China (PROC), Communist China. We do not yet have forced abortions, probably because we still have too many John Brown types. We have enough press freedom and integrity that a too-strong government cannot massacre innocents. Unless, of course, they hold up in a compound in Waco, in which case we must send in a tank, for some unknown reason. (Theirs was not a capital offense and sending in the tank was not legitimate law enforcement.)

The prospects of "localism" for enforcing speech restrictions by the federal government (via the FCC) has the potential for curtailing the First Amendment. Instead of this being our right, the FCC has determined that the content of broadcast material can be managed. In their report issued last week, the FCC made the following recommendations:

Government is not the main player in this drama, and the First Amendment circumscribes government action to improve local news.
Nonetheless, greater transparency by government and media companies can help reduce the cost of reporting, empower consumers, and foster innovation.
When measuring the information health of a community, one must look not only at the number of media outlets, access, diversity, and competition, but also at resources invested, including the number of reporters.
Although there is tremendous innovation in the commercial sector, and it is difficult to predict what will come next, it is not inevitable that commercial media markets will solve all the problems we face, especially the provision of relatively unprofitable, labor-intensive accountability reporting.
The nonprofit media sector is increasingly diverse, and now includes nonprofit websites, state-level C-SPANS, public access channels, low-power FM stations, journalism schools, and public TV and radio stations. These entities, many of which are not government funded, need to play a bigger role and be better understood.
Collaborations among media—including between for-profit and nonprofit media—will and should be an important ingredient in the new system.

This is a novel approach. The power of government is being directed less at the content-specific concern and more at the content's context. The authority of the state is now being directed to the management of the business operations, of hiring, and even inter-business relationships. And when the government has in place the type of management it prefers, to whom do you believe those "business" persons will pay homage?

This is Obama's FCC. And if you don't t think it can happen very quickly, just look how fast they stepped in and took over General Motors and other previously private entities.

Back to Chambers. As Reinsch says regarding the change in Chambers' opinion of communism, after seeing the suffering it caused in the name of security:

If God exists then communism cannot. (p. 27)

This leaves us with a strategic concern. How do we get Christians (born-again, historic evangelical, orthodox and redeemed people -- ignoring liberals and others outside of orthodoxy) to actually work together? There is a place for strategic alliances. But it must be social, not political.

This is nothing new. But it needs to go beyond the electoral concerns that have been the focus for the past four decades. This is institutional. Establishing more Christian schools and making them open for students outside of the church. Establishing more Christian higher education. Perhaps even the creation of successful evangelical businesses which might fund these matters on a large scale.

This is also not a take-over. This is an alternative. We currently see the success of both home and private schooling for children. They fare far better in both tests and public competition. But resources are not always available to the broader public. It will require funding to accomplish this.

And this is our democratic problem. The independence of churches takes priority over ministry, even in times of challenge as we face to day. In my case I hold firmly to Calvinistic soteriology and other matters, as well as a dispensational eschatology and a traditional evangelical evangelistic model. Even so I would be willing to work with Arminian, pentecostal, anabaptist, and fundamental believers. The distinctive and error issues, even with their high importance, most often do not cloud the call to engage in persuasive evangelism and the strategies needed to accomplish this. But until we accept some strategic adaptation the work of evangelism will continue haphazard. It will not get done. What is not happening today should serve as empirical evidence to this fact.

It is not any sort of Christianized society which can lead away from secular totalitarianism. History has shown us that a great deal of sin can be accomplished in Christ's name. What will lead to a moral society which, no matter the governing system, creates real peace, is redemption and life in Christ.

If God exists then the defeat of progressivism, secularism, and skepticism is forthcoming.

Book Preview: Which Trinity? Which Monotheism?

2011-06-09T08:57:00.003-04:00

Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology

Thomas McCall, Eerdmans, 2010,

ISBN: 978-0-8028-6270-9

Philosophical theology (PT) is quite important to Dr. McCall. His efforts in apologetics and systematics exert effort to go beyond what has been accomplished in previous generations. It his his goal in this book to present and defend the doctrine of the trinity in the current analytical language of philosophy.

Analytics has come a long way since Kant. (Let's also remember that analytic philosophy is the issue of method, not of conclusion.) One wishing to see this would do well to read Peter Lipton's material (Inference to the Best Explanation (International Library of Philosophy)). Others have been doing this for the past several decades. A. Plantinga, for instance, uses the language of analytic epistemology within the framework of reformed epistemology in his apologetic efforts. So this is nothing new. What is new here is the topic to which the method is applied. This is not where most Christian colleges and many seminaries might venture.

The Trinity is a special doctrine as it is at the core of Christian theism. The nature of God is everything. Some amateur analytic thinkers take a simplistic mathematical approach to the Trinity, a method at which the Christian theologian as well as any serious philosopher would laugh. It might work if God were a numeric entity, but otherwise it can be quite silly. There are harder questions. Real ones. Analytic philosophy is the method of the rationalist -- the skeptic. To be able to answer the skeptic in his own language makes for a sound apologetic. (See Hurst's "History of Rationalism" for more on this challenge.) As you read the book you would do well to keep in mind that this is an apologetic for Christianity's coherence. And with this we open a door to further advance the gospel.

The importance of the issue should also be clear to anyone aware of current trends in Christian theology: The Trinity is becoming irrelevant. We see it in our hymnology (choruses, that is) spending 99.9% of their time on God with little (and often no) reference to the Son or H.S. or their works, except perhaps personal empowerment. We also see it in our postmodern soteriology where works make the atonement seem irrelevant and even reduce Jesus' place to one lower than Pelagian. And we should not be unaware of other theological challenges which face the Trinity with the rising popularity of both Islam and Mormonism, two quite similar challenges. Proper theology requires that the Trinity be restored to its proper place.

I have not spent time rehashing the content of the book. The subject is important enough that I will leave it to the reader to purchase it and spend due time in it and on the subject.

A Simple Solution to Taxation and Stimulus

2011-06-07T16:56:00.003-04:00

Let's work from the supposition that the private sector is where jobs are produced. Of course there are government "jobs" but, like professional sports and gambling, they produce nothing. They have their proper place, but again they are not producers.

Right now we have about $2.5 trillion in total tax revenue, with about $1.0 trillion of that being personal income tax.

Now here's a simple question: Why do we have a personal income tax at all? We do not need it. All we need to do is cut $1 trillion from the annual budget. Like the bail out.

Ok, that's extreme. But if we cut it in half and nobody earning under about $200K per year need pay any income tax. It would not take much of a budget cut to accomplish that goal. And what a stimulus it would be!

Or at least, to help those in the lowest income levels, nobody under about $33K should pay taxes. That's only a 2.5% drop in tax revenue. That means $25B in cuts. Not much. Again, imagine the stimulus with the lower income levels now able to spend for to care for their families and real needs.

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$380,354	38.02
Top 5%	$159,619	58.72
Top 10%	$113,799	69.94
Top 25%	$67,280	86.34
Top 50%	$33,048	97.30
Bottom 50%	<$33,048	2.7
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

Less welfare. Not none, but less. And fewer government bureaucrats to support welfare. They might have to go out and get private sector jobs -- jobs that produce something. But that situation should improve in a short time.

So please, politicians, get some common sense.

Anatomy of the Human Condition

2011-06-06T20:30:00.003-04:00

Today was not a good day. It was not a good day for Anthony Weiner. It was not a good day for me. Political and social pundits, both real and wanna-be like myself, jumped on the bandwagon in analyzing Anthony Weiner's remarks. It is easy. It is fun, in a sadistic sort of way. And worst of all, for the criticism is mostly if not all accurate.

Just a few weeks ago I was listening to Chuck Swindoll. One of this trains of thought was how close we all are to sin. Men are generally only a few seconds from failure and about thirty minutes from catastrophic failure. That is a principle which all men do well to remember.

So while many will pile on, perhaps someone will send to Mr. Weiner the message that for all of us there is a redemptive gospel which takes precedence over politics and punditry. If we want a redeemed politic in this country then perhaps we ought approach the subject with a redemptive purpose and method.

German and American Similarities

2011-06-05T17:24:00.005-04:00

An exploration of Reason's place in culture, faith, and government in both nations, with an eye toward future contingencies.

Following of Hurst's History of Rationalism, Embracing a Survey of the Present State of Protestant Theology, here we find an author who is able to connect the events of history with the ideas which drove those events. This is an approach with which many are familiar. This principle stands behind Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences and James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed. It is not economics which drives history; it is ideas; history is driven by philosophers and teachers who mold hearts and minds.

What Happened in Germany?

It all began with the Thirty Years War. Sort of. That event was the catalyst for the continent's reaction to the mix of church and state. It was to many the failure of Christianity, especially of the Reformation, to fix the problems of the past. The war left the nation devastated. Education was reduced to nothing. Church life was shown no respect. The masses yearned for something different.

Spener and the Pietists had something that the people wanted. But what the Pietists required was a partner. Were they to have found a partner in the Lutherans the Pietism might have succeeded in taking this evangelical faith to new levels. But the partnership never really developed.

Then along come the Rationalists. Interestingly, the Rationalists were as much theologians as they were philosophers, for that is how the Germans do things. They provided new ideas. They were schooled in doubt and skepticism. The Bible was not to be believed. There is no God. No divine revelation. But these ideas remained academic for a couple more centuries.

Let's just say briefly that Germany, the hopeful child of the Reformation, was now not so hopeful. Faith had collapsed into skepticism. And with the loss of faith came a loss of education. The schools of the Reformers became mills of rote learning; learning theology without heart.

The skepticism of the Rationalists was a skepticism about history. The Christian history of the New Testament was to them doubtful. Spinoza promoted a substitute in pantheism though most were atheists at heart. Hegel had provided a logic and system for the work of Reason, but not much more.

There were some who attempted to reconcile Reason and Revelation. Tzschirner's synthesis still proved inadequate. It could not answer the epistemological dilemma of whether Reason or Revelation was to dominate. The compromise, though, went to Reason.

After freeing themselves from the French and Napoleon, the Germans were in desperate need of hope. Schleiermacher gave them hope. But it was not a hope in history; it was a hope in the sufficiency of their own emotions. The Christian faith had some history to it, but not the history of the Bible. He brought to full fruit the tree planted earlier, that some of religion might be useful historical Christianity was of no real use.

Now it was Hegel's turn, but not so much until after his death. He was followed by David Frederic Strauss, an orthodox (Left) Hegelian. He denied NT historicity in his Life of Jesus. A sort of precursor to the search for the authentic Jesus, his was skeptical speculation on everything, just as Rationalists had been doing for the prior two centuries. Strauss had united the skeptics, something not previously accomplished. He united Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Lessing, Kant, De Maistre, and the rest.

Not only did Germany and France not recover from the loss of faith inflicted by the Rationalists they also encountered a new revolutionary spirit. In 1848 each nation saw a revolution led by the Rationalists. These revolutions swept across Europe. Despite some signs of a revival within protestantism (eg, Wilberforce) the condition of despair remained.

And After This?

German skepticism remained strong through the 19th century just as it does today. The Protestantism of Luther and Calvin seems to find a stronger and more welcome home in the U.S. than in Germany.

The revolutionary spirit of 1848 gained momentum through the efforts of Marx. The past two and a half centuries, from the American and French Revolutions, 1848, the Soviet and Chinese revolutions. But this same movement must also include the Nazi revolution in the 1930s as it was founded on Reason over Revelation. It was not an orthodox theological revolution.

Rationalism and its accompanying lack of moral restraint is also held to account by many as a cause of the First World War. The Social Democrats goaded the Kaiser into war and then had him removed from office, thus opening the door for new problems.

And Next?

The United States is currently in its state of despair. It parallels Germany in the 19th century. The ideas of education, of teaching skepticism as knowledge, remains entrenched. But if the method of the Rationalists was two-fold (dominance of academia and dominance in education) then the method of the evangelical might be the same. It's not that dominance is the solution, but it is a method which, when handled properly, can open doors for evangelism.

Whether dominion is the best or proper method requires further discussion and development over time. The dominion of the Rationalist will be difficult to confront. Perhaps the best starting point is to institute dominion over the education of our own children. And if Christianity is really militant (assertive and intrusive) then the presence of orthodox evangelicalism within academia will have the power to change and introduce the gospel into that world.

The spread of war by the Rationalists, which has far exceeded the excess of the Thirty Years War by more than a magnitude. We know that Christianity brought more peace to Europe and elsewhere than has any secularist movement. A predominant Christian world view can fix this. It ended European slavery in the first millennium and again on two continents in the second. Today there exists slavery in other arenas which did not exist in the same form in earlier centuries. Christian theology and the gospel has the answer to sex trafficking, to personal prostitution as seen in abortion, romance-free sex, and egg marketing, and to humans as resources for unrestrained capitalism/imperialism. Christian restraint, especially through the redemptive gospel, must be proclaimed more loudly.

Will people hear the gospel in this world of skepticism? So far, not much. The Naturalism of the Rationalist requires an answer. At this point the most suitable answer seems to be that naturalism is wholly inadequate. It is inadequate to solve the human condition and it is inadequate to answer the question of origins.

Of course the question of origins is the question of evolution. While evolution is difficult it is not insurmountable. Two components of evolutionary theory make it vulnerable to criticism and thus destruction. The first is that there are multiple models. The reason for multiple models is that, as Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini acknowledge, nobody really knows who the process works. So the models all exist, conflict, and still the proponents maintain integrity despite this issue.

The second vulnerability is seen on the calendar. As an explanation of how humans came into being and why we, and the world around us, seem to be getting better, the concept itself finds its source in progressivism. This progress is seen in the theory known as directionality. Directionality is thus a religious concept and taints what appears to be a secular system.

Countering Rationalism is done both offensively and defensively by the Apologist. The defense of the faith and the furtherance of the faith are the domain of this discipline. It is here that we confront the inadequacy of Rationalism.

This situation did not come about overnight and it will not be resolved overnight. But the gospel is most significant when it is militant. It succeeds more in China than in the U.S. It was successful in the U.S.S.R. And it can be elsewhere when it knows its proper place in the plan of God.

The Cost of Outlawing Circumcision

2011-06-01T17:02:00.008-04:00

Let's begin with a qualification. Neither the conservative nor the liberal bears any substantive resemblance to the Nazi movement. Glenn Beck rants aside. The social controls that many conservatives have embraced in the past would not, because of our political structure, end in a new Nazi regime. Likewise the evils of abortion and other eugenics promotions by the Left in the US would also not end in some other iteration of Nazism. While the remnant ideals of the Nazis remain alive today, only a few of them are held to as descendant from the Nazi world view. The remainder, again whether "right" or "left," are merely parallels to the evils of the mid 20th century. Nazism will not, as I understand current trends, will never return.

Fear of Nazism and similar extremes leads many to fear much of what seems out-of-the-ordinary. For instance, every dominant world view emphasizes the education of the youth in that world view. In Europe the various Christian catechisms and its accompanying education was a part of the social fabric. Secularists today often view this level of religious education with suspicion, especially when it might attempt to supplant their preferred system. Likewise those of us who teach evangelical theology and discipline might react to the clearly-iterated humanism and anti-Christian and often outright Marxist tendencies in secular education.

But fear of extremes is useful. Fear, when it has a foundation in history, makes us aware of dangerous trends. Socially, it creates a tension and a polarization. The tension is between the factions which seek their own ends. The polarization is the broader social and political division created as a result. We can think of the tension in terms of the court battles between the ACLU and the ACLJ. The polarization rears up when Congress fights over things like educational vouchers. Though these fights are never pleasant to watch, I would be more fearful if everyone in Congress were in full agreement!

The problem is not one to be equivocated. The attitudes of all sides in an argument may contain the same attitudes but they do not contain the same positions and motivations. Not all positions are equal. And even our sense of what defines the equality comparison varies. For some the motivation is science. For others the Constitution is the literal arbiter. There are some who remain strident relativists and hang onto their libertarian ideals. The evangelical may teach the authority of the Creator of the universe, the God and author of the Bible. Many evangelicals of the Baptist variety will appeal to the Bible as God's Word. (This latter point seems merely a semantic difference but even in some cases can appear to be a sort of bibliolatry to one or contain a hint of neo-orthodoxy to the other so that this is not as simple as it might appear. Something as simple as an honest language difference can create serious misunderstandings.)

In a society without moral restraint one periodically finds some utilitarian or humanistic attempt to express moral outrage. The morality, if one can call it that, of San Francisco is a story to be told. It became the center of "free love" in the late 1960s. Sex without restraint and without guilt; sex without morality. Recent demographics report that the Castro district is roughly 41% homosexual, and about 15.4% across the whole of the city. This is libertarianism run amok.

San Francisco has its documented history of religious rejection. The city has, for instance, limited access to public facilities by the Boy Scouts. By redefining religious morality into their chosen secular language of tolerance the city has successfully limited what is clearly religious exercise. Now another similar situation exists: Can the city of San Francisco tolerate a religious practice which it finds offensive?

The apologetic for this is the question of apparent violence. One need not search long in the SF Unifiied School District website to find multiple documents on non-violence and anti-bullying concerns. This is not simply an anti-Jewish matter. Muslim circumcision would also be restricted. There is no religious exemption.

The New Testament perspective on this is that (Jewish) circumcision is of no benefit in one's saving relationship with God (Galatians 5:1-6). It represents mutilation. In this letter Paul also states that those who promote circumcision should, if they really find benefit in this act, might do better to take the act further in order more benefit (v. 12). Paul here describes circumcision without faith in language that looks like the sin of the prophets of Baal who abused their bodies in their pagan attempt to appease their deity.

But is it incumbent upon either the Christian or the secular world to diminish any religious practice which is found offensive? We will find out more this Fall in San Francisco. Is there any protection for religious belief systems which do not submit to the secular sensibilities of Reason? That's a tougher question and one where some danger arise.

If the character of our evangelical apologetic is to be on the offensive and militant, then a part of our apologetic should be to challenge error. In this case, if the Constitution and Reason guide the secularist then we have a charge both on the basis of Christian morality and the rule of law via the First Amendment. It is therefore up to the city of San Francisco to tolerate what it finds offensive but which is not only legal but even protected practice.

Not all slopes are slippery. A measured history with a prediction of logical outcomes does not a logical fallacy make. If it did the we would have no history from which to judge. But the tendency seems measurable: The danger that we face today is not some sort of revived Nazism or Communism. No specific system has yet taken shape and which can be defined in language so clear. But the principle of statism is intact and is further instantiating its presence.

One step further is another issue. It is the effort to enforce a secular society. This takes statism one step further. There are those who believe and enforce rules that encourage government to reject any relationship with religious groups on account of their moral beliefs. The idea of a secular society, though outside the scope of the iterated law of the land, is none-the-less the agenda of some. When this approach takes shape as it has in San Francisco, Philadelphia, and other cities, then individual liberty of faith and belief suffers.

The price of outlawing circumcision is not the simple loss of violence. Nor is it the harbinger of a new militaristic state. But it is a loss which is measurable. It is a loss of personal and religious liberty which is part of a directional trend. It represents the further legalization of and precedent for a justified religious intolerance. This is an expense too great.

Does Rationalism Bear Moral Responsibility

2011-05-27T08:12:00.004-04:00

What if this were to happen: Seismologists Tried for Manslaughter for Not Predicting Earthquake? What mindset is behind this way of thinking? Is it reasonable to think that scientists bear moral responsibility for their secular efforts? These people are not theologians; they are scientists.

Science today is done outside the scope of faith and moral responsibility. Information is treated as an amoral entity. Facts, it is assumed, are neither good nor bad; they just are. It is the task of the scientist to log facts and draw conclusions. But is it the responsibility of the scientist to better the lot of humanity? In this age where the secular state has dismissed the authority of church morality in favor of progressive values, does the scientist bear progressive moral responsibility for his/her efforts? That seems to be the case here. But what is behind it?

For the secularist, Reason is sufficient as the judge of human affairs. With Reason resting atop all else, Revelation is either subjugated to Reason (and is inferior to it), is its handmaiden (exists as its tool for communicating morality), or is treated as non-existent. In all cases the dominance of Revelation is no more. This is Rationalism.

The Progressive demands the absence of the church/Revelation from matters of social progress.

Progressivism also was imbued with strong political overtones, and it rejected the church as the driving force for change. Specific goals included:
The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines
the effort to include more people more directly in the political process
the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.
(http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html)

The Progressive, operating apart from the influence of Revelation, seems then to have three general options for its moral response for the continuance of human progress. One is to dismiss moral responsibility entirely. The other two both involve morality, though differently. Either it is to allow the religious to make their remarks apart from Progressive involvement, or to co-opt religious language and make moral judgment. It is the first and third of these which are most common. The first we see in science where religion is pronounced as non-existent. The third we hear in politics as the state attempts to do good on its own. The second seems uncommon.

This situation in Italy fits the third scenario. The Progressive state has adopted a religious authority for imposing moral judgment on scientific information. Sounds like the Galileo situation in reverse. In the Galileo situation the church took authority of science; today the secular state imbued science with moral responsibility.

Of course there is a valuable component here. This situation does confront the dualism of faith versus science. But the consequences of this particular solution are frightening. Now the state is free to assign moral responsibility without the benefit of a defined revelatory foundation. The state depends on its authority alone. To be jailed for not knowing should concern all of us. Ideas have consequences.

Take this as an opportunity to practice an offensive apologetic. Here is an opportunity to confront the failure of rationalism and progressivism. Science and Reason are inadequate to judge human affairs. That is the place of Revelation.

Indulgences for Weather: Liberalism as the New World Religion

2011-05-25T08:05:00.003-04:00

Protestants remember Johann Tetsel. Rome does, too, and in this instance reformed itself. The whole situation was a mess. Rome was fully engaged in the art and progress of the Renaissance in southern Europe. But to build the Sistine Chapel and so many other projects took a lot of money. And some creative people found a way to take advantage of naive people. The promise was that a coin is heard then the soul is freed from purgatory. As the saying went:

As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs.

Nothing like good old fiscal corruption to bring about calls for reform. And Reform they did.

The situation differs little today. The church no longer controls Western society; liberalism is in control. Liberalism is by its nature "progressive" in a general sense. It has a high view of human capacity. And it sees itself as able to operate without the influence of religious bodies. As a matter of history ...

Progressivism also was imbued with strong political overtones, and it rejected the church as the driving force for change. Specific goals included:
The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines
the effort to include more people more directly in the political process
the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.[1]

But does this new replacement for the church as the controlling force in society behave much differently? It does. And it doesn't. Sometimes, well, often, liberals act out of the same corrupt human fallenness. So the liberal will do the very same thing as the Roman church did.

The New Indulgence

How, you ask? Global Warming, aka Climate Change. In the 2000 campaign Al Gore told a group of elementary students that the summer was really hot because of the Republicans in Washington. Ok, that's not exactly the same. But it gets better.

Are you ready to pay more for gasoline/petrol to make the world's weather patterns change? Will you pay more income tax to make the weather patterns change? Have you bought your hybrid or electric car yet?

Are you naive or otherwise superstitious enough to think that changing a few driving habits will actually affect the global climate? Have you missed that the same people who fabricated a coming ice age in the 1970s are the same ones who fabricated temperature data for GW/CC? By "same ones" I mean one theme group -- anti-Capitalists. Many are Marxists. Some are just anarchists. Others are true believers of some sort or another.

If you wish, pay your indulgence. But you will get nothing for it.

[1] http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html

Christian Seeking Directionality?

2011-05-24T07:53:00.004-04:00

Directionality is a term usually applied to other processes. Often it is applied to evolutionary process in a predictive sense where species are said to progress to a greater level of complexity. It is used in broadcasting to describe the anticipated target of radio waves. In theology we do not often use the term. There is another which we substitute instead and which seems to carry a little more weight for us. Teleology is also about directions, but it is also about ends. Teleology includes the target.

Example

Looking back at the character of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity for the past two centuries, one might wonder if the teleology has been lost. Today's PoMo (postmodern) "evangelicals" look at their mission in terms of missional work. To be missional is to confront social ills. To be missional is to avoid the trappings of the modern world. There is much more.

In an article titled, "The 'Missional Church': A Model for Canadian Churches?" David Horrox writes, "The church should stop mimicking the surrounding culture and become an alternative community, with a different set of beliefs, values and behaviors. Ministers would no longer engage in marketing; churches would no longer place primary emphasis on programs to serve members. The traditional ways of evaluating 'successful churches' – bigger buildings, more people, bigger budgets, larger ministerial staff, new and more programs to serve members – would be rejected. New yardsticks would be the norm: To what extent is our church a 'sent' community in which each believer is reaching out to his community? To what extent is our church impacting the community with a Christian message that challenges the values of our secular society?"

Dan Kimball in "The Emerging Church" (Zondervan, 2003) describes the missional church "as a body of people sent on a mission who gather in community for worship, encouragement, and teaching from the Word that supplements what they are feeding themselves throughout the week."

The list reminds me of what I was confronted with in the 70s. Is the church an organism or an organization? The very definition of what it meant to be an engaged Christian was being challenged.

That sites very definition of missional is quite troubling. There is much talk of character and social engagement, qualities which the church is seriously lacking in. We are an immoral church. But the solution is overly-broad in this respect. There is no mention of redemption. To directionality that is given to the church is to worship God and change the world. Christ has a place, but there is no place, at least none mentioned, for the Holy Spirit. Eternity has no place.

This theology appears, in its structure, to be consistent with the blind watchmaker of the evolutionist. Something better is being created, but there is no end in sight. There is no target. We are just here to improve the human lot and worship God.

This type of theology is progressive/postmill and dialectical. It confronts the human condition without confronting the issue of sin. It has serious hints of deism. With no Holy Spirit to engage and regenerate, God is transcendent. The Pelagianism of human effort as adequate to please God is equally heretical. There is more to be said to clarify these remarks, but those with a background in theology will understand them.

Ends

What is our teleology? Again, those with a theological background can easily iterate the purpose of the church. In so many words ... To proclaim the redemptive message of the Gospel until the return of Christ and to live as the people of faith ought to live. It is Trinitarian. It is evangelistic. It is about holiness and commitment. And it looks forward to the return of Christ.

This seems to be one of those times when an exegetical sermon is in adequate. A series on the nature and purpose of the church would help the evangelical gain perspective and teach the congregation more of God's plan and purpose.

Smallville Finale: A Response

2011-05-16T18:22:00.003-04:00

I was, to say the least, disappointed with the conclusion of Smallville. I watched it sometimes regularly and sometimes intermittently during its course. Though I am a bit old for comic books I grew up with them. Superman represented the most positive of them. (This was before the era of dark comics and the anti-hero.) It was about good winning over evil. It was not about eternal stalemate.

The series lasted too long. Too much time was spent concentrating on Clark's baby-ish eyebrows. The stories wore thin as Lex exited for a lengthy period. And the Chloe dilemma was never resolved. (Remember the time-traveling kids who had never heard of her?)

But the show never really matured Clark. He never became a man. He was always a kid. Lois was slutty. Chloe was slutty. But these criticisms are not isolated. They represent a lack of maturity and foresight in the show. The higher values, when mentioned, were only cliche and had little or nothing to do with the show.

Worse yet was a subtext of the finale which was consistent with the Superboy of the late 80s and early 90s. In both we were treated to an abuse of Christian imagery. In both the cross and theology were placed in the domain of evil. This was done more frequently in Superboy throughout the series. A cross was periodically placed in the background context of the evil person being dealt with. The finale of Smallville featured the vocabulary of Christian theology -- terms like rapture and apocalypse -- again in the exclusive context of evil. This represents a very clear religious bigotry. This was not a part of either the old comics or even the old TV show. Poor form since a major theme of the last season was hate.

Finally, it's over. The finale was not a very good episode. The two hours left the viewer with no sense of direction. Apocalypse without eschatology. (Sounds a little like Mormonism.) And the seemingly lengthy commercial breaks were a bore. They milked it, or so it appeared.

"It’s Somewhat Cold" at the Washington Post

2011-05-16T09:56:00.005-04:00

Filters provide a great method for masking and contrasting. For those who enjoy b&w photography, a yellow filter is the standard for improving contrast. But if you want to really separate the clouds and sky, try a red or orange filter. And if you want the green foliage to stand out, use a light green filter. Filters increase the relative contrast of different colors with a new emphasis. Things become clearer with more added contrast.

Planned Parenthood has created a filter for hiding its abortion practices. It now does almost everything else for women's heal. Cancer screening. STD testing and treatment. Contraception. It's all there. But this quilt has many colors. It is a jumble of capacities that hide something. Though that something can be stated in several ways it is always about minority population control. Always. Let's look at the quit from their own material.

From Ezra Klein:

(the WP page credits the image to PP)

Let's add the filter population management. Now the STD, contraception, and abortion becomes 73% of the organization's focus. But this chart says nothing about minorities. Not on its face. Of course we all know, or can easily find as it is quite well-documented, the eugenics history of the organization (as well as the progressive movement which spawned it). For that we can look at today's apologist for the organization. Again, Ezra Klein. Note his closing paragraph.

The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. It’s somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children.

For Klein this abortion resource is an economic one. And it is an ugly one. Pregnancies, and children, amount to accidents and an economic burden best done away with. It salves the conscience of the progressive to think that if people are better-off economically then they are better people in general. Crime will be lowered. Child abuse will be reduced. Etc., etc., etc. But it has not happened.

When it comes to how Klein builds his argument he finds it necessary to misrepresent PP in order to reach his ugly conclusion. He redefines PP with another filter. He prefers the filter of health over population management.

So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion. It’s primarily about contraception and reproductive health. And if Planned Parenthood loses funding, what will mainly happen is that cancer screenings and contraception and STD testing will become less available to poorer people. Folks with more money, of course, have many other ways to receive all these services, and tend to get them elsewhere already.

Strange, isn't it, that an organization founded for the purpose of population control, that maintains a name which indicates its purpose, and which provides almost three-fourths of its services to that end, is now about health? It took a marketing genius to create that filter. The best we can do is to expose the filter for what it is since even organization's own documents contradict this term.

We see everything through our filters. But we must be aware of those times when manipulators and the naive will attempt to add their own filters and manipulate our opinions. Especially when it comes to matters of life and death, of eugenics and ethnic genocide, and the reduction of life to a commodity.

Critical Thinking Is Not Analytical Thinking

2011-05-11T07:56:00.002-04:00

Questions are often raised regarding the paradigm of thought in the public school system. An assumption is made by those defending the system that it is merely secular and is to be free of religious influence. But such a broad statement is naive as both students and instructors bring their respective belief systems through the door each day. The question is not the presence of belief systems, but rather a question of authority. Which belief system is given precedence? And more importantly, if we are not employing any religious system to inform something secular, what is the character of the dominant secular system? Answering these questions will help us form a foundation for changing the public school system into something far less destructive.

One of the core tenets of education is critical thinking. It is first most important to note

what critical thinking is and isn't: To avoid misunderstanding, this page begins with a non-definition: critical thinking is not necessarily being "critical" and negative. In fact, it would be more accurate to call it evaluative thinking. The result of evaluation can range from positive to negative, from acceptance to rejection or anything in-between. Yes, critical evaluation can produce a glowing recommendation. On this page, for example, the quotes and links — which are recommended, but (as with all sources of information) should be used with an attitude of "critical thinking" evaluation — are the result of my own critical thinking.[1]

That's one perspective. It is both broad and generous. It allows for criticism and analysis. That is what the broad purpose of the California test (CCTST) proposes. But as an evaluation of where our educational system is today, well, that's not the author's target. Analysis itself is not destructive. And this itself is not the issue. So let's get something a bit more precise. Another perspective on critical thinking is this far more popular approach:

In this text we shall treat critical thinking as dialectics, keeping always in mind that the pedagogical relationship as well as the educational process aiming at the cultivation of the dialectical mind is not confined to presenting to students the way things are, but, primarily, helps them understand how things happen and change, in order to enable them to actively participate in conscious actions for the shaping and transformation of their world.[2]

Now we have something that seems more accurate for the problem we face. But again we must explore further. This is because the question of dialectical thinking is merely a question of method. The dialectical approach is a very useful method for analysis. Where we face an issue is not with the method but with assumptions and presuppositions which present themselves in the analysis.

One of these issues is hinted at in the second quote. It is the question of change. But not just change is at issue because few things every go on unchanged. In this case the critical thought is only allowed (because of the world view framework of the author) within the scope of dialectical materialism. In scientific terms this is the handmaiden of metaphysical naturalism. It is a presuppositionalist approach to education which accepts only the physical world and denies a place to any other question framework.

To this end the author also states that

Consequently, the active shaping by human beings of their living conditions, as well as the conscious transformation of social relations are closely connected with the critical distancing from the surrounding prevailing reality, with the understanding of its internal contradictions and therefore, with the perception of the potential and prospects of its evolution. Cultivation, therefore, of our ability to think dialectically, concerns not only our thought but our practical activity as well. Especially, it concerns our praxis consisted in struggle for social change and emancipation, which, in its most determined form, equals to class struggle.

This paragraph clarifies a great deal. First, it shows us that the dialectical approach does not come without presupposition. It assumes that a person might examine the world around from some objective position, as though one might step outside of the world and view the evidence in some isolated fashion. This is where a great deal of Christian theology (eg, VanTil) separates itself from such expressions of neo-Platonism.

Second, it expresses one of the goals of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers. The author is clear that this approach is necessary in the "struggle for social change and emancipation" and notes that these are "class struggle" concerns. As the author admits plainly, this is a Marxist-Hegelian approach.

Of course the public school teachers will have little or no knowledge of this. But they have been educated in this approach by way of the tolerance doctrine. For instance, the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) confuses "sex" and "gender" in its dialogue. Likewise sexual stereotypes are viewed as a matter of class distinction. But I seriously doubt that many teachers will recognize the Marxist character of such a position. It is no wonder that the SPLC with its pro-homosexual agenda would view organizations who oppose this world view as "hate" groups. It is an easy word to throw around these days.

It is almost a certainty that the majority of public school teachers who operate within this paradigm have no idea about the consequence of philosophical frameworks. They are teachers and are following the theme of relevance so that students might interact better with the world around them. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but it takes on extra meaning though its worldview context.

What is called "critical thinking" carries a great deal more baggage than it first appears. The method is not to be eliminated, but the framework needs to be challenged. As long as a hostile government operates the public school system there will be little room for any other voice than the Marxist voice to inform the method. Only a Christian voice can bring moral restraint necessary; the Marxist brings only revolution and destruction.

[1] Craig Rusbult, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/oried.htm

[2] Periklis Pavlidis, JCEPS, http://www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=194 and http://foithtikokinhma.blogspot.com/2011/02/critical-thinking-as-dialectics.html

Should the Evangelical Combat Socialism?

2011-05-10T07:59:00.009-04:00

It's a simple question but I do not believe the answer is as simple as we would like. Let's explore some of the concerns that should be confronted. The first two questions are obvious ones, but the third I think will help us think through the issue more precisely.

First, what are we (might we be) fighting for? What represents justice to the Christian? For the most part American evangelical Christians will lean toward a classic liberal politic coupled with Wesleyan piety. It's federalism with a twist. Lots of personal liberty with little government, except in choice moral matters.

The classic liberal political system is what we call today "libertarian" ideals. The individual is free to pursue success and live with his/her own failure. There is to be no safety net for the average person.

The pietism of the early history of the US would vary from region to region. Some states, even Texas into the 1980s, had their blue laws which kept stores closed on Sundays. But in Wisconsin where I grew up, in the 60s there were no such laws (that I was aware of) and most stores closed on Sunday because of a lack of business and because many store owners went to church.

This pietism came coupled with a strong social morality which restricted things like public indecency, public homosexuality, public gambling, and public prostitution.

The evangelical voice against slavery was strong in the north as it was in Europe. But this represented a move toward the more centralized authority of the Constitution and away from the more libertarian Articles of Confederation. It was the south with its emphasis on less central authority which would maintain slavery.

The Christian voice against social abuses was as strong as the secular liberal voice. Sunday School began as actual schooling. (Churches today might consider this as a valid and practical outreach mechanism.) The goal was to teach the poor so that they might advance.

Likewise there was the Christian voice against abortion with names such as Susan B. Anthony. This came at the same time, an association which ought not be missed, as the eugenics movement of the progressives. Christianity presents each human as valuable whereas eugenics and abortion both represent the collectivist view of a humanity without dignity.

Second, what are we fighting against? This is the easiest, but still has its nuances.

What we are not fighting against is the meeting of human need. The concern is the scope of governmental solutions. At this point the welfare state has been extended to all social strata, both individual and corporate. This can and should be scaled back so that the needs of the truly destitute are met. But beyond that there is no place for unnecessary government intrusion.

We are not fighting against education. It has been shown indisputably in the past three decades that private and home schooling are superior to public education. But it is not simply the "public" of public schools that are our concern. It is the educational paradigm and structure which create the problems. The paradigm is that old issue of secular humanism and the structure is the union control which introduces destructive curricula.

Again, something as simple as Sunday morning tutoring, especially in reading, might be one of the most productive outreaches available. When people can read then they can understand. Literacy is valuable.

Third, why even fight? Matters such as education and human need are exampled in the New Testament as characteristics of a church engaged in the furtherance of the gospel. They do not comprise any sort of social gospel as the liberals and postmoderns have contrived. But they represent opportunity.

But is it necessary to change government in order to engage needs such as poverty and education? No. But it is necessary to confront the problems that socialism has created (eg., poverty via gambling and the eugenics of abortion). This places the church in the position of social prophet as it calls for repentance and faith. Though not all may be engaged in this fight, those who do will help open the doors for additional opportunity.

But the church has not always taken advantage of opportunity. During the 1960s and 1970s, the Jesus Movement era saw many come to Christ, myself included. But many churches did not engage the culture with the gospel. Many were more concerned about communism and socialism per se. These problems were not perceived in the context of evangelism and the mission of the church in a lost and dying world. I will suggest that this juncture represents an opportunity to engage culture and produce an effective evangelical outreach together.

Socialism represents a distortion of Christian theology. But prosperity represents a seduction of Christianity. Few churches exist without massive debt in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Strangely enough, prosperity has led to debt. Churches anticipate economic growth and predict that debt can be covered over time. So we built large facilities and spend thousands per month on a once-a-week facility.

Of course not all are in this precise position and do make more use of their facilities. But many sit idly for extended periods of time and that represents a great loss.

The answer: In short, Yes. But not without qualification and not without restraint. Politics is no solution but it is a useful avenue, a tool, for enhancing opportunity for the advancement of the gospel.

Nationalistic Statism vs Christendom

2011-05-09T09:39:00.003-04:00

Not long ago we sent in troops to kill Osama Bin Laden. The members of Seal Team 6 did the job assigned to them. What remains is not whether this was right or wrong. God will judge each nation accordingly and this task is complete. What does remain is how we respond to this action. As I observe people's responses, here are four popular examples.

Response 1: American was (and is always) wrong. This is popular in both the radical Left and the separatist (not necessarily conservative or Right) movements. It is the declaration that the United States has no moral authority to invade another nation and execute its leaders in the cause of American interests. To these people, Seal Team 6 is a bunch of assassins. Some of our elected officials have even used this language in the past.

Response 2: America was right. This is the popular conservative and mainstream opinion. The US has a right to defend itself against both the attackers and their leaders. These people deserved death because of 9-11. In this circle Seal Team 6 is a collection of heroes.

Response 3: America is always right. Patriotism is high in these circles. You will hear cheers of "USA! USA!" with little concern for the consequence of our nation's actions. There is great pleasure taken in the death of our nation's enemies. It is all about winning big.

Repsonse 4: Don't talk about it. There are some who want life to go on. This may stem from an ambivalence toward government. It may also be theological -- government is a world apart from religious belief. But no matter what the situation people do not want to talk about it.

I lean strongly to #2, but with the qualification that I cannot take pleasure in the death of another human being. The government does what God has ordained it to do. God will also judge any government that steps out of line with His standards of righteous behavior. But that is not my purpose. Right now it seems that combination statism and nationalism are creating a dangerous and unhealthy mixture.

At this juncture I am finding little difference between American nationalism and American statism. Few speak seriously about the Constitution. The conservative movement does not have the political contingent to make substantive staffing changes in DC in order to change the direction of government. It would take a major alteration of voting in the US for that to happen. The liberal and leftist world only give the Constitution lip service. As we recently saw with the SEIU and communist unification, the rule of law and the Constitutional concepts of freedom mean nothing to many federal and state employees.

What happens when political momentum moves from the principles of the rule of law to anarchy and mob rule? What the SEIU and the communists did in Los Angeles is in concert with Wisconsin and Columbus. It is mob rule and it goes far beyond protest. In Wisconsin, for example, one legislator was threatened to such an extent that another, from the other side of the aisle, had to rescue him. A teacher was arrested for threatening letters.

What happens when love of country does not include a commitment to the Constitution? What happens when the sins of our leaders are treated as virtues? Many more questions come to mind when we consider how God judges and/or blesses any nation. And to be more relevant, what is the historic significance of nationalism without moral restraint?

The nineteenth and twentieth century Europe saw nationalism without moral restraint. The secular philosophers of France set the stage for the conquests of the French Revolution. Germany followed suit with two great wars which were both based on the idea that the state was the determiner of morality and the rejection of church authority or voice was its democratic right.

My understanding of history is that the only reason the US did not follow so closely was the influence of the Wesley revivals in the colonies. Our early nation had such a strong influence from this, and from the strong Calvinistic baptists, that the idea of some religious moral restraint was unavoidable. We did the American Indians wrong. And we did the slaves wrong. But slavery has ended, though some continue to push for reparations to both with a revolutionary flavor.

I am afraid that the US has been moving in that same direction for a good while now. Whether conservative or liberal it does not seem to matter. I hear evangelical Christians cheering at the death of Bin Laden. We see unions and communists joined together in the streets without shame. The seduction of television takes our time instead of reading and growing our hearts and minds.

Fred Phelps pronounces judgement. Jeremiah Wright spoke of the chickens coming home to roost -- God's judgment for our past wrongs. The late J. Vernon McGee occasionally spoke of God judging the U.S. for its sin (but few other evangelical Christian broadcasters will tough the subject). Though the framework of each varies widely, the voice of judgment is everywhere. But judgment is not the question. The core question of Christianity is whether or not we want the benefits of redemption and forgiveness through grace.

Grace is meaningless without a fear of judgment; judgment is empty without a grace remedy.

In the end, our response to Seal Team 6 says something about our national character. It says that we are either letting our faith inform our politic or that we are letting our politic influence our faith. The former is Christian; the latter, pagan. We must choose, soon.

Reason, Faith, and Meaning

2011-05-02T19:40:00.001-04:00

"Reason, Faith, and Meaning" is the essay of Charles Taylor (McGill University) in Faith and Philosophy, Vol 28, No. 1, January, 2011. The piece begins

There are two connected illusions, it seems to me, which have become very common today. The first consists in marking a very sharp distinction between reason and faith -- even to the point of defining faith as believing without good reason! The second is to take as a model what I want to call "disengaged" reason. And these two are tightly linked.

With this Dr. McGill begins his analysis of the post-Enlightenment separation of faith and reason. First is that reason may only sometimes provide a univocal response as it does in mathematics. But not always despite positivist assertions. Matters of theory and conceptualization escape the grasp of the positivist. And when it does accomplish this it requires specific and restricted language (Lash, 2008). This limits the scope that reason might claim.

Even in the area of reasoned evaluation comes, he states, the influence of culture and heritage. This leaves the observers of facts in disagreement, which might lead some to resign themselves to relativism. But such is not necessary for the perspectives are open to debate and analysis may still proceed. As such the faculties of reason remain at work even though we are not beginning to escape the trap of "reason alone" as any sort of guide.

The next step in this is to see what damage has been done to our understanding of reason. For Descarte the separation came between the reason and the reasoning. The formula was separated from the process. This allows a criticism of the post-Enlightenment ideas of reason. It is

... problematic to say the least. If reason alone is defined in opposition to faith, then it threatens to collapse as a category when we see the role that faith in our inchoate insights must play. If it is opposed to revelation ,then the problem is that "revelation" is a category which we come to articulate in order to make sense of our most fundamental insights. It is itself the fruit of reason-as-articulation.

Now the post-Enlightenment idea of disengaged reason disintegrates. Yet we are also able to judge without being entirely driven by passion or emotion. A contrary example is provided with Cabaret as a working model. Being driven by passions (more than feelings) might have led a 1932 German to his imagined better future, though our hindsight says otherwise.

One result of this has been to assign passion to mere emotion and response.

One of the distortions introduced by the modern objectified philosophical anthropology was to split emotion from its constituent perception, and thus assimilate it to sensation. On this view, the fact that a given emotion attends a certain kind of event -- despondency in face of a disaster, for instance -- can be judged neither appropriate or inappropriate; it is just a brute fact about us, like that fact that pain attends some kinds of change i our bodies, and not others, or that some substances cause nausea and not others. The relation between event and affect is purely causal, and as such contingent.

This is in some contrast even to the ancients who, in one noted measure, linked passion and emotion to perception. Emotions were as related to analysis of a situation as they were to brute response which we treat as a mere trigger action.

But in contrast to this (which I will note was during the "Romantic" era) David Hume posited that morality came not from reason but from sentiment. This also, to Hume, was a brute reaction. Though it may be dealt with through reason it is nevertheless founded in sentiment. Now the sensibilities of the past have been supplanted with a purportedly independent sense of reason.

Now we can discern that our captivity to the picture of such a sense of enlightened reason can be broken. Faith and revelation may still inform knowledge and even science.

Implications for Theology and Apologetics

The propensity to separate "facts" and other information from other factors is, in my opinion, a characteristic of evidential apologetics. It is an artifact of a way of approaching information which is foreign to Christian theology.

The paradigm of "science" maintains this pretense of objectivity. Though positivism has failed, it remains that (some in) the movement attempt to treat facts as brute facts. But there are none. All interpretation is informed by some extrinsic influence.

A Christian Repsonse to the Death of Osama bin Laden

2011-05-02T07:50:00.000-04:00

Ezekiel 18
“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"

Theirs are empty words.

2011-04-28T08:54:00.005-04:00

(First, the birth certificate political football has been kicked around long enough and should be identified for what it is: A game bigger than OSU-Michigan or OU-Nebraska. It's just a game. But in this case it involves more than fans. It is about our future. And the President is as guilty of playing around as are the "birthers.")

Now here they come, one, two, and three. The Nation, outright Communists. Crooks and Liars, leftist rabble rousers and racists in their own right. And Yahoo News, following like sheeple. They all share that predictable feature: Anyone who disagrees must be a racist. It does not matter if they are or not, for these intrepid reports are willing to nuance whatever little piece of information and assumption is available to get the job done.

Yahoo brings an accusation without evidence:

So what's fueling the dogged questioning of Obama's origins? Many critics of the birther movement say its core tenets--and its stubborn resistance to evidence disproving those beliefs--can be traced to racial hostilities.

"Many critics"? Which ones? Name them. Where is the racism, other than in Yahoo's imagination? Facts are helpful.

I never was a "birther" but also never liked the game. I only though it a fair question since the Senate did actually (though minimally) investigate the birth of John McCain, it seemed equitable to do at least the same for the other party. That's not "birther".

Crooks and Liars brings in empty opinion, again without evidence:

That cologne smells of racism. That tower is built on the blood of disrespected slaves and freedom fighters. And that show is merely a showcase for the dishonor you have brought on anyone who would call themselves an American.

This opinion is interesting. There is a prevalent attitude that "while privilege" is built upon the backs of black slaves. But is that not also true of black prosperity today? If our economic system is the product of slavery then they also benefit.

And how shall we remediate the situation? I don't see any of the whites who complain about white privilege behaving accordingly. They are not selling their land and moving to Europe while distributing their funds to those whose ancestors were harmed. I don't see any of the blacks who complain about the foundations of our economy packing up and moving to Haiti or Africa.

These complaints are the words of people with a lot of sentiment but no actual ambition. It is beyond their capacity to fulfill their self-identified responsibility to surrender what they own to their own principles. (BTW: ALL of my ancestors came over after slavery had ended, and all lived in the north.) Theirs are empty words.

And The Nation, addressing the added concern (of some) regarding Obama's college admission status, says:

By charging that Obama was not admitted based on merit, Trump is suggesting that Obama was admitted because he is black.

Of course there are more options than this. But The Nation will have nothing to do with an educated, intelligent analysis of either the situation or the language. Could it be that the Left, the ones responsible for establishing a quota system, are now unwilling to defend their own race-based (read: racist) system? Looks that way. The Left establishes racism and then complains when someone describes the system in that way? The Left maintains race and class distinctions and fails to defend them.

A Christian Response? Here are some ideas:

1. While we cannot change society we can change our churches. Teach against racism and prejudice. Teach against the propaganda of the Left which encourages division. Proclaim the transcendent redemptive Gospel in which all are seen as equals by God. And with this, work for reconciliation. It will begin first in your church.

2. Teach intelligent material in your church. The themes above are necessary. Add to these some education on the church and its relationship to government and society. Encourage your church to militancy (that is, active and even intrusive engagement in all corners of society) with the Gospel. Gospel militancy.

3. Publish, publish, publish. Pastors and teachers can now, with little or no cost, publish the content of their material online. It's like a book, but it is read and used for research by many. Those in your fellowship who are credentialed or suitably trained can be used to provide the best material. Make use of them.

Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person. (Colossians 4:6)

A Pastor's Retreat

2011-04-26T08:21:00.006-04:00

Let's say that you're the pastor of a church. You know the struggles you face. Many others know these struggles. Sometimes you even get together and discuss these struggles. The mutual support is good. It lifts the spirit. And you get to pick up on some of the nifty methods of your analogues in other churches.

But you have your doubts. Some of these are even doubts about God Himself. You look around and there is no revival. Church activities go on and on with neither failure nor success. Prayer seems insignificant because God is totally in control. In fact, God is so in control that you are often tempted to do absolutely nothing.

So you do. You let the program run on its own. A few come to Christ each year. It's the average two or three, though it gets up to a dozen in a good year. Your fellowship's growth remains close to the birth rate so the potential for public impact remains. You're raising voters for your cause, whatever that may be.

There has not been a prayer time in years. It seems nobody has a heart for it. And the other churches around you are doing the same thing. They are doing just what is practical because there are only so many hours in the day and only seven days a week.

Reading new books is a good thing. You must remain theologically astute in order to teach the Word clearly and accurately. So you do. Almost every week. That takes at least 1 day a week.

Sermon preparation takes another two to three days. Exegetical sermons are the way to go. The Word gets presented plainly. Still, you have this empty feeling that perhaps you ought to exegete texts which confront personal and perhaps even public or civic issues. But you back off. You can't have people leaving. Can't have the IRS knocking on the door. Can't risk a bad newspaper editorial. Or worse yet, rumors. The deacons/elders/board just will not tolerate not making the mortgage payment, and it is all on your shoulders.

Evenings are for the family.

Your income is not really high, but it is enough. The church takes care of you. Your house is comfortable. Maybe once a month you will have a guest over. But not too often. This ministry cannot be made too difficult for your wife and children.

Visitors to the church will get a card in the mail. Perhaps even a personal email. If you really "click" with the person, perhaps they will even receive a phone call.

At the local school the youth are being presented with a level of peer pressure that cannot be challenged. At the same time we encourage the parents of younger children to engage their children with others in sports and other extra-curricular activities. And with all that the children are involved in during the week we cannot very well ask the parents to do more at church. They are already taxed.

Your church has no home Bible studies. You have no Sunday evening or mid-week teaching or prayer times. No personal visitation. If God wanted it he would have commanded it.

Did someone confront you about a problem in how the church is led? How did you handle it? Did you tell them to find a church where they might be happier?

In the end, the church runs itself. Programs do their thing in apparent perpetuity. Our worship virtue is to praise the Father, the Son, and (Choose 1:) [a] the Program; [b] the Mortgage; [c] the Fellowship; or [d] the Sin of the Month Club.

The end is this: Is this The Last Christian Generation in America? The church may be politically engaged, but the gospel, teaching, and training for actual interpersonal ministry sit on the side.

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ ... (Ephesians 4:11-12)

Liberty NOW?

2011-04-13T08:47:00.005-04:00

The left is truly amazing. Really, they are. They can do the most amazing things with words. Erin Matson accomplishes this and with great finesse. She is able to subtract meaning, add meaning, and substitute meaning, all it appears without breaking a sweat. Her concern is the Illinois judge's ruling that a pharmacist has a conscience right regarding the dispensing of specific medicines. She begins:

Yesterday, an Illinois Judge turned over a state rule requiring pharmacists to sell emergency contraception, asserting that it violates a state "right-of-conscience" law and the First Amendment.

So far so good. She disagrees with the ruling. No surprise there. But her next paragraph begins to express the inconsistency we find in today's left.

How "free speech" has come to be interpreted as a right to deny a safe and legal prescription and directly control the inner workings of another person's body is an inexplicable overreach, and judicial activism of the worst kind.

I guess this means that Erin supports a ban on flag burning. That is, after all, a personal speech expression.

It is also sexism, as it is directed only toward women.

But is it directed at them because they are women? That's a correlation without a cause, a pretty basic fallacy.

Now she plays her hand -- she lets us know exactly what she things about our system of laws and freedoms.

This ruling represents a triumph of superstition over science.

We live in the Enlightenment world of dualisms where what is supposedly "real" knowledge is supposed to hold sway over what is "unreal" knowledge. In Erin's world there is no room for morality. There is no room for faith. There is no room for anything other than that which is measurable -- scientific. This is, of course, a position which has not been thought through very well, and we will discuss that at length later.

Like the "Monkey Scopes" trial less than 100 years ago, in which religious fundamentalism scored a temporary triumph over a large body of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution, the entire premise of this "conscience" has no basis in science.

Well, unfortunately Erin has a quite limited view of Christianity and religion in general. Unless she is willing to say that all religious systems which hold to conscience and moral values amount to some type of "fundamentalism" it seems that she is using the term "fundamentalism" as a pejorative. As I recall, a good deal of liberal religious morality is one of the abortion industry's foundations.

Some people who don't support abortion rights also don't support the right to emergency contraception, and to justify their second belief they claim that emergency contraception is abortion. However, the facts don't back that up.

I wonder what makes contraception an "emergency"? What makes it so life-critical that contraception must be given? Is it life-threatening? That is hardly the case for those many college girls who use this system for personal convenience. There is nothing life-threatening about the next morning. The "emergency" does not exist -- unless pregnancy itself is considered evil.

Implantation is the first step of a pregnancy, as recognized by the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association and other respected medical institutions. Emergency contraception prevents implantation before it occurs -- that is why it's called emergency contraception. It's a contraceptive. It's not an abortifacient. The American Medical Association debated the issue, and after a period of review, rejected the idea that emergency contraceptives are abortifacients.

Here is an important line that Erin has drawn. She has changed subject. This not about preventing contraception -- this is about preventing implantation of a conceived human being. It is about interrupting the process of life. The product of Erin's remark is to change conception into implantation and redefining terms is a convenient method for deception.

It's really bizarre for "pro-life" pharmacists to try to stop women from accessing emergency contraception, because emergency contraception makes it less likely that women who are currently not pregnant and do not want to be pregnant will seek abortions in the near future.

Again with the inflammatory "emergency" rhetoric. And again with the confusion of definitions -- it's about life, not about pregnacy and convenience.

Yesterday's ruling is a horrific moment for reason, and more important, the health, lives and well-being of women and their families in the state of Illinois. The Attorney General has announced an appeal is planned, and that's a good thing.

And again with the dualism of "reason" versus "faith" that is her primary subtext. But she cannot escape without the fear-mongering -- that women all over the place are going to die if they cannot get this med the next morning. Their health is apparently also at risk.

But even in all of this she can still define something as "good." The problem is that nobody can measure "good" because it is a value judgment. And if her ability to measure according to science and reason cannot account for the immeasurable content of "good" then she has no business saying that anything is good.

She may respond that it may be accounted for as a result of some deontological utility -- that there is some duty to provide the least pain and greatest pleasure possible. But to do that would mean that she would have to dismiss her claim of "science" as a foundation her belief system. Science demands either a specific measurability or a framework for measurement. Utility provides neither.

The removal of theology from public discourse leads to this type of logical emptiness. It is no wonder that the West is failing in education. When the institutions of this and similar nations proceed to produce such ill-conceived (pun intended) notions that secularity can produce goodness then we are headed down the road of 20th c. Europe and Asia. We are headed toward totalitarianism and the explicit removal of the right of conscience -- an end which is specific to and a requisite component of Erin's post.

Historic Apologetics: Dating Quirinius

2011-04-11T19:20:00.003-04:00

Until now the best (that I have read) defense of Luke's dating of Quirinius and the census of Luke 2 has been that of F. F. Bruce in his 2009 ed. of The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?
Enter the current edition of JETS. John Rhoads has a wonderful piece on the propensities of Josephus and how that contributes to erroneous criticisms of Luke's account. A fine and useful piece once one gets into secular academia where too many profs are not always up-to-date on current scholarship, even within their respective fields. This would be a great piece to give to undergrads who are under constant assault.

The specific error of Josephus is his propensity to duplicate material. If this is applied to the material surrounding Quirinius' time then it all comes together nicely and Luke is no longer considered to be in error. It is a lengthy discussion and filled with a myriad of dates and names. But even so it is worth one read and to be kept as a reference for future apologetic concerns.

"Josephus Misdated the Census of Quirinius", John H. Rhoads, p. 65, March 2011, Journal of the Evangelical Society

An Evangelism Opportunity to Consider

2011-04-10T22:06:00.002-04:00

Aletheia International

Evangelism to the Muslim world. Keep it in your prayers, or more.